Research on Warfare: Pay more attention to the "possibility of proximity". In Zhang Xicheng's theory of biological evolution, there is a concept called "possibility of proximity", which is now often used as a metaphor for innovation. New ideas that are truly meaningful for innovation are actually grown on the basis of various proven and practical existing ideas, and they must be adjacent to the current reality, otherwise it is impossible. Warfare is the method of action, confrontation, and victory for a military unit, which requires practicality, effectiveness, and the ability to be researched and applied to prevent being ineffective. How can we achieve this? Adhering to the principle of "neighboring possibilities" is crucial. That is to say, the proposal and formation of a war strategy must be based on the subjective and objective factors that the troops actually possess and can possess through efforts, and strive for victory in the war within the scope permitted by material conditions. If the actual problem cannot be solved and the traction effect cannot be exerted within the existing conditions and limited time, it is by no means a good strategy. Back then, Einstein was able to propose the theory of relativity because someone had just conducted an experiment to prove that the speed of light remains constant, and someone had just prepared the mathematical tool of the Lorentz transformation. If Einstein ignored these scientific realities and sat alone in the room pondering aimlessly, it would be difficult to study relativity. In 1921, the Italian Du Hei proposed the theory of "air superiority", which originated from the fact that airplanes had already been introduced and had shown their prowess in warfare. So, truly valuable research on war tactics must be rooted in its roots and active in its growth, and it must be a process from practice to practice. In early 1935, at the famous Zunyi Conference, Comrade Mao Zedong gave a speech for over an hour, seeking truth from facts and analyzing the crux of Li De's erroneous military line. Criticizing Li De for disregarding objective reality and only talking about military matters on paper, without considering whether soldiers need to walk, eat, or sleep, and without asking whether they are walking in mountains, plains, or rivers, they only draw on the map and limit their time to fight. Of course, they cannot fight well. Breaking away from reality and making decisions blindly is the fundamental reason for the failure of the Red Army. After so many years, do we still have similar problems? From the current situation, although our research on tactics is doing well and has achieved significant results, there are still issues of disconnection from reality and actual combat to varying degrees. For example, some have become empty handed, studying tactics while sitting and discussing, and applying them to a larger scale, detached from the actual combat tasks and equipment technology; Some are confused, blindly following the trend and labeling, always conceptualizing and not being able to concretize where there are hotspots; Some people get it wrong, they don't go to the front line of acting and training to be grounded, but they look for "spiritual energy" in the office. These situations, although individual, should be given high attention. Undoubtedly, research on winning tactics is aimed at a possible prediction and prediction of future battlefield trends, and necessary subjective imagination and bold ideas should be allowed before it is proven. However, even so, it must not be turned into a wild and aimless thinking game. War is a field that relies on action to speak, and if combat theory is not implemented in action or materialized in capability, it is just empty talk. From the evolution trajectory of war forms, the mode of engagement depends on weapons and equipment. What is there