Originally Posted by William F. Owen
Because it is known is why it has little Strategic value. What were the best practices to build the Atom bomb? What were the best practices to build the first ICBM? What were the best practices for the Internet? There weren't any, they were invented first.....In short we seized the initiative and didn't worry about solving problems.
Hey Slap,
there was a lot of problem solving in making the Atom Bomb, both in nuclear engineering and in machine shop techniques. So, initiative + problem solving was the general key to success.
Wilf's example intrigues some thoughts:
The sentence would be more true if one said "Foot Drill creates discipline and teamwork in Foot Drill" - or more generally, "A Drill creates discipline and teamwork in that Drill". But, what of "A Drill creates discipline and teamwork which is transferrable to a very similar drill." Probably true, but you'd have do some experimenting, with trial and error, to know why that is true. Similar to the first Atom Bomb.Example: "Foot Drill creates discipline and teamwork" is often stated as fact, in the face of very little actual evidence.
I suppose the scientific and engineering process is useful in preparation for war, but will the "Drill" work in combat ? The first Atom Bomb could have been a fizzle rather than a mushroom.
jmm, I disagree they were not solving problems with best practices they were inventing solutions.......they were creating/inventing knowlege.
Err... not sure what you mean. Best practice is highly context specific. It merely refers to the use of ways and means to gain ends. That is an enduring phenomenon in Warfare. That has nothing/little to do with technological innovation. Actually, most technology does build on existing knowledge of how to do things, even if that existing knowledge comes from experimentation.
Heresy! Heresy! Foot drill is sacred and we must maketh up much sayings and twaddle to support it!! Doth thou want to just create orderly movement of men in it's place? Heresy I say!
....and in 1917, German recruit instruction specified that only as much foot drill as was necessary to march from "the rail head to the support trench," was to be taught.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Orderly lock step marches had the purpose of improving road capacity for foot marches. That was an obsolete function in Europe by 1944 (automotive transport and aerial threat against tightly packed march columns).
Thinking Adaptation
Agree somewhat as a historian and a lessons learned guy. The which comes first, doctrine or technology, question is a favorite for orals at CGSC. It is deliberately a chicken or egg question, the real point of which is that one without the other is an incomplete solution.
Agreed but add that foot drill as we know it and you as a Brit refer to it was originally a battle drill, rendered tactically obsolete by advances in technology and accompanying doctrine.Heresy! Heresy! Foot drill is sacred and we must maketh up much sayings and twaddle to support it!! Doth thou want to just create orderly movement of men in it's place? Heresy I say!
Yes because at that stage, the habits ingrained in standard drill were guaranteed to get you killed.....and in 1917, German recruit instruction specified that only as much foot drill as was necessary to march from "the rail head to the support trench," was to be taught.
The US Army in WWII went in with an infantry doctrine that stilll in its roots adhered to linear battle drills. The infantry paid a heavy price. An excellent analysis of all of this is on CSI's web page at
Secret of Future Victories, Paul F. Gorman, General, U.S. Army, Retired.
We have by no means cured ourselves of this phenomenon; it is rather like tactical kudzoo, choking thought with ever-tightening sinews. I have seen it when units go into a "stack" and then move down a street at a the CTC. You also see it downrange as whatever gets by in training gets imprinted like a baby duck following a dog it sees as its Momma.
My comment on this capstone document is but one:
I don't really care about the buzzwords, fuziness, or even the art of predicting the future. As long as the center-piece of the doctrine is thinking adaptation, the soldiers and the leaders will get it right when the time comes. As soon as someone says doctrine requires rigid application, the soldier and the leader alike get screwed.
Best
Tom
Last edited by Tom Odom; 10-01-2009 at 08:40 AM.
Hey Tom,
Agreed, and my point would be that Doctrine has to have the central tenet to teach "Why" and not "how". To some extent, "How" does have to be set up as the Thesis, but it must be held to rigour with WHY.
How something is done, rapidly becomes THE WAY to do things - and that is important IF the context of it being done is very well understood. Context usually provides a very good insight into WHY.
I know I sound like stuck record on this, but WHY is mostly missing in this stuff. - WHY have a Capstone Concept?
Last edited by William F. Owen; 10-01-2009 at 09:13 AM.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
So I will start over. I think the main concept should be this.
Instead of solving our own problems I think we should be concentrating on creating problems........ for the enemy.
Tom's thinking adaption might do it?
Last edited by slapout9; 10-01-2009 at 02:47 PM. Reason: add stuff
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks