Well, thanks. I'll work on another way to communicate my idea and reasoning, for this crude & short approach obviously didn't work.
A proper explanation would take a dozen pages and reveal more than I'm read to publish today.
Well, thanks. I'll work on another way to communicate my idea and reasoning, for this crude & short approach obviously didn't work.
A proper explanation would take a dozen pages and reveal more than I'm read to publish today.
Not only that, but the proliferation of communications works against the development of anything remotely resembling cat-like reflexes in most military organizations. It seems that without the proper application of a ball-gag, senior leaders (no matter how far removed from the action) simply cannot resist the urge to "help." Stripping out a division command and replacing it with a corps isn't going to change that a jot.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
.....(note to self: put them in some kind of order you dote!) here are some interesting takes on the place of the division and the divisional HQ:
OPTIMIZING THE UNIT OF ACTION BASED MECHANIZED INFANTRY DIVISION FOR HIGH INTENSITY CONFLICT
The U.S. Army Heavy Division: An Appropriate Platform for Force Projection Operations?
The Brigade based Division: Saddling the Right Horse
...and the monograph that really got me thinking about the role of the divisional HQ...
Does the U.S. Army Need Divisions?
Bookmarks