Re: Experience and Training

--- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:

> Guess they figured medics didn't do base/hospital 
> defense?  Funny he got
> to hear a M-60 "used in anger" inside the hospital
> itself during a  raid
> on the base by the local VC.

It also depends on who you're fighting.  If you're
going up against a civilized army you don't need to
issue medics with rifles.  

> I qualified very high while in the Army reserves.  I
> do okay with a rifle
> (learned as a kid from some NRA instructor types)
> but it helps a ton when
> the targets were pulled in the same order every year
> on the same range
> set up.  Like that's going to happen in combat.

Side note:  The rifle tables (and any other
qualification tables) in the US Army is mandated in
the FM as far as range to targets, order they appear,
and time they stay up.	It's standardized across the
board so that saying you shot expert means the same
thing no matter where you qualify (otherwise you'd
have Finance units where everyone shot expert because
their qualification was easier than, say, and infantry
unit's qual).  

Still beats shooting at stationary bulls-eye targets
like the Marines.

> "LT, the White House is on the line!"

My favorite is the US Army's approach to the pursuit
phase of the battle.

We NEVER train on pursuit because the enemy fights to
the last man (hence a focus on attrition strategies)
and after every fight there's nothing to pursue.  Plus
we have to stop and hold an AAR.  So if you defeat the
enemy, you are supposed to (swear to God) have a
"tactical pause" (trying to figure out what an LT
meant when he said this took 20 minutes because I
refused to believe in something that stupid) while
your chain of command writes a new operations order
and you go through your by-the-book "troop leading
procedures".

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!