British Intelligence in the Second World War, Volume 5: Strategic Deception¶
Howard, M. (1990). British Intelligence in the Second World War, Volume 5: Strategic Deception: Strategic Deception.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Supporting Effort
- Operational-art campaign planning — the home: designating a main effort against the commander's intent and arraying concurrent operations as supporting efforts, the move that makes the priority-of-support ration decidable. Decisive-shaping-sustaining doctrine — the formal JP 3-0 / FM 3-0 tripartite classification of operations, the codified form of the main-versus-supporting ordering. Deception and economy-of-force operations — feints, demonstrations, and fixing or distracting actions whose decisive value is realized only through the main effort (Fortitude relative to the Normandy main effort).
This sourceHoward's account of Operation Fortitude, the deception built on a threat against Scandinavia and a proposed feint at the Pas de Calais. Howard's account of Operation Fortitude, the deception resting on a notional FUSAG threat to the Pas de Calais, intended to entice German reserves there and pin them down.
Supported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source
“they proposed a feint at the Pas de Calais”
- Operational-art campaign planning — the home: designating a main effort against the commander's intent and arraying concurrent operations as supporting efforts, the move that makes the priority-of-support ration decidable. Decisive-shaping-sustaining doctrine — the formal JP 3-0 / FM 3-0 tripartite classification of operations, the codified form of the main-versus-supporting ordering. Deception and economy-of-force operations — feints, demonstrations, and fixing or distracting actions whose decisive value is realized only through the main effort (Fortitude relative to the Normandy main effort).
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:a88405a175c0 · see in the full table