Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
StormTrooper tactics were just the German expression of various forms of infantry tactics being developed at the time forced upon armies by the trenches. They didn't use the word Manoeuvre ...
Agree…but let’s not get hung up on the word maneuver here. If we assume the goal of “Boyd Warfare” (Maneuver Warfare defined by Boyd) is to: “Diminish our adversaries freedom –of-action while improving our freedom-of-action so that our adversary cannot cope – while we can cope-with events/efforts as they unfold.” And we accomplish that by “observes-orient-decide-act more inconspicuously, more quickly and with more irregularity as basis to keep or gain initiative as well as shape and shift main effort to repeatedly and unexpectedly penetrate vulnerabilities and weaknesses exposed by that effort or other efforts that-tie-up, divert or drain away adversary attention (and strength) else where.” …how is that different from the German WWI Strom Trooper tactics?…or any good infantry tactics or even any good tactics infantry, armor, or otherwise?

The 1990 "left hook" would have meet and potatoes to any WW2 Div Staff Officer. It was only meant to fool Saddam and fooled no one else. It is nothing to do with a distinct form of warfare. It is completely rooted in the teachings of the French, German and British Staff Collages of 1880-1914.
Again, agree… with at least the “rooted in the teaching part” because the Boyd Theory is just that, a synthesizing of those teaching and in order to understand what they were teaching Boyd had to go back to the folks they were studying and talking about, e.g. Rome, Napoleon, Clausewitz, Jomini, Moltke, Schlieffen, Mongols and anyone else he could read about.
I also believe the Desert Storm “Plan” was distinct when compared to something like attrition warfare. I emphasize plan because the execution was lacking especially in the initiative arena.