The Army Capstone Concept: the Army wants your comments

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

Well then we at least we need to recognise that large portions of current military thought and doctrine are not held to rigour, in terms of passing several simple tests of evidence. In "fact", the less evidence the better!

The more I think about it, the heart of all my complaints are about evidence and rigour.

Most of mine are, too . My real problem is with the selection of interpretive schemas, and I see the wrong (in the sense of poor predictive validity from the specific problem at hand) schema being chosen time and time again. Since schemas define what is and is not considered as "data" ("facts"), that inevitably leads to all sorts of mess ups even, or especially, when they are applied with rigour.

My experience is that "cultural attitudes" are the biggest roach in the schwarma. The Manoeuvre Warfare diddly is a product of culture, as is the deification of snipers.

How did "a mobile field gun clad in armour" - as JFC Fuller described the tank - become an icon of Land Warfare power and the inheritor of the myths of Cavalry and the Armoured Knight? - instead of fire support platform to create freedom of action for the infantry.

'cause it "worked" at the time . Personally, I always wanted to see a joust between a couple of Centurion VII's !!!!!