The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[JMA]

No, it mean what it says. The 'Principles of Defense' have their place and should be considered by anyone siting a position or emplacement that may need to be defended. They should never be slavishly followed because NO doctrine can be applicable to all situations.

OK so we have come full circle.

That you say the Principles of Defence "should be considered by anyone siting a position or emplacement that may need to be defended" actually indicates that we agree.

Then your qualification in the next sentence seems to be in agreement with an extract which I posted from Brit doctrine pamphlets a while ago, "The subject matter contained within this publication is authoritative. However, its application is a matter of military judgement." Which again places us in agreement.

In order, as Wilf said "Siting a FOB is predicated on completely different conditions to the "conduct" of defensive operation against a combined arms enemy." I agree with him, you do not.

...but does that mean that one throws all existing doctrine out the window? Of course not what it means is that in siting such a position under a given set of circumstances (enemy capabilities or METT-TC) "military judgement" is applied to how best to site the position.

That said now please explain to me which of the Principle of Defence can be ignored:

Offensive Action
All Round Defence
Depth
Mutual Support
Concealment
Deception
Striking forces

That's okay or should be. IMO, the METT-TC factors, properly or even improperly considered can lead to the omission of some principles, the modification of others and the inclusion of additional factors; flexibility and METT-TC being paramount as opposed to a rather slavish adherence to doctrine.

Yes as I quoted: "The subject matter contained within this publication is authoritative. However, its application is a matter of military judgement." Still not sure of where we disagree (other than for the sake of it