I came across Lind's book in the back of a library, and remembering this thread and your recommendation I picked it up. Very easy to read - got through it in a few hours.

I am not convinced, however, having weighed up the criticisms for and against MW. It seems to be a great framework 70% of this time, which renders it somewhat flawed as a construct for fighting your wars.

I did like the importance by Lind and later Col Wyly stressed upon recon-pull. It's common sense but something I have never done or seen done well, being happier to palm off 'recce' to Bn elm and then wander (bumble?) around as a Pl complete, without a recce screen fd. Live and learn.

In explaining battlefield success as a series of belief statements as Fuch termed it I think Lind is right for the wrong reasons. The MW Handbook makes it sound very easy, but I doubt the utility of the ideas when the going gets tough and you have to go head to head with the enemy's strength.

My preference is for working to Stephen Biddle's 'Modern System' he outlined in Military Power. While his work was not prescriptive for success ala a handbook, he outlined the reasons behind mission comd, dispersion, depth, combined arms, fire and manoeuvre etc in a way that I found faultless. The unfortunate thing is that he does not offer quick 'cheats' to success as Lind does, possibly because there is no such thing as quick fixes to warfighting success.

Further, I think MW is perfectly suited to the likes of the Israeli's who have inbred initiative and msn command into their organisational culture. I think the British system is far more disposed towards methodical, concentrated deliberate operations against enemy strength as opposed to the flash, sexy MW image. Trying to impose or achieve highly decentralised tactics won't work as effectively in this culture, and ignoring the aesthetic attractions of military ballet ala MW, the last century of Anglo-Saxon dominance on the battlefield has been achieved without MW philosophy.

While I'm being overly critical as to the merits of the concept, I did enjoy the handbook and found it a very good thought-provoking read that deserves a second going-over in the future.