🚀 go-pugleaf

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 that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?

Easy answer.  They either repeat what they are told while on base or they
just make it up as they go.  Either way, their's is just an opinion just
like yours is.  Not a single one of them will ever be involved in
Overwhelming Force.  That's normally left, these days, to the Air Force,
Navy or Marines who have the Air and Sea Power on hand.  They might (not
likely with these guinuses) be involved in moving in aftewards to either
sweep up or clean the place up of the last vestages of resistance.  Don't
get me wrong, the clean up can be quite deadly and should be avoided
whenever possible.  While the use of Overpowering or Overwhelming force is
being used, it's the enemy that normally dies.  But during the cleanup, you
have to send in your own troops and that is never anticeptic.