RE: [HIST??] Culture shock

--- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:

> I appreciate everyone's responses, what I was
> actually talking about was the
> "stereotypical" ones John has given for the NAC etc
> not the ones we've been
> discussing over the last week or so in response to
> my platoon questions. So,
> unless I've misunderstood your responses (and I'm
> sorry I'm being thick if I
> have), John do they actually govern how you take on
> a force and thus have to
> play catch up if they're not like you expected?

To a certain extent, yes but. . . 

Stuck in there is a lot of valid tactical advice--for
instance, when fighting a NAC light infantry
batallion, identifying the deployment of the infantry
walkers and power armor is going to be a top priority
of recon/intell assets and is going to be considered a
primary indicator of the enemy's main effort.

Some of the comments on polyglot forces will guide
soem decisions:  For instance, if I have a choice
between attacking a Chezch unit and German Alpine
troops, I'm going after the Chezchs.  This worked for
the Russians in WWII, where they deliberately
concentrated on Roumanian, Italian, and other
lower-quality troops rather than hitting German Panzer
Corps head-on.	If I'm fighting NAC and I have a
choice between trying to fight outflank an American
unit and a British one, then all other factors being
equal, I'm going after the British one because
historically their leadership is less imaginative and
has difficulty dealing with mobile situations.

On the other hand, if there's one Canadian batallion
intheater, I'm likely to assume that they will be used
as shock troops and hence an idicator of whether an
attack is the main effort or not.  

Occasionally this will bite me in the ass, but 99
times out of 100 it's not a bad way to begin.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup