Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
It may be a personnel quality/availability problem. Maybe the previous education and the early training is simply not well-suited to make the average NCO understand what he does on a theoretical level.

In fact, I've listened more often to 'street language' about me supposedly having a wet pu**y than an intelligent answer in such cases.
In both cases that's a result of the way they were treated...
Maybe it's the right approach to tell most leaders only what they need to know - and to reserve a more in-depth training and education for those who can grasp it.
As exemplified by that attitude. Most people can and will accept knowledge that is properly imparted, learn to think constructively and apply judgment and that knowledge to problem solutions. OTOH, if they are conditioned to do what they're told and never question their 'betters' you'll have the reactions you cite.
Where's the smoke? Bunkers can be blinded quite easily.
Use it quickly -- as more thermal viewers proliferate around the world, that will no longer work (and yes I know of thermal obscurants. I also know of supply and resupply failures among other things).
I thought the modern (post-50's) and internationally preferred method was rather to use AT weapons on bunkers from a relatively long distance (200-2000 m).
Great plan -- if you have them. If not due to lack of resupply or for other reasons, what do you do? A satchel charge or a pole charge is better than a hand grenade but UBoat's point was that even mediocre training is ruined by excessive concern for safety and costs -- and that truth is why they were using a grenade instead of a pole charge and why they were not using a rocket or missile. They were doing a direct infantry attack for training because every thing in war doesn't always work the way it's supposed to and somebody has to do the hard practical stuff to keep things going. His broader point that people will do in war what they do in training is true.

That training is poor is an indictment of the training regimen in most democracies where the armed forces cannot train adequately due to politically correct concern for safety, an irony for a trade where safety is not really a viable option. It's also constrained due to cost constraints -- we cannot spend some money to save some lives. Fascinating logic.

That it is poor is also an indictment of all armed forces that treat their NCOs in such a manner as to breed the attitudes and reactions you mentioned. People tend to react as they are expected to -- don't like the way some react?

Change the expectation.
Bunker busting is in my opinion actually one of the infantry activities with the greatest change since WW2, and your drill of '95 sounds a lot like an awfully incomplete drill from the 30's.
Not really -- change that is. The preferred method in the late 30s was to blast the bunker with anti tank guns; attacking with charges or grenades was a last resort effort. Training to do that let people know they could do it if they had no better option. They had to do that during WW II, so that worked out okay. Still being done today. That hasn't changed. Only difference now is missiles or rockets instead of guns -- and now, as then, that desirable standoff weapon may not always be available.

Can't train totally for the best case in war, you have to train for the worst case. If you can operate effectively then life is better when things work out and you can go the best case route...

The well educated theoreticians often miss little things like that...