The article is based on interviews and previously unused documents and I am most grateful for valuable advice from many. It corrects those who have argued that, for example, the RN had a 'wide-spread aversion against written doctrine.' Enjoy! journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/... 5/End

The classified doctrine was then constantly updated. There was particularly close work with the US Navy, for example on missile defense well before the Eilat was sunk by missiles in 1967. The results were fed into NATO doctrine. 4/x

After World War Two Royal Navy doctrine was updated, and work with the US on shared doctrine continued, which was given to NATO when it was set up. Allied Tactical Publication(1) was on manoeuvering (actually how to operate a fleet), ATP(2) was for merchant ships, ATP(3) was on zigzaging etc. 3/x

Doctrine here is simply 'considered thought on what works'. It is written down, taught and used as guidance. Effective action requires the combination of many units, and depends on weapons and sensors, human pyschology and more. No one can work that out on the spot, so people use doctrine. 2/x

How did western Cold War Navies work together in practice? My article on the development of Royal Navy tactical doctrine in the cold war is out (link at end). It explans how year after year of Royal Navy work on classified doctrine was vital for RN and NATO success. This is a shameless plug. 1/x