Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawker View Post
My recollection of the Journal of Military History article mentioned above on SLAM was that SLAM happened to be helpful due to what the Army changed about its small unit tactics in Vietnam based on his WWII book and "interviews". Basically, he happened to be right, but for the wrong reasons.
I have a copy of Marshall's "Ambush and Bird" written in 1969. It's a basically a "Vietnam battle narrative" written for entertainment.

Now, if someone actually applied Marshall's alleged methods of research, there might be something gained.
Nevertheless, Roger Spiller, former CGSC prof wrote the RUSI article that I believe first outed SLAM's phoniness and the lack of evidence. To quote Roger, a historian I greatly respect and admire, "I have no use for the man."
Could not say it better. If you see Roger Spiller anytime in the near future, tell him I am a fan.