Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
one trick ponies do not win in the long run. Thus the desirability of having a "detachment of mounted forces," "Scipio's flexible formations" or such like as well as avoiding the ill conceived and stupid attacks like that of the 11th AHR in 2003. As you aptly illustrate, one trick fighting is not ever a good plan.

That's probably why the AF needs F-22s for air superiority AND some strike ability, F-35s for strike missions AND the ability to swing to air to air, A-10s for tight, heavy combat CAS and C17s and C130s for hauling people and things and why the Army and the AF need C-27s for the same thing. Not to mention why the Army needs Apaches AND M1A2s AND Infantry. All to avoid the one-trick bit and all suitably and sensibly employed. I think, BTW, that the latter point may be the real rub as it was in your examples.

I'm always appreciative when someone with whom I'm discussing anything corroborates my points, particularly when they use well known to us all historical examples...

Thanks...
I suspect we may have beaten this horse about as much as we have a right to. My parting point is that the closest thing to an Affirmed or a Seattle Slew that we can deploy is a force composed of competent troops with extremely capable leadership--and that comes from spending a lot more on effective training and development than we have for a lot of years. But I know I'm preaching to the choir with this point. Too bad that we find too many in positions of authority who have the characteristics of what one find's under a ponytail