So 5GW transcends the chronological restrictions of Linds xGW?

So long as history is being discussed and we're ignoring the constricting ideology of “traditional” xGW:

Allow me to wander a bit here, not quite off topic but down a side path (with a nice array of tiger lily's and ending in a fountain perhaps.) Two figures of Roman history:

Fabius Maximus: Utilized Washingtonian (actually the other way 'round but for the sake of discussion) tactics against Hannibal. 4GW?

Gaius Marius: Wittingly or unwittingly devised the fall of the Republic through a shift in allegiance from the Republic to the general. 5GW?

Thanks for the cross-link [1]!

The generations of war do not emerge, but are always present [2]. Lind's linking of the generations to specific time frames is by far the weakest part of his theory. There's no good reason to keep it, and plenty to chuck it.

If the generations of war measure anything, it's diffusion of force [3], not historical epochs.

[1] http://soobdujour.blogspot.com/2007/08/xgw-and-history.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/21/the-generations-of-war-not-emerging-but-always-present.html
[3] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2007/07/the_generations_of_war_in_the_1.php#comment-2230

Nice primer. I agree with most of your post: the creation of professional, regimented militaries (1GW, prompted by the development of firearms) and the evolution of those militaries with respect to greater firepower (2GW, enabled by artillery) and mobility (3GW, via the internal combustion engine) elicited similar evolution in the employment of those forces. Similarly, the increase in communications capabilities allowed dispersed elements to maintain cohesion in subverting a much larger force (4GW, where the mass of the force disperses into the population).

Where I disagree is in your assertion regarding the “fog of war”. 1GW and 2GW were not enabled by reducing the fog — in fact, Napoleon at Jena/Austerlitz (considered to be one of his greatest victories) was nowhere near the main effort. And what Napoleon thought was the Prussian center of gravity was only a flanking guard; it was Napoleon's corps commanders, empowered with the Emperor's edict for independent action consistent with his mission-type orders (“auftragstaktik”), who carried the day. Since information could reasonably propagate at 70-90 miles per day, and Napoleon's forces faced a front nearly 150 miles wide, his method of command in war had to adapt.

Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson had similar examples in the same era: the Battle of the Nile was executed largely in darkness (fog) with little to no tactical command by Nelson. Were they actually conducting 3GW methods in these battles?

As for 3GW and 4GW, I do like your notion of “maximizing the enemy's fog of war” — but that too is a bulwark of all warfare. Washington's deception near New York in the latter days of the Revolutionary War (or, as the Loyalists would say, the “First American Civil War”) as he surreptitiously moved toward Yorktown pinned Clinton's forces and cornered Cornwallis.

Like any good primer, this raises several questions worthy of dialog. For instance, is “cohesion” a necessity in all generations? Is technology a catalyst in the leap from one generation to the next (e.g., firearms to artillery to the internal combustion engine)? Is there a consistent role for the nation-state in the generations, or is the model simply a ruse for the nation-state to preserve its monopoly on the application of military force? And just how deeply is the notion of “friktion” and “fog” tied to any of the generations?

5GW – concentrate ???

I got nothing.

So is concentration a driver of the shift from 0GW to 1GW, and 1GW to 2GW (and so should be expected to continue down the line), or merely a consequence of a broader deconcentration (so that the particular concentration seen in lower generations would have no reason to continue).

Your post (just read it due to vacation) made me think of xGW in a new way:
1GW – concentrate MASS
2GW – concentrate FORCE
3GW – concentrate EFFECT (tactical effects, ala Effects-Based Operations)
4GW – concentrate ATTENTION (the cliche of “terrorists want people watching, not dead”)
5GW – concentrate ???

Essentially as you go deeper into the enemy's cognition, you discard that which you don't need. 1GW concentrated attention, but in order to do that you had to concentrate effects, which required concentrating force, which required concentrating mass. Through technological and doctrinal innovation you can gradually pare away that which you don't need. Maybe 99GW will be the right person in the right place yelling “boo!”

By the way this comment in no way signifies my acceptance of the xGW paradigm! It is merely a thought exercise….

I would added “control” to “concentration” for 1GW though, to distinguish 1GW from unorganized 0GW barbarians doing there own things.