AI-Aided Professional Study (RAAF History)

Guides were produced with AI support. I supplied the title and key points and configured a specialist GPT to structure the draft. I then revised it through further instructions. The ideas are mine; AI was used as an assistant, not an author.

Config used can be found here: https://www.jb-gpt-prompts.com/jb-config-military-history

Use the core points as your prompt. Paste them into your chosen AI, ask it to expand into as many structured key points as needed, and use follow-up questions to deepen or refine analysis. The framework keeps the response focused and within defined scope while allowing expansion from brief notes to a 5000 word paper.. Recommended further reading is drawn from a selected bibliography (https://www.ai-tutor-military-history.com/bibliography-jbgpt-ai). The result is a post that may be useful for self-directed study and allows the framing of further questions on the topic. 

Overview

1. The AI Tutor Military History site for RAAF history (https://www.ai-tutor-military-history.com/raaf-history) is a gateway, not a destination. It exists to help professionals use AI as an effective study tool by:
   1.1 providing a curated index of credible “historical anchors” that seed precise prompts
   1.2 encouraging disciplined questioning that AI can extend with evidence, comparison, and context
   1.3 turning good prompts into better professional answers through structured follow-on tasks

2. Used this way, the site helps convert AI from novelty to method across ranks—from junior aviators to senior strategists—by:
   2.1 making each entry a launch point for targeted AI analysis (width, depth, context)
   2.2 keeping AI outputs tied to documented history rather than speculation
   2.3 aligning AI-enabled study with Professor Sir Michael Howard’s goal of cultivating judgement

The Three Levels of Professional Study

3. Regimental/Tactical (Junior Ranks)
   3.1 Howard noted that one essential use of history is to transmit a unit’s identity and the moral demands of combat.
   3.2 Site function: Concise, motivating references to underpin unit ethos, pre-deployment read-aheads, and training serials.
   3.3 Example: “1942 Nov: Middleton FSGT VC” offers a concrete exemplar of gallantry suitable for lessons, PME discussions, and values reinforcement.

4. Operational (Mid-Level Officers)
   4.1 At this level, officers confront the “friction” of war—logistics, timing, technology, and human limitation. History provides vicarious command experience—successes and failures—without operational risk.
   4.2 Site function: Pointers to complex operations where plans met reality.
   4.3 Example: Studying “1943 Mar: Bismarck Sea Battle” alongside “1942 Nov: Convoy Failed to Intercept” enables comparison of decision-making under time pressure, ISR constraints, and joint/combined coordination.

5. Strategic/Policy (Senior Officers)
   5.1 The highest level treats force as an instrument of policy; the test is whether military effort advanced political ends.
   5.2 Site function: Anchors linking air power to national strategy, institutional reform, and alliance management.
   5.3 Example: “1923–24 Imperial Conference” and “1976: Tange Reforms” frame enduring questions about sovereignty, alliance dependence, and force-structure choices that continue to shape posture and capability.

Enabling Howard’s Foundations: Width, Depth, Context

6. Width (Breadth over Time)
   6.1 Professional study should scan long arcs to identify enduring patterns and rates of change.
   6.2 Site function: Coverage from “1912: AFC Formed” to contemporary initiatives (e.g., fifth-generation integration) encourages long-view comparisons.
   6.3 AI-aided study: Task the AI to trace capability development from early RAAF acquisitions through F-35 introduction, extracting continuities in training burdens, sustainment, and coalition interoperability across a century.

7. Depth (Mechanisms, Not Just Narratives)
   7.1 Understanding increases when analysis includes logistics, maintenance, organisations, and internal debate—not only sorties and tactics.
   7.2 Site function: Entries on maintainers, platform introductions (e.g., F/A-18), and enabling systems steer inquiry into the determinants of effectiveness.
   7.3 AI-aided study: Direct the AI to map a campaign’s support chain—spares flow, runway condition, electronic warfare readiness, ordnance stockpiles—and show how each constrained or enabled mission outcomes.

8. Context (Politics, Society, Economy)
   8.1 Military action sits within larger political and social systems. Without context, analysis risks becoming merely tactical.
   8.2 Site function: Links from operational episodes to domestic politics, alliance dynamics, and command arrangements.
   8.3 AI-aided study: Use the Morotai Mutiny or the centralisation of command under USAAF to unpack coalition politics, command authority, and civil–military tensions that shaped operational latitude.

A Practical Study Workflow

9. Six-step method for PME and self-study
   9.1 Choose an anchor at each level: one tactical, one operational, one strategic.
   9.2 Pose level-specific questions: “What did this teach the unit?” “Where did friction bite?” “Did actions serve policy?”
   9.3 Add width: compare to a similar case 10–50 years earlier or later.
   9.4 Add depth: instruct the AI to surface enablers and constraints (maintenance, logistics, command relationships, training pipelines).
   9.5 Add context: have the AI outline domestic and alliance politics that set boundaries.
   9.6 Convert findings to doctrine: distil two or three rules of thumb for planning, training, and capability management today.

Why This Matters

10. Howard warned that the point of studying history is wisdom, not prediction. The site’s structure, paired with an AI tutor, turns scattered episodes into comparative method: consistent questions, multiple eras, disciplined conclusions. Professionals can iterate quickly—changing cases, widening time horizons, and stress-testing assumptions—while preserving analytical rigour.

Reference

11. Michael Howard, “The Use and Abuse of Military History,” Parameters (US Army War College), open-access version: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1251&context=parameters

Brief Note on Michael Howard: Background and Influence

Michael Howard served as an infantry officer with the Coldstream Guards in Italy in the Second World War and was awarded the Military Cross. After the war he became one of the foremost historians of war, co-founding the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, later holding the Regius Chair of Modern History at Oxford and the Robert A. Lovett Chair at Yale. His works—including The Franco-Prussian War, War in European History, and (with Peter Paret) the standard English translation of Clausewitz’s On War—shaped professional military education across NATO nations. Howard’s enduring contribution is methodological: officers should study history in width (long periods), in depth (institutional and logistical mechanisms), and in context (political and social frameworks). This triad underpins much contemporary campaign analysis and remains directly applicable to RAAF professional development, linking unit ethos to operational realities and, ultimately, to national policy.