World War II (Innovations)
During wars, innovation was very important. It is defined as a means of introducing new procedures, strategies, responses, and structures as replacements for old, routine organization. Innovation supports structure and behavior aimed at minimizing both external and internal uncertainty sources.[footnoteRef:1] [1: . Rebecca Damm Patterson, "The U.S. Army and Nation-Building Explaining Divergence in Effective Military Innovation," (Dissertation), 2009: http://www.pqdtopen.proquest.com]
According to Lori Sumner, geography and intelligence have for long been intertwined with the desire or need to wage serious war all through history, to different levels of success. One of the few categories of innovation and intelligence that is intrinsically both strategic and tactical in nature is geographic intelligence. The thoroughness and accuracy of geographical intelligence and its incorporation with the different phases of planning can have very significant effect on the results from both the strategic and tactical operations.[footnoteRef:2] [2: . Lori Sumner, "Know Your Ground: A Look at Military Geographic Intelligence and Planning in the Second World War," Canadian Military Journal, 14, No. 3 (2014): 53-63, http://www.isn.ethz.ch ]
World War II required a level of effort to get adequate geographic intelligence and make the relevant products available to the soldiers beyond any of the things done prior to that time. The international scope of the war showed that many soldiers had been introduced to terrains and climates that were entirely new to them, and might have possibly differed from what they have been used to hitherto. A good knowledge of all these issues and the availability of suitable equipment, in this case, innovation were all vital for victory, or at least survival, in unfavorable environments...
Ibid.]
According to Peter Vleck, while World War II is mostly seen as one single, global conflict, it would be more appropriate to view it as two different conflicts that occurred simultaneously: The Pacific Theater, comprising of the battle within the region of the Pacific Ocean and the European Theater comprising of the battles across North Africa and Europe
This differentiation is important owing to the fact that the two battles showed a lot of differences within the two theaters, in spite of some common belligerents between them and the fact that they occurred simultaneously.[footnoteRef:4] [4: . Peter K. Vleck, "Rethinking and Relearning Modern Warfare: The Influence of Geography and the Environment on the Process of Fighting World War II in the Pacific," (Student Research), 2013: http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu / ]
The European and Pacific theaters are considered separately because of geographical considerations. The characteristics of the war within the two separate theaters showed differences due to the conflicting geography of the two regions where the war took place. There would be a need to adapt both tactical and strategic doctrine to the distinctive conditions discovered on a number of the islands. There would be need to make some sophisticated technological inventions and innovation with the aim of increasing the possibility of amphibious large scale landings, and the presence of several environmental conditions on most of the islands making increased scientific efforts necessary.[footnoteRef:5] [5: . Ibid., 3.]
Geographical conditions in the places were combats occurred on the innovation level (both tactical and strategic levels) included the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, which called for considerable strategizing and action on the two levels.…
