Found this piece online:
The Role of Small Arms in Dismounted Close Combat
I quote from the intro:
"What is the benefit of front-line experience in dismounted close combat? In the first of a regular column, military adviser Colonel David Benest argues why such experience may be more reliable than scientific theories."
Having been there, done that I can't see how those who have not can understand and contribute to training and preparing troops, tactically, for close combat anywhere near equally.
In response to another post we need IMHO to differentiate between 'theory' and 'theorists'.
In this regard Clausewitz expresses it clearly:
"Activity in War is movement in a resistant medium. Just as a man immersed in water is unable to perform with ease and regularity the most natural and simplest movement, that of walking, so in War, with ordinary powers, one cannot keep even the line of mediocrity. This is the reason that the correct theorist is like a swimming master, who teaches on dry land movements which are required in the water, which must appear grotesque and ludicrous to those who forget about the water. This is also why theorists, who have never plunged in themselves, or who cannot deduce any generalities from their experience, are unpractical and even absurd, because they only teach what every one knows—how to walk"
Bookmarks