TRIZ is the Russian abbreviation for "Theory of Invention Problem Solving", which is a set of innovative invention methods proposed by Soviet scientist Genrich Achshuler and his research team in the 1940s. Simply put, TRIZ is a set of theories and methods used to guide invention, creation, and technological innovation. So, can TRIZ theory be used to assist tactical innovation? The example of cracking the "oil pool and sea of fire" in the history of war has given a positive answer to this. After the Third Middle East War, in order to prevent sudden attacks from the Egyptian army, Israel built equipment at the Mazmat and Hizayan strongholds along the Suez Canal that could direct solidified gasoline from underwater pipelines to the surface and ignite it with electricity. Once the Egyptian surface boats are discovered, they can be burned down using this equipment. This is the so-called "oil pool fire sea" tactic of turning the canal into a sea of fire. The Israeli military conducted on-site testing with good results. After learning about this situation, Egypt conducted engineering tests and specifically mastered the effectiveness of this artificial fire barrier: the burning time is about half an hour, it can burn out objects within about 200 square meters of water, and it is almost impossible to directly extinguish the fire. Returning to the discussion of battle examples, if TRIZ is used to solve the "oil pool fire sea", the first step is to define expectations and provide direction for solving the problem. For the Egyptian army, the worst expectation is that the canal will become a "sea of oil and fire" and then use various firefighting measures to put out the fire; The best expectation is to prevent the fire from burning. So, what are the means to start from the best expectations? Military experts point out that the "object field model" in TRIZ theory can be used. The object field model is a simple problem model typically composed of matter 1, matter 2, and a field, with the relationship of "matter 1 acting on matter 2 in the field". For example, washing vehicles contaminated with chemical agents on the battlefield with water is substance 1, chemical agents are substance 2, and washing is the field. How to solve the problem if the cleaning is not thorough? The physical field model has 5 categories and 76 standard solutions. This problem belongs to the category of "insufficient effect" in Class 2, and according to the prompt, it can be improved by "adding substances or fields". Adding substances refers to increasing the amount of water or doping chemical substances that can neutralize chemical agents in water; Increasing the field refers to measures such as increasing the spray intensity or installing vibration devices on the water gun. By implementing these two measures, the efficiency of the physical field model can be enhanced, thereby achieving more thorough decontamination. So, regarding the issue of "oil pool fire sea", according to the first category of the object field model - "establishing or destroying the object field model", the best strategy is to destroy the object field model through methods such as blocking, cutting off, offsetting, and absorbing to eliminate the risk of fire. Specifically, if blocked, it means "preventing gasoline from coming out", which can be achieved by occupying or destroying oil depots, or blocking oil pipelines; If cut off, it can blow up the fuel pipe, making it impossible for gasoline to be accurately directed to the combustion position, or cut off the power supply, making it impossible for gasoline to ignite; If offset, substances that can react chemically with gasoline can be added to water to reduce the combustion efficiency of gasoline; If absorbed, the natural impact of water flow can be used to flush gasoline downstream, allowing it to be "absorbed" by the downstream space. According to the third category of the physical field model - "turning to macro or micro", one can also jump out of this system and turn to the upper level system, that is, avoid this river channel and navigate upstream from the canal. Military experts point out that after screening and comparing all options, it will be found that the three options have the lowest cost, best benefits, strong feasibility, and high reliability, namely occupying oil depots, blocking oil pipelines, and crossing rivers upstream. Among these three schemes, blocking the oil pipe also faces a technical challenge, that is, the material blocking the oil pipe underwater must not only have certain waterproof and adsorption properties, but also have high strength and cannot be washed away by high-pressure gasoline. This requires the use of another theoretical tool of TRIZ - the "Spear Shield Matrix". The "contradiction matrix" is a 48 × 48 symmetric matrix containing 48 engineering parameters, with the vertical axis representing the parameters that are desired to be improved and the horizontal axis representing the parameters that are desired to be weakened. By substituting the requirements into the matrix and passing through the intersection points of those requirements, several principles can be found as possible solutions. Taking tank armor as an example. The main contradiction lies in the conflict between "increasing strength" and "reducing weight". Based on the intersection of the two parameter conditions of "strength" on the vertical axis and "weight of moving objects" on the horizontal axis, several principles can be found. The primary principle recommended by the TRIZ system is to "replace with composite materials". In fact, since the mid-20th century, tanks have gradually been equipped with new composite armor mixed with alloy and ceramic materials, which not only reduces weight but also greatly improves passive protection capabilities. Returning to the specific technical issue of "plugging oil pipes", based on the contradiction matrix, a material that meets the above requirements can be found - adhesive. Compared to cement, cement has stronger waterproof and adhesive properties, as well as a sealing effect. In fact, the Egyptian army ultimately adopted the above plan: sending assault team members to dive underwater and block the nozzle of the fuel injector with glue; Attacking and occupying oil storage facilities; Regularly observe changes in water flow and cross the river in the upstream area of the oil pipeline after the attack begins. Through the above measures, the Egyptian army avoided the fire barrier of the Israeli army to the greatest extent possible and successfully carried out the river crossing operation. Not only that, the Egyptian army also used similar methods to break through the Israeli army's land "Barlaf Line": the line built a dam of sand as the basic defense line, fully utilizing the fluidity of sand to defend against artillery attacks. The Egyptian army adopted the plan of flushing the dam with water and purchased 100 fire water trucks. In just a few hours, they cleared 60 passages and quickly opened the gap in the "Barlaf Line". Perhaps the Egyptian military's combat plan comes from intuition, but it has been proven that TRIZ not only rivals excellent intuition, but also has stronger adaptability and operability. The TRIZ theoretical system also includes a series of theories and methods such as the laws of technological system evolution, knowledge base of effects, separation principle, and time and scope thinking, which will not be elaborated here. There are many theoretical methods similar to TRIZ, such as brainstorming, Delphi method, reverse thinking method, and so on. The combination of these methods not only helps to solve invention and creation problems, but also guides and controls the direction and process of invention and creation. By providing a series of basic solution ideas, locking in the direction of technological breakthroughs, quickly finding possible conceptual solutions or original understandings, greatly reducing the scope of exploration and search, and avoiding waste and inefficiency caused by a large number of trial and error. Achille believed that the solution to a problem is an "invention" rather than a simple "answer". Expanding on this, it can be considered that the tactical strategy for solving the problem of war victory or defeat is also a "technological invention", so tactical problems can also be solved using the theory of technological innovation. In fact, in modern warfare, the boundary between technology and tactics has become increasingly blurred. Many tactical problems are related to technology, and the degree to which technical problems are solved is also related to the level of tactical implementation. The inspiration lies in the fact that commanders should no longer use traditional concepts to understand war, nor should they treat tactics and technology in a labeled way. They should continuously absorb new ideas and theories, use various theoretical tools, enrich tactical cultivation, accelerate the integration of theory and technology, and comprehensively improve their own technical and tactical level. (New Society)