🚀 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...
> > "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 that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?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.

I have not said that overwhelming firepower is never used, nor that it
is not sometimes tactically appropriate.  I have only stated, several
times that it is not cuurent doctrine.  And it isn't.