It seems as you (as American?) didn't quite get the "resources" thing in my post.Originally Posted by Ken White
It seems as you (as American?) didn't quite get the "resources" thing in my post.
I got it...
I just ignored it...
Priorities are priorities. Effectiveness is the priority, efficiency will ALWAYS be second...
Other than in theory, of course.
And so the KingTiger was born...
Proving that effectiveness in the secondary
mission of defense versus little or none in the primary mission of offensive maneuver isn't truly effective?
Got to admire the efficiency of production in spite of obstacles though.
No, the Tigers are just a standard negative example for use on people who prefer effectiveness over efficiency.
Under condition of scarce resources, there's no greater foolishness than to prefer effectiveness over efficiency, as effectiveness at one point without efficiency costs a lot elsewhere.
To have intelligence and other support personnel at all combat companies is fine as long as it can be afforded, but a terrible idea if this needs to be bought with inefficient cuts elsewhere.
It's a classic limited field of view problem. Most people just look at the reinforced point and don't understand the costs.
Even if the army can afford it - can the nation afford to have an army with such behavioral patterns?
Or maybe the state's going broke meanwhile, and the nation has a balance deficit larger than its defence spending because military macro-economic consumption replaced much macro-economic investment?
But efficient force structure is already off topic, far away from DO.
(Actually it isn't, but it is off topic like we discuss it.)
This has been a process tested in theory and on the ground. Take a look at the past few years in Iraq. The type of combat we face requires increased resources at lower levels. This is done as an adjustment from previous force levels and the competing demands are managed. The decision is made to reduce structure somewhere to increase it somewhere else. I would argue that the past few years has seen an increase in effectiveness and efficiency during our operations in Iraq.
As for behavioral patterns, I am lost on that comment. Are we (Americans) not trying to maximize are current structure? Dare I say it, trying to be more efficient
We're sort of saying the same thing...
Since it wasn't fully effective, it was obviously inefficient as well...METT-TC applies. Always. Currently it is affordable, it is effective and it is certainly not a permanent, embed it in the TOE thing -- and I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting that. No need for it in full scale conventional combat for example.To have intelligence and other support personnel at all combat companies is fine as long as it can be afforded, but a terrible idea if this needs to be bought with inefficient cuts elsewhere.It has for the past 233 plus years (some of our habits pre-date the departure of the British). Whether that will be true in the future remains to be seen though I suspect your children's children will be the ones who see it, not you or I.Even if the army can afford it - can the nation afford to have an army with such behavioral patterns?Perhaps or maybe we've just outsmarted ourselves again. We do that frequently...Or maybe the state's going broke meanwhile, and the nation has a balance deficit larger than its defence spending because military macro-economic consumption replaced much macro-economic investment?Not necessarily...But efficient force structure is already off topic, far away from DO.(Actually it isn't, but it is off topic like we discuss it.)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks