Skip to content

Frames

Warfighting functions, combat functions and DOTMLPF, compared.

Three taxonomies describe military capability, and a document set written against one of them does not translate cleanly into another. FORCE reports which frame a passage belongs to rather than flattening the difference.

US Army

What are the warfighting functions?

The warfighting functions are the US Army's grouping of related capabilities and activities, set out in ADP 3-0. The Army counts six: command and control, movement and manoeuvre, intelligence, fires, sustainment and protection. Some formulations add information as a seventh, which is why the count is quoted inconsistently.

The joint equivalent is the joint functions, which JP 3-0 also numbers at seven by treating information separately. A capability described in one scheme therefore carries a different label in the other, and the label travels with the document rather than with the capability.

NATO

How NATO combat functions differ

NATO combat functions are the six columns of a FORCE capability map: command and control, ISR, fires, protection, mobility and sustainment. They follow Allied Joint Doctrine and stay fixed between engagements, which is what makes two assessments comparable.

The two sets overlap but do not map one to one. NATO holds ISR as its own function where the US Army places intelligence; NATO separates mobility where the US Army speaks of movement and manoeuvre. A passage assigned to one is not automatically assignable to the other, and FORCE records which frame the source document used.

Capability framework

Where DOTMLPF fits, and where it does not

DOTMLPF asks what a capability requires: doctrine, organisation, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities. Written DOTMLPF-P, it adds policy. It is a checklist for delivering a capability, not a scheme for classifying one.

So it answers a different question. Combat functions and warfighting functions sort a capability by the effect it produces; DOTMLPF sorts the preconditions that have to exist for it. FORCE draws the same line between a capability and the enabler it depends on, which is the distinction DOTMLPF exists to keep visible.

Side by side

Three frames, three questions

Each scheme answers a different question about the same passage.

FrameSourceCountThe question it answers
Combat functionsNATO Allied Joint Doctrine6Which effect does this capability produce?
Warfighting functionsUS Army, ADP 3-06, or 7 with informationWhich effect does this capability produce?
Joint functionsUS joint doctrine, JP 3-07Which effect does this capability produce, jointly?
DOTMLPF-PUS capability development8What has to exist for it to be delivered?

A frame decides what a passage is counted as; it does not decide how the counting is done. The eight stages a FORCE analysis runs, the check each one carries and the figures behind the relevance tiers are set out separately.

The FORCE methodology

Sources

The doctrine this rests on

The combat functions follow AJP-01 Allied Joint Doctrine (NATO, 2022). The warfighting functions are set out in ADP 3-0 Operations (US Army, 2019) and the joint functions in JP 3-0 Joint Campaigns and Operations (US Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2022). All three, with 6,125 further publications from 33 countries and NATO, are indexed in the Doctrine Explorer.

One step

Send us the question, not the documents.

Describe the decision that has to be taken and roughly what you could release. Within two working days you get an assessment of what an analysis could and could not establish.

Request an assessment