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
Tru dat...it just gives the senior officer at corps more freedom to intervene directly.....Originally Posted by Steve Blair
Having finally schlepped through my files...
.....(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?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks