Quote Originally Posted by CR6 View Post
breaks down for me is the point where Boyd fans present his concepts as if everything that came before is irrelevant. It reminds me a little of Vizzini inThe Princess Bride, "Have you ever heard of Thucydides? Mahan? CLAUSEWITZ?...Morons!"
The problem with this characteraztion is that, while some boyd fans may seem to forget it, Boyd's work itself is FILLED with references to, quotes from, ideas taken from, examples used, of those listed above and hundreds more of past military strategists, tacticians, and historians. The essance of his work is not some brand new thinking, but rather a synthesis of a large portion of prior military thinking. If you can do that yourself, then Boyd is irrelvent.

Back to the E-M work, remember he accomplished this as an engineer as it required a hell of a lot of math. Every fighter pilot today (at least in the west) lives and breathes the E-M theory; we have books filled with comparitive E-M diagrams of one's own aircraft vs. just about all threat aircraft in existance, comparing performance at various altidudes and combat loads, so that one can see a visible representation of his strenghts and weaknesses against that particular aircraft and develop a strategy to force a fight onto (metaphorically speaking) advantageous terrain. This type of analysis simply didn't exist before boyd.