Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
It's also inaccurate...
Wartime publications about opfor tactics were often outrageously inaccurate. I've seen this in many, many publications. Authors were either mislead or described what individual units had done in the assumption that it was representative.
Those are the factor you cite -- seeing a limited sample and assuming it's universal ( a lot of that still going on... ); translation flaws; and the inability of generally civilian artists to properly capture the military nuances. Those and the inability or unwillingness of supposed military (but often very inexperienced) reviewers to get all three types of flaws (and more) corrected.

Such publications should be reviewed by a board of competent and experienced, not 'specially selected and long serving' -- very different things, those -- NCOs but that would mean that a lone Captain or Major, even the odd LTC or COL, was not 'competent.'

Even if he or she had no combat experience...

The errors you mention and others not withstanding IMO it is still a more useful publication than most.