🚀 go-pugleaf

"DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:cnh1i9$6vo$1@news.chatlink.com...
> "RTO Trainer" <bill.white@us.army.mil> wrote in message
> news:ed856011.0411171112.690ca95b@posting.google.com...
>>
>> 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.
>

And when you get down to brass tacks, that's all that counts, isn't it? All 
the rest is mental masturbation needless verbiage. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/