This is coolbert:
Again from Trevor Dupuy "Understanding War".
"Congruence of Weapons, Tactics, and Doctrine."
"Congruence between weapons of war and methods of war has historically been rare. I nominate
ONLY SIX MILITARY SYSTEMS OVER THE COURSE OF HISTORY [MY EMPHASIS!] in which there has been real congruence":
1. "the Macedonian system of Alexander the Great."
2. "the Roman system of Scipio and Flamininus."
3. "the Mongol system of Genghis Khan."
4. "the English system of Edward I, Edward III and Henry V."
5. "the French system of Napoleon."
6. "the German blitzkrieg system."
As to the meaning of congruence and the principal characteristics:
1. "High relative combat effectiveness."
2. "Decisive battlefield success."
3. "Relatively low casualties for the congruent system."
4. "Relatively high causalities for the opposing system."
Congruence that combination of new weaponry matched with appropriate doctrine and tactics. And must be understood as such NOT merely the weapons themselves.
AND I would have to think superior inspired and motivated senior leadership at various echelons of command AND that top leadership aggressive as well.
With regard to # 6 that German blitzkrieg system of the Second World War [WW2] combining massed armor [tanks] formations with the dive bomber and a rapid form of secure communication [high frequency radio communication encrypted by the Enigma crypto machine] allowing for dynamic change.
The tank, the dive bomber, the radio and encryption were not new to the battlefield prior to WW2, the German however combining those elements in a congruent system AND having doctrine and tactics to maximise use of the weaponry, senior leadership having absorbed and assimilated the concepts of blitzkrieg an agreed upon military strategy that WORKED!