Wilf's correct. The core group selected
will be picked in any Armed force at the direction of a senior person -- that person is highly likely to have some biases that will be introduced into the selection process in some way. Even with a totally unbiased group, their recollections will be situationally dependent; i.e. what worked for them at one time in one place in certain circumstances. Introduce a different locale, different players on both sides -- even different weather or time of day -- and the likelihood of a similar result is reduced; the more variables, the greater the probability of a totally different result.
There are three potential solutions. The first is to cull AARs in exhaustive detail and compile a list of best practices (I emphasize own AND others, including opponents). The second is to conduct tests and experiments. The third is to select proven competent practitioners and have them train future performers. Most Armed Forces, including those in the US, use an amalgam of all three of those, some with locally added fillips and that's about as good as you can get...
It is far from perfect but it is adequate most of the time. Soldiering is one trade where one truly learns by doing; thus the more training and the more realistic that training is, the better will be performance. There are simply too many variables in combat (all the factors of METT-TC routinely vary, that's why the acronym exists) for that not to be true.
Malcolm Gladwell's work has many flaws but his 10,000 hours for expertise in most fields where physical action is entailed is essentially accurate and is derived from the research of others. Figuring twelve hour combat days, that equates to about two and a third years -- IMO, that's about right at the current wars level of intensity; other, more intense wars went to 24 hour days and thus down to about a years experience. Even more intensity can accelerate the learning curve.
The rub comes from the fact that would be true for A job. Get promoted, move up to another level and the learning curve starts all over. Thus if you accept, say five echelons from individual Tanker, Scout, Rifleman or Gunner to Battalion (the real maneuver and combat focusing level -- Regiment / Brigade and above are semi superfluous to ground combat in many senses) then at two years plus per echelon, it would take about 10 years of combat to produce a truly competent Battalion Commander. Not adequate, truly competent in all aspects with an acknowledgment that a small percentage of persons are naturals and can do it in far less time. Note the small before 'percentage' -- and that applies at all levels.
I'm aware that we start Officers at the third echelon up and that most do that fairly well. That compresses the first three echelons for them which may not be doing them or the echelons below a favor -- but that's the way we do it. What that does is add to their learning curve time at each of the higher echelons so even though there's a head start at the third level, it balances out over the five echelons. That is in part engendered by the fact that we have too many Officers and thus, many are put in jobs that do not add value to their combat skills so about half or more of their service time is wasted in that respect.
I'm also aware that adequate performers can be trained in less time. I'd only suggest that 'adequate' may be necessary in some wars, particularly existential ones but it is not at all desirable in a professional Army that is required to perform in the full spectrum of combat. You get what you pay for...
Substitute good training on a ratio of 1.5 or 2:1 and that would be two to three peacetime years for a good rifleman or tanker and fifteen to 20 years for the Bn Cdr -- which about tracks with reality. IF your training is good. Ours is not that good. Then consider that we drag Officers and even NCOs (to a lesser extent) away from learning environment for much of their service...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
A British Officer might tell you that it is all to do with Foot Drill and Marching Bands - which has always been counter-productive, yet the UK persists with it for purely emotional reasons.
Sadly, the British Army is not alone in this stupidity. I've heard senior people in the US and other Armies also tout the 'benefit' of close order drill and even of bands. Asinine -- and then we wonder why people get killed unnecessarily...
Well, yeah. Howsomeever...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marct
(it actually was useful in the 16th-early 19th centuries),
As were the Elephants some time before... :D
It's probably noteworthy that your forebears and mind pioneered (pun intended) the lack of necessity for close order drill in the early and mid 18th Century as wrestling to determine your southern border took place.
Who said armies were slow to adapt?
Quote:
I totally disagree on bands! (Okay, bias time here - my father played in the CF band in Korea)...Second, a really, REALLY good band means pipers.... lots and LOTS of pipers... a WMD (Weapon of Mass Deafness) that has never been outlawed by the Geneva Conventions and can (and has) been put to use with great effect in a number of both riot and battlefield conditions.
I may have heard him play. Seriously. Joint Dominion Day / 4th of July (1952) soireee near Chorwon on a Wedensday, either the 2d or 3d as I recall (something about a war on , i think...)...
Ah, I said Bands, NOT Pipes and Drums. ;)
[ How's that for a weasel out...:wry: It's probably fair to note that some form of drill is necessary but that performing it to develop discipline and response to orders is (a) a myth; and (b) not desirable. Joe is too conformist already without trying to force him to be more so. It's equally fair to note that I have arrayed in front of me about 14 CDs -- all Pipes (some with accompaniment by a Band :o ). Hyperbole is my middle name... ]