|
|
#1 | |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord, MA
Posts: 3,043
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort Leavenworth, KS
Posts: 1,516
|
Will give it a read - for those interested in reading - its good to keep in mind their are variables which provide context that would be hard to use in causal effect type comparrisons. When ever you look at something historical - its a bit frozen and the context present in a living environement is hard to account for.
I appreciate you posting it as I have both strong interests in the specific AOR and the 2 SBCTs - I expect Shek will see this and comment too. BEst, Rob |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,182
|
Hopefully the Public appreciates the fact that the development and fine tuning of new systems often entails extreme sacrifices in the process.
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lansing, KS
Posts: 361
|
Why is it that everything that looks interesting to read is 222 pgs long.
As the title of this entry implies, it appears that the study already has a serious flaw. The size of the forces being compared are significantly different. If my memory serves me correctly, the 101st had over 5 BDEs in the Mosul area alone during the early stages of operations following MCO. It can also easily be reasoned that the nature of the environment was significantly different (e.g. you could not characterize the environment as anything close to an insurgency). Add in different training preparation, body of corporate knowledge (doctrine, shared TTP, etc) and there are just too mand different variable to really form a viable comparison between network-centric and not. Live well and row
__________________
Hacksaw Say hello to my 2 x 4 |
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|