That's why they make Fords and Chevys..
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ski
I could care less where people publish their work - CDI is just fine, as good as any other think tank - to get new ideas introduced.
Hmmm, Bad example -- how 'bout Toyotas and Hondas? Choices, it all about choices, yours, mine, those who write.
They can certainly pick their think tank -- I, OTOH, think all Think Tanks need to be tanked, I trust none of them and am skeptical about their products. I think CDI in particular is not helpful -- and I'm a senior cynic; they're a deliberate step or two beyond cynical...
YMMV -- Obviously does and that's cool. ;)
Oh, I read stuff from most of them, Also read the
newspapers and the punditocracy -- and put little faith in any of them. I do a lot of checking... :wry:
If you meant that good writing or a good sensible article remained that, good, no matter where it was published or by whom, we can agree. OTOH if you meant what you said to start that thought by you:
Quote:
"I could care less where people publish their work - CDI is just fine, as good as any other think tank - to get new ideas introduced."
We can disagree. Like I used to have to tell my kids, "you're judged by the company you keep..." That probably should not be true -- but it is.
My point is that MacGregor hurts his own credibility with many due to that association -- and that adversely impacts his ability to get his message across. No more.
I still think that, as I said, he's got the right idea and that it's a good briefing.
You want answers, we provide...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
...one such work is Douglas MacGregor's "Breaking the Phalanx" of 1997...It was basically a book about a brigade-centric army reorganization (an idea that was at that time at least 50-60 years old)...Why did "Breaking the Phalanx" get so much (it seemed so to me) attention (till the next fashion, COIN)? What was so special or advanced about it?
Nothing was special about it in the in the pure sense; he just surfaced an idea that has been floating around in the US Army (and the Marines) for a good many years -- since about 1793 thanks to the US Legions (LINK) -- Not the first effective combined arms Brigades, Gustavus Adolphus did that, but Wayne improved the idea a bit. The idea was surfaced frequently over the next 200 years. Many pointed out over the last 70 years or so that almost all our actual fighting was conducted by Brigades, Regimental Combat Teams or Combat Commands (all essentially the same thing), only in North Africa 1942-3 and the 1991 Gulf War did the US really have Divisions fighting instead of loosely controlling and supporting. So many proposed Brigades before MacGregor but never got any traction for one reason:
It would do away with the Division as a command echelon and that would call for the elimination of a number of Major General slots. Noty a good idea, according to many Major Generals -- and aspiring Brigadier Generals. nor did the Personnel community look upon it with favor as it would spoil their flow charts. :eek:
So MacGregor wasn't positing anything new or advanced but he was speaking truth to power and he did it in a published book that civilians could buy. Not all that daring in some places but while not daring, it has rarely been done by serving US Armed forces persons. That was the real 'special' thing about it. :wry:
Quote:
Some meant to me that hew as thinking out of the box, but I have difficulties to accept that re-labeling of existing ideas should be considered as thinking out of the box. That would be a very damning statement about his army.
He wasn't thinking out of the box, all that had been discussed in professional journals and forums here for years -- but he sure published out of the box. Possibly retired as a Colonel because of it.
Quote:
I hope that dozens military theory-interested Americans in one place might be able to finally answer this old question of mine.
I hadn't seen you ask before...;)
BTW, asking without being sarcastic and dismissive might help you get answers. You ask good questions but the surly, know it all tone doesn't help. :wry:
COIN is indeed the current fad -- we tend to do fads here; after all we gave the world the Hula Hoop. Like you, I could do without the COIN foolishness but it seems to have attracted fans...
220 years of tradition, OPD 21, Wall charts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rifleman
...but all these commands would opening up for Brigadiers in these big brigades...What am I missing?
in the GOMO and a few irate MGs who believe what they're doing is important. That's all you're missing... :D
Obviously, a fairly simple restructure would fix it but the US army -- and the US Congress -- don't do 'fairily simple.'
Plus, as you noticed, all those Bdes are commanded by COLs, not BGs. That's 'cause the Army is statutorily limited on the number of GOs and covering those 45 or so AC Bdes/BCT (A BCT was a Battalion Combat Team until the geniuses in the Pentagon screwed that up) would mess up current assignments and plans. You gotta get your priorities straight, warfightin' is not as important as organizational orthodoxy... :mad:
The current Bde/BCT is too small to rate a BG. Now, if they get a third maneuver Bn/Sqn, plus an Arty or 'Fires' Bn for MCO, they'll probably get BGs. Until then -- and until the support and sustainment problems that mean Divs are handy and the Hq in being that is a Div which can serve as an intermediate Hq for theaters ala Afghanistan and Iraq. All in good time, I expect...
Thanks for the correction. Believe it or not, I knew that. No clue what
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Copperhead
Ken, just one minor quibble: all three BCT types (Heavy, Infantry, Stryker) have Artillery Battalions: IBCT = 105s; SBCT = M777 155s; HBCT = Paladin...It should be noted that the Stryker BCTs have always had three maneuver battalions. Only the IBCT and HBCT are limited to two.
I was thinking on the Fires Bns... Old age? Late night? Dunno...:o
On the Strykers, I didn't know they had three Bns. That's good, the others will get there I'm sure. I suspect the modifications required to the OPD pattern were as much responsible for the replacement of the 3d maneuver elm with the RSTA Sqn as opposed to merely adding it as were gross strength constraints. :wry: