Sparks stole whole pages from my old MOUT Homepage web site and published them as his own and sent long ranting e-mails to me that went unread after the first. Haven't heard from him in years and I am the better for it.
Brief comment...
Sparks stole whole pages from my old MOUT Homepage web site and published them as his own and sent long ranting e-mails to me that went unread after the first. Haven't heard from him in years and I am the better for it.
And practices like that make it pretty easy for him to "maintain" tons of web pages. Much easier when you 'borrow' your content.Originally Posted by SWJED
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Hi Wilf, I think you may well be right in that he is more than one person. Also he picks and chooses the pieces of Gavin's writings that support what are I guess are his theories, while he overlooks some critical aspects of Gavin's thinking on the future of warfare.
Hi Dave, As a long time reader of the MOUT page before the creation of the SWJ/SWC I thought some of the material looked very familiar
I've never corresponded with Sparks but here's my take on him. I think he is one man but he does use various names. In addition to Mike Sparks he's been known to post under Sam Damon Jr., dynmicpara, and truthteller (truthseeker?). Those are the ones I know of.
It amazes me how he can go from what I'd consider good, reasonable ideas to utter lunacy.
He had an article about an advanced tactical parachute that I thought made sense. He's also advocated modern rifle grenades and pointed out that current models do not need a blank cartridge to fire them, they're shoot through or bullet trap styles. I don't see anything really weird about either of those proposals.
Then he starts ranting on about making the entire Army Air-Mech and disbanding the Marine Corps. He sees the M113A-whatever model number he's up to now, as the answer to almost any problem. He loves aircraft but hates the Osprey. One wonders if he would love the Osprey if it had been an Army project.
And anyone who doesn't agree with him is a NARCISSIST!, who has "LIGHTITIS!," and DOES NOT UNDERSTAND MODERN WAR!
I wonder if he's just mad, or if time will prove him a mad genius.
Last edited by Rifleman; 12-28-2007 at 06:39 PM.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
Sparks is his worst enemy, and that's why he will never be as influential as he could have been. It's amazing to see what an overblown ego can do to a person.
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
Gavin's Paratroopers: Right for Sub-National Conflicts
General Gavin's EXACT thoughts in DETAIL are posted below:
Airborne Warfare
www.combatreform.com/airbornewarfare.htm
Cavalry
http://www.combatreform.com/cavalrya...meanhorses.htm
War & Peace in the Space Age
http://www.combatreform.com/warandpe...hespaceage.htm
Crisis Now
www.combatreform.com/crisisnow.htm
FYI "Small Wars" is a bogus BS USMC self-oriented term that is fundamentally ignorant of reality. There are two basic types of wars; Nation-State Wars (NSW) and sub-national conflicts (SNCs).
www.geocities.com/transformationunderfire
Maximizing violence as required for NSWs is the wrong organizational principle with the wrong type of people for SNCs. We need an older, more mature, THINKING, non-egomaniac group of adults dedicated and equipped specifically for SNCs that SMOTHERS violence:
www.combatreform.com/johnpaulvann.htm
The 19th Century-linear culture USMC weak ego lemming is the wrong person for SNCs and modern, non-linear NSWs; though the U.S. Army Airborne Paratrooper who THINKS and takes initiative is a good place to begin if screened not to have narcissistic personality disorder and is older than 25 who practices SNC tasks. We tried using light NSW forces for SNCs and have failed miserably since they have an anti-physical, anti-mechanized and anti-engineering bias due to their narcissism. Narcissism is the #1 problem and threat to the U.S. military and our nation's survival. Humility is not just moral its functional; without it we are lost.
To prevail in SNCs we will need a totally different type of organization, equipment and people not just "full-spectrum" racketeers driven by greed and ego.
AIRBORNE!
Mike
Last edited by Jedburgh; 02-05-2008 at 11:46 AM.
Having reviewed a fair bit of your work over the past few months, Mike, I have to say that an Air-Mechanized concept for Airborne Infantry is certainly a concept worth considering and developing.
But why the M-113? While I quite agree that the LAV/Stryker is quite unsuitable for anything but Aid to the Civil Power and Internal Security (it was after all, originally designed as an armoured car for Police use, and is quite suited to ACP and IS), the M-113 has been a known horror from the beginning. Even after the original M-113 had its petrol engine cashed in for the diesel, it was still a death trap if its aluminium-magnesium alloy structure caught fire. You literally had only seconds to get out if something happened before the magnesium ignited and the aluminim melted. One Canadian officer in the 70's risked his life to pull two GI's out of a burning M-113 after an accident on an ex in southern Germany - everyone was amazed that any of them survived. In Vietnam, noone wanted to ride inside it in case it was set alight by enemy RPGs, mines, or roadside bombs.
Apart from the hard ride it gives, the alloy structure of the M-113 is potentially lethal to its occupants. That's why the British switched back to steel construction for warships after the Falklands War, and the US Navy a few years later - the alloy ignites rapidly and melts so quickly that men often don't have time to get away like they would with a steel structure. Wouldn't a light, tracked APC of all-steel construction be rather preferable if such a vehicle could be made available instead of the M-113 (albeit necessarily being heavier than the M-113, as a result)?
This sort of typology survives contact with reality even less well than does the term "small wars."
Very few states around the world are "nation states," a term that technically refers to a high degree of congruence between ethno-national identity and state borders. Indeed, it is precisely because so many states are NOT nation-states, but rather consist of multiple ethnonational groups that spill across political boundaries, that they generate so much ethnic, separatist, or irredentist conflict (Chad/Darfur/Sudan being an excellent example). Interstate wars would be a better term for what you are trying to describe.
Moreover, most civil wars have significant interstate component, whether due to external support for local combatants, or because of direct intervention by neighbours (DR Congo being a case in point). "Subnational conflicts" therefore doesn't work very well for these.
Not a good start and you do not dictate house rules here. This is our house, act accordingly.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks