In organizational theory for project execution, a purely military organization structure is classically referred to as a line organisation (single, direct chain of command).

Introduction / Context:
This question examines recognition of classical organizational forms. The 'military' model emphasizes unity of command and a clear scalar chain—attributes of a line organisation—often contrasted with line-and-staff or functional structures used in complex civil projects.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• 'Military organisation' implies rigid hierarchy and direct authority.
• We must map this to a textbook organization type.
• No hybrid advisory (staff) or functional specialization is implied.

Concept / Approach:
Line organisation features a single, uninterrupted line of authority from top to bottom. Orders flow downward; responsibility and accountability flow upward. It mirrors classical military command where clarity and speed are paramount. Line-and-staff adds specialists advising line managers; functional splits authority by function—both differ from the pure military pattern.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Decode 'military': strict hierarchy, unity of command.2) Match with structures: line = direct command chain; line-and-staff = advisory overlay; functional = multiple bosses by specialty.3) Select the structure closest to military practice: line organisation.

Verification / Alternative check:
Management texts consistently equate military command systems with line organisation, citing clarity, discipline, and fast decision pathways as defining traits.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Line and staff organisation: Adds advisory staff; not a pure military model.
• Functional organisation: Violates unity of command by multiple functional heads.
• None of these: Incorrect since a direct match exists.

Common Pitfalls:

• Assuming 'military' implies heavy staff advisory—classically it does not.
• Confusing functional specialization with command discipline.

Final Answer:
line organisation.