Quote Originally Posted by Norfolk View Post
I had written that post for another thread, where I was discussing the effects of rote application of Battle Drill in lieu of tactical judgement. I was also observing how in the Canadian Army, the adoption of the US Fire Team system coupled to said rote application of Battle Drill made for an almost blind and automatic recourse to the Frontal Attack, even in cases where the traditional Flanking Attack that use to be taught in the CF was possible. At that time, we effectively dispensed with traditional Platoon Battle Drill and settled for an almost US-style approach. Not so good.
actually done in units and practiced in combat are more often than not quite different things...

Most manuals are written in the service schools and reflect the thoughts of students at the school, some, called Snowbirds (No, not that kind... ) arrive before their Advanced course starts and thus have not absorbed great knowledge.

Others, called Blackbirds, have completed their Advanced Course and are awaiting movement to their next assignment. These have absorbed Great Knowledge -- and therefor are doubly dangerous in the sphere of doctrinal writing...

They are aided in this by civilian Educational or Training specialists and the occasional Field Grade who has fifty things going on at once. Also by the odd General Officer who has a pet rock he wants introduced to the Army...

Contrary to what Wilf said Battle Drill as practiced by most infantry units in the US Army in the 50s through the 80s required thinking, a lot of it and it was not rote stuff -- unless they had a poor commander who believed in what the book said; fortunately, a relatively rare thing.

Fire and maneuver at Platoon level and below is movement from wall to wall or tree to rock, is generally uncoordinated and after a few firefights, becomes automatic -- and it is effective (those who cannot adapt perish). Anyone who says squads don't do it hasn't been there.