The irritating thing about swarms is the manoeuvre à priori approach instead of manoeuvre à posteriori. This simply doesn't fit well to a new tactical fashion.

Why are swarms supposed to attack from multiple directions at once, again and again?
This adds predictability, synchronization challenges (high demand for communication) and includes multiple attacks on strong points (instead of only weak spots).

It made sense with sub wolfpacks, but it doesn't in general.

Why not all-round probing coupled with exploitation of opportunities instead? Too slow?



Btw. I still don't think that swarming theory is nothing new. The stuff has been done at times, but swarming is NOT covered by orthodox military theory. Even corps-level military theory is at most about relatively few units/formations converging - and march divided, fight united isn't a good enough match. Even the termination of pockets is no good match.



There's nothing wrong with developing some new military theories even if there's almost no historical example. It's a good idea to develop theory first before testing something in practice. The mere thought about a new theory is a worthy exercise in a time of very outdated or very limited full out modern war experiences.

On the other hand I wouldn't call every terrorist attack with more than one strike in a time window of a few minutes "swarming".