Ken,

I agree with pretty much everything you said, which you stated rather more eloquently than I did.

And yes, I did confuse objectively and subjectively - thanks for correcting that. I still feel my branch, Armor, added much to the problem. If you can so easily quantify the best tank crews by comparing their speed and accuracy in killing targets (forgetting all about the maneuver side), then why can't you do it with a 'mere' squad of dismounted Soldiers? Don't even get me started on the focus on precision gunnery with the Bradley.

As for the Army loving TCS, what I meant is the greater institution of the Army still thinks that TCS is a sound formula for training. I absolutely agree that Soldiers see the foolishness in it but this is an arguement that has not reached the levels (or noise level) that it needs to within regular Army discussions. I hope to still be serving when we move to results or effects-oriented training.

My biggest beef is the Army likes to spend big money on big training, but isn't willing to put much of any money toward the lower end. Therefore, we end up with lousy training on the big end because we still don't do the lower-level stuff very well. And you can definitely link this problem to the idea that you can use battle drills as simply plays to be called and executed by the team. Again, no real thought process. We want to treat our Soldiers like pro football players with a very thin playbook, but we are playing something more akin to rugby, constantly moving and flowing and requiring direction changes on the fly.

Tankersteve