Tris

I joined in with my opinion to bolster the thread in spirit--I have no great passion either way. As for your points, I agree that this game was meant as a tactical exercise, not operational but in the main what's being requested is reasonable as it would free the user to spend less time fiddling and more time conducting the greater orchestra.

Tris, please explain to me what doctrine has to do with how we treat new recruits, I'd be interested in learning how you make that connection. Also, you might want to slow down a little, you're beginning to sound like the expert on experts! Doctrine is something taught, in brief. It also carries an almost pejorative meaning, that being "dogma," which simply stated equates to "belief," but as I said we're talking pejorative here. Anyway, your question is easily answered by yourself (and could just as easily have been puzzled out by you had you bothered). Here is what you wrote in your third paragraph: Now, I'm experienced with the end product of both systems (the in your face, piss your pants indoctrination and the "please do one more pushup, private" kinder, gentler basic training). And I would take a group of privates trained in 1985 over a group trained in 2000 anyday. Rationalization may work wonders in a regular unit (I learned quickly which soldiers would respond to little guidance and a soft voice and which ones required a more direct, authoritative tone) but not without having that instinct to obey firmly in place before hand. And I dont think any man can have that instinct without having rationalism and the belief he has the right to question authority drilled out of him beforehand. As for being an expert on experts: I take that as a compliment. Thank you. Look. I am an educated man with three degrees, I'm fairly well read, and I have varied experience to draw on. What would you expect from me, drivel? I suppose I should come on here and go "Awwww shucks . . . don't know wha'ta say . . . what think y'all?" [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-13-2000).]

Much better. When can we grab it?

It's important to understand something.There are some of us on this board that do precisely the stuff most people here like to play at for real. So we know exactly that the experience and understanding you recieve from playing Combat Mission or reading a couple articles on line about doctrine or about reading ten books a year on the subject is pretty much like looking at the whole thing through a straw. In many classes even having served a hitch as a private in his of that unit gives one even a rudimentary view on some of the bigger issues. SO it's easy to get annoyed a definative statements some armchair types make re: various subjects that we know to be either patently false or much deeper than meets the eye. This kind of posting is pretty much the norm here on this board. (Soley due to the shear volume of posters). Los, you went on the write more re this issue and I found it all of interest. I would encourage anyone on this thread to study your remarks as closely as possible. I choose to limit myself to the above quoted passage for reasons of saving bandwidth. I understand your point. I am eager to say that I do not consider myself an expert on military matters of any kind except as these might pertain to the history of warfare down through the ages, where I have at least devoted a modest amount of my time to readings of a broad nature for the past 40 odd years. I would guess this describes me most accurately as a sort of military history buff, and again, in no manner, shape or form do I consider myself an authority. So, I come to discussions of this kind with an open mind, or as much as any man might claim such, and a desire to learn more at the feet of those who have more experience than I. This is where veterans such as you and ScoutPL enter the picture. I see the problem as this: thin skins. And, I'm hesitant to say, a somewhat regrettable lack of what I call intellectual balance. That is to say, an education, of both formal and experiential nature, which serves to afford a more comprehensive view of life as opposed to the specialist's entirely more narrow appreciation of affairs. Needless to say I cannot do a thing about how a man's mind develops along the way. I can tell you, however, that the dynamic in play with regard to this terrible propensity on the boards for one person after the other to take offense at the expression of critical comment and opinion is not a healthy or propitious sign. It is, in fact, a symptom of the lack of intellectual balance I allude to above. Re your thesis specifically on expertise: there is an inherent trap for the expert, which you might well be aware of but I'll point it out just so it's on record. The trap is this, that the expert will show a tendency to ignore the input of lay in any discussion he holds forth on, which has, as a rule, the undesirable effect to discourage such lay input and the feed the expert interests of the informational/discussion loop with an attitude that eventually must come round to the point where, essentially, no other opinion really matters. Which effectively serves to end the discussion. I said before that you might be aware of this unhappy cause-effect for the reason that this is precisely the dynamic at work within the army, most especially during peacetime but prevalent at all times, even during war. This cause-effect not only allows for but actively encourages the exclusive topdown mentality of command which both you and ScoutPL have identified, at least in passing, and to which Captain Kolenda more actively chose to address himself, however obliquely, in his article on reconnaissance. And isn't this true? Is it not a case where it leads to the old Peter principle in the end? Are not good, sometimes better, men ignored, screwed over and eventually forgotten as they leave the army in round numbers? Are not most of these men of junior rank, were they not ignored in the main, is frustration with the system their greatest collective concern or not? And do those who stay for the dubious reasons that they have come to enjoy too much their bailiwicks, have come to snuggle too warmly in the accommodations provided and thrive too well and absent of competent overview in the rare atmosphere extant within this so-described stifled service, do these servicemen regret such human passage or thrill to it? In the end, is the result of this weening process better or worse for our country? My message comes round approximately to this, that while experts should always be accorded respect and attention (this is only logical), these types always need to be on their guard lest they come to take their own opinions too seriously, to the exclusion of other opinion, other reason, other thought. When that happens, intellectual growth ceases, academic air evacuates and balance flies harried out the window. Besides, that, I'm all ears! I come here because I wish to learn more. While I have an opinion or two to express, I mostly have questions--oh, very yes, many many of those. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-13-2000).]

