Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
As one of the examples from above, let me assure you that my references to OODA Loops and ground combat are factual. As evidence, I can merely state that I am still here and if I'd been fooling around with OODA loops I likely would not be. Doesn't get much more factual than that and 200 pounds of evidence ought to count for something even if it is old.
I strongly disagree with you that the OODA loop has much applicability at the tactical level of ground combat (almost anything can and will have some applicability...). Certainly it can and should be applied on occasion but my observation has been that those occasions are rather rare. Fuch's observations above are accurate, Start trying to orient and you'll waste time. In close terrain, you'll find yourself flanked or worse. One must also consider that Boyd was an exceptional person, not everyone is and trying to apply the rules used by super bods when one is an ordinary bod can lead to embarrassment -- or worse
…I state that most criticisms of Boyd are not based on factual evidence and you argue without factual basis…sorry, the in all my years of experience and “I am still here” argument does not sell me…I have a couple years of experience and I am still here…and I out weigh you…now what?...thanks for proving my point.
Let’s try again…can you give some factual evidence, an example, where Boyd’s OODA loop was not at work at the tactical level…let say company or platoon or squad level. You can pick the war. Remember…Boyd Theory…is not new and is, after all, nothing more than good tactics or an aphorisms.

We are wrestling with a lot of baggage here…maybe we should start a new thread titled “Boyd Theory”. I am serious here. Maneuver Warfare was an attempt to translate the theory into doctrine…it was a good try but needed to be worked, evaluated and changed. The sin is not continuing the work that proved or disproved the theory. I am open to good arguments…but I am waiting….and waiting…and waiting. As Americans, our attention is easily distracted with new bright shiny buz words that achieve self applause. We can go back to the theory and sort this out.

Fuchs statement is another great example of what I am talking about here.
“Everything happens at the same time, not sequentially. Moreover, new orders follow before the effect of a previous order (or mission) can be understood.” This statement is a distraction and does not represent any element of proof…it is opinion based on a misrepresentation. His argument is not sound by any stretch of the imagination. The Boyd Theory is not operating sequentially; in fact, it is just the opposite because Boyd’s assumption is everything does happen at once. The issue was and is how do we (assuming “we” are good guys) focus everyone’s efforts, when everything happens at once (and at the same time disorient the enemy’s focus). The first attempt was things like mission orders, commander’s intent, and focus of effort. Great try but it was version 1.0…we should be on version 4.0 or higher.

“Start trying to orient and you'll waste time” Disagree, if your saying that is part of Boyd Theory … and Boyd would argue that you orient to save time. If you land at a strange or new airport how do you orient? You normally move with the crowd in the direction of descending or ascending gates. As you move you orient as you pick up more information, you notice signs with arrows that say Baggage Claim, Passenger Pickup, Rest Rooms, and Ground Transportation. Based on that information you make the appropriate decisions to get yourself to an office, hotel or home. If you stop to orient as you get off the plane…no information, slow orientation and there you stand waiting for passenger assistance. I have seen a lot of words associated with the Boyd Theory but the phase “waste time” is not one of them.