I agree with all you say, including these two statements -- however, both those deserve caveats.
The first on the basis that its veracity is a matter of training. Truly well trained troops can provide accurate fire up to 500m easily IF they have a weapon that makes that worthwhile. IMO, they should have such a weapon, others will differ. There are times when such fire is necessary, times when it is not. See remark below.
The second is unquestionably desirable in most circumstances, however, for many reasons it is not always possible. See remark below
Remark: Armies, regrettably should always train for the worst case. If they can perform adequately in bad situations, they will perform superbly in lesser fights.We can -- as always -- totally agree on that that. We, the US, are picking up some bad habits to add to those from Viet Nam that we still have not shed...Again, it shows that small wars with their marginal capability opposition press conclusions onto standing armies that would be totally wrong in a great war setting.
Bookmarks