Principles of war have for a long time constituted a central part of military thinking, but for as long as they have existed their value has been debated and criticized. Strangely, there seems to exist almost no scientific research testing the empirical validity of such principles, despite the fact that they still appear to play an important role in military doctrine, training and education.
This study aims to test the validity of principles of war, by examining whether they can explain the outcome of naval battle. Through a case study approach, principles of naval warfare expressed by theorist Geoffrey Till are tested on a historical naval engagement between US and Japanese forces during World War II.
The result of the study shows a certain correlation between some of Till’s principles and victory in the analysed battle, and thereby proves the empirical validity of principles of war to some extent. Further research is however required to increase the confidence in principles as an analytical framework for explaining the outcome of battle, and to determine the possible underlying causal mechanisms.