How to use the ‘centre of gravity’ for strategy formulation

There is a video circulating on the Internet that is frequently shared. In this video, a building is being demolished using explosives. The building resists and does not collapse despite two attempts using large quantities of explosives. The demolition of the building is then abandoned, but this time the building collapses on its own two days later.

According to the footage, probably because the main column or columns carrying the weight of the building were not sufficiently demolished, these columns or columns did not collapse and the building remained standing because they continued to carry the building. However, when the walls and some other columns were destroyed, the building collapsed spontaneously after a while because the main column or columns alone could not carry the load of the whole building for a long time.

What happened in the destruction of this building is a very good example to show what the centre of gravity is, what it does and what strategic concepts can be applied against this centre. We will now try to examine the concept of centre of gravity by making use of this example.

Although centre of gravity is generally accepted as a military term, it is an issue that must be taken into account in all areas of life, including the destruction of any building mentioned above. The centre of gravity is the main fulcrum that enables a force to survive and ensures its strength and existence.

The centre of gravity is the characteristics, capabilities and regions on which the characteristics, capabilities, freedom of movement, physical strength and fighting determination of the forces are based and from which they draw strength. A centre of gravity is a force, geographical area, resource or psychological element which, if damaged or destroyed, would lead to failure, disrupt the balance of combat power and weaken the force.

Because of this importance, the centre of gravity is the focal point of war. The centre of gravity is determined at the operative and strategic levels. At the operational level, the centre of gravity is the enemy forces, vital command and control centres, logistic resources or transport lines. At the strategic level, the centre of gravity is the transport system, economic resources, an important geographical area of the country or an element of psychological importance.

The centre of gravity is not a concept that applies only to the enemy. Both sides facing each other in combat have their own centre of gravity. For this reason, it is necessary to determine our own centre of gravity as well as the enemy's centre of gravity and to protect it against enemy attacks.

In the event that the enemy's centre of gravity is destroyed or neutralised while protecting our own centre of gravity, the enemy's balance will be disrupted and his determination and will to continue the war will be broken. For this reason, it is very important to determine the centre of gravity accurately. The correct determination of our own centre of gravity ensures the preservation of force. The correct determination of the enemy's centre of gravity, on the other hand, prevents the waste of power by allowing all forces to be concentrated in that direction.

In order to determine the enemy's centre of gravity, we try to find answers to the questions "Where does the enemy draw its strength from? “ and”What does the enemy rely on the most? ’. In order to determine our own centre of gravity, it is necessary to ask the same questions for ourselves.

As it can be understood from these questions, the centre of gravity is one and this centre is the focal point of the war. Attacking the enemy's centre of gravity is the surest and fastest way to success, but it is rarely the easiest. This is because the enemy usually defends his centre of gravity very well. Therefore, all forces must be concentrated and directed in that direction. Therefore, finding and attacking the enemy's centre of gravity constitutes the focal point of the operation.

As it is understood from these statements, in order to achieve victory, most of the troops must be deployed and mobilised in such a way as to affect the enemy's centre of gravity. Let us try to explain this with reference to the above case of building destruction. Every building rests mainly on load-bearing columns. Although there are many columns in a building, there is one point where the weight of the building is centrally focused. As long as the column or columns at this point stand, the building also stands. However, if this column or columns are destroyed, the building will most likely collapse.

In the video in question, the explosives were probably placed in the walls or less load-bearing columns instead of this column, so the building did not collapse despite two attempts. Thus, any army, political party, company or two individuals confronting an adversary will not be defeated unless they first identify the adversary's centre of gravity and attack it with the majority of the forces at their disposal. Conversely, a direct attack on the identified centre of gravity with the majority of forces to defeat the opponent is likely to result in victory. This concept usually requires the application of direct action and is an approach that largely guarantees success.

The self-destruction of the building in the explosion in the video shows that there is another concept that we can apply against the centre of gravity. Sometimes the enemy's centre of gravity may be very well protected. Or it may not be possible to destroy it with the force we have. It may also be impossible to attack the enemy's centre of gravity due to the balance of power. In such cases, in order to be successful, it is necessary to apply the second concept.

In this concept, since the centre of gravity cannot be reached, or even if it can be reached, there is not enough force to strike this centre, instead of destroying the main column, the other columns and walls that lighten the load of this column and carry part of the load are destroyed one by one and the main column is left alone. Since this column cannot carry the entire load of the building alone for a long time, after a while the building collapses with its own weight and without any effort (although this is not done consciously in the video in question, this is the case). While the first concept is favoured when short-term and decisive battles are required, the second concept is a long-term method that usually requires battles of attrition.

The first method was successfully applied in the Great Offensive in the War of Independence, in almost all of the Napoleonic wars, in most of the battles in World War II and in many other battles throughout history. The second method also has many successful examples throughout history. For example, the cavalry-dominated Turkish and Mongol armies often applied this concept when they entered China.

The Chinese, who were defeated by the light cavalry armies of the Turks and Mongols in pitched battles, usually took refuge in fortresses or cities surrounded by strong walls and continued their defence. In this case, the centre of gravity of the Chinese army was these castles or cities. Because these cities, while protecting the army and the people, also provided the army with food thanks to the warehouses in them, allowing the defence to continue.

Since there were no firearms at that time and armies consisting of light cavalry generally did not have sufficient equipment to destroy or overcome the walls, it was often not possible to overcome these walls, or since the power to be spent for this would be too much, the walled castles were not directly attacked. For this reason, the Turkish and Mongol armies generally preferred to use indirect actions rather than a direct attack on the Chinese centre of gravity.

Recognisingthat the centre of gravity of the Chinese defence rested on the fortifications and that attempting to breach these fortifications would lead to an unnecessary waste of power, and that no matter how much food was stored in the cities behind the fortifications, it was not possible to store enough food to sustain the city's inhabitants and soldiers for a long time, the Turkish and Mongol armies applied their strategies according to exploiting the sensitivity created by this situation.

In order for the army and the people behind the walls to survive for a long time, they needed the fields, water sources and food-supplying villages around the walls. For this reason, the Turkish and Mongol armies usually besieged the cities from a distance, burned the fields around the city, dried up or diverted the water sources, and evacuated the villages near the city and removed them from the region. Just as the centre of gravity of a building that could not be demolished by explosives could not support the building for a long time and collapsed spontaneously when the walls and other columns around it were demolished and left alone, Chinese cities had to surrender spontaneously after a while when left alone and without support.

In conclusion, whether it is two armies in battle, two countries in a struggle for interests or two political parties struggling for power, it is understood that the first thing that the parties must do is to accurately determine the centre of gravity of their opponent and their own centre of gravity. After that, it is necessary to determine what needs to be done to protect one's own centre of gravity and neutralise the opponent's centre of gravity. Having correctly determined its own and the enemy's centre of gravity, the party should select the concepts to be applied as a result of a situation analysis taking into account the available forces and other conditions, and should implement this concept with determination.

As can be seen in today's Turkey, political parties that do not pay attention to this and fight with the government and other political parties as if they are engaged in an aimless fight with a lack of strategy cannot increase their vote rates, and the fight against FETÖ or other terrorist organisations with the same understanding does not yield the desired results. This is because it is not possible to gain victory by fighting without a purpose, without a system and most importantly, without a strategy.