RE: Vietnam and modern combat

--- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I agree with this in part, but I have to point to
> the WWII German 
> ability  for units that were previously broken and
> fragmented, to be 
> reformed from what ever was at hand and almost

Generally, as I understand it, that was at a higher
level--brigade and division-sized, right?  The
companies and platoons were rarely ad hoc.  That's
where the team cohesion is most important.  However,
what's important in that level is standardized
doctrine and officer training, so that when a colonel
from the 4th Neblingen Nebelwerfer Brigade issues
orders to the 2345th Provisional Panzer Platoon he
doesn't have to explain precisely what he means in
minute detail, just give an intent and a sketchy FRAGO
and off they go through the Red Hordes a'slaying.

> peacekeeping does lend that question. However, the
> British have lots 
> of experience in that part of the world and they
> were very quick to 
> go to "beret order" as quick as possible.

There is a world of difference between a village full
of restless unemployed and unemployable Ba'athist
thugs tied to Saddamn by personal loyalty and blood,
and a bunch of Shi'a who, OK maybe aren't 100% happy
about things since the war, but overall are thrilled
to not have the al-Tikriti clan in charge of the
country.  The US deliberately puts troops from our
client sta--"loyal allies" in lower-threat areas. 
Lessons from Basra are not necessarily applicable in
Samarra or Fallujah.

John

	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash