🚀 go-pugleaf

"RTO Trainer" <bill.white@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:ed856011.0411171112.690ca95b@posting.google.com...
> "DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<cneiou$4s9$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> > "Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> > news:7152320.AaHMmCGklK@news.verizon.net...
> > > RTO Trainer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:<1204636.UY531aNM1O@news.verizon.net>...
> > > >> DeadMeat wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is. That's where a bomb
is
> > > >> > dropped on a house housing your enemy. Or where you have the
troops
> > > >> > come in behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor,
3rd,
> > > >> > 4th, and fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely away.
> > > >> > Hell, kid, it's done all the time and it saves lives on the US
side.
> > > >> > If you overkill it then it's still dead and you lost NO people in
the
> > > >> > first place. If you underkill it your ground troops are going to
get
> > > >> > some pretty nasty surprises.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the
other
> > > >> military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war
blogs,
> > > >> that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?
> > > >
> > > > Who made that assurance to you "on the basis of war blogs?"
> > >
> > > I wrote that before I looked at your blog.  I don't know how I would
> > > characterize it, but I think is's not a typical war blog.
> > > >
> > > > I told you it was no longer doctrine on the basis of current Army
> > > > doctrine.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different
conceptions
> > > > of the term "doctrine."
> > >
> > > We probably do.  And you're in the signal corps, no?  I think that's
quite
> > > honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on doctrine.
> > > Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a refernce
about
> > > doctrine.  I thought wrong.
> > >
> > > I'm a Navy veteran, and my relationship to Army doctrine is quite
> >  indirect,
> > > but nonetheless real.  I was in Naval Intelligence in the Viet Nam
era,
> > > watching China, and the doctrine about intelligence was simply wrong.
The
> > > intelligence we produced was simply ignored, and the ultimate result
of
> > > that doctrine, stupidly conducted for the next 40 years, was 9/11.
> > >
> > > The current Army doctrine of overwhlming firepower has resulted in a
> > > wowrld-class atrocity in Fallujah.  This will, at least, completely
> >  destroy
> > > what's left of our credibility in the world, and it puts us at grave
risk
> > > for another 9/ll at home.
> >
> > I spent some time above the Ho Trail shelling anything that moved.  We
used
> > Overwhelming Firepower once they removed the stupid rules and we got a
> > President that was no longer being lied to and didn't try to micromanage
> > each every round fired. Sounds to me like you were there 1968 at the
latest.
> > I didn't show up until 1969 and it wasn't until 1970 that the rules were
all
> > but removed from us where we could shell anything that moved.  20mm
Vulcans
> > make wonderful Elephant guns.
> >
> > The doctrine is much the same as Nam was from 1970 to 1974 in more ways
than
> > the kids realize.  The term "Win their Hearts and Minds" was used back
then
> > as well.  Had it not been for Pres Ford, the South might still be a
seperate
> > nation from the North.
>
> Overwhelming Firepower is not *current* doctrine.
>
> 1969 to 1974 is not *current.*

LOL, it's used whenver possible these days.  When the 101st was backed up
against an Iraqi Republican Guard that was well trained, manned and supplied
right outside of Bagdad, ALL the Apaches were at least damaged and one was
lost.  The 101st showed the virtues of thinking when they backed off and
called in the Navy and Air Force who bombed them back into the BC.  Then the
101st reentered.  That was a prime example of using Overwhelming Firepower.
There are tons and tons of examples of it being used when necessary even in
the Mosul and Fallaha (sp) invasion.  Without the threat of it, more enemy
would stay and fight house to house.  With it, they know if they emass in a
house, the house gets completely leveled.

1.  If that isn't Overwhelming Firepower then nothing is short of Hiroshima

2.    And that is written into the current doctrine

3.    It helps keep casualties down.

I guess you aren't too worried about #3 sitting that far from the battle.
But I am quite sure there is some troops crouched behind that Cement Road
Divider that has it on the forefront of their thoughts.  And the Enemy is
certainly thinking about it as well.