If your noisy NCO emptying the bus had been a part of a complete planned recruit training experience it may have made more sense to you. As it was, in isolation acting alone, his effort was wasted. Like all things military, a team approach is necessary for results. Had you experienced a concerted program designed to weed out problems and totally reorient the recruit's entire mentality from civilian to military and military Marine style as the Marines do consistently, then that one guy hollering would smear out in memory into a general impression. The Army taught me its program and drilled me to accomplish it. The Marines attempt and pretty damn well succeed in *remaking* their recruits. The yelling was the norm where I was, Bobbaro. Sgt. Pitts was the one who stood out like a sore thumb due to his silent bearing. Yes, I imagine that this loud approach does work miracles with the "numbers'" the army works with. The irony is that we might expect greater results from the much more intellectual (not to say humane) approach of Pitts in the Marine Corps where all of the material has volunteered for service in that branch of our armed forces, as opposed to having been drafted (this was the case back when I went in in 1971) or attached to some reserve or NG outfit. I don't deny that the army does have a system, or at least from the reports of ScoutPL did have a system which worked, how efficiently I do not know. It was easy to watch the greater dynamic at work, identify its various components and see them play their respective roles. And so, the raw material would come from all parts, mostly young people. (Our platoon had one man who was 44 years old--can you believe that? I swear to God, this man had served in Korea, and then begged to get back in, and his presence at Campbell was proof positive that he either "knew" someone or that the army was willing to take on older men. I'm not sure as to the wisdom of that, though. War is hard work and for young men, as a rule. I doubt if the old vet ever saw action a second time.) They come in round numbers and all look different, but soon enough they get their first haircut and lineup for their first kits of GI and after awhile its OD Green everywhere and no one looks all that much different from the next kid in line. People being what they are, this has its intended effect. Combined with the atmosphere of "away from home" and the yelling and screaming and orders everywhere to behave in strange ways and manners and these kids naturally tend to band together and develop quickly a new set of cultural laws and standards designed to get them through, as a newly-founded group, this very unsettling experience. Can't speak to how many misfits are actually weeded out due to the process, but I'd imagine the army back then could easily predict it as close as any poll ever could. Afterall, this is all figured out on paper beforehand, a cool numbers game. Still, it ought to be intuitive that this almost Neanderthal approach to organizational demands and imperatives is beyond primitive, at base, and hardly exclusive to the achievement of acceptable results down the road. And believe me, I found ScoutPL's description of what's happened recently disturbing. But let me explain why. It must be the case that the army has not been able to reason out an alternative approach to the problem. Think about that. We speak to the greatest military entity the world has ever known, invested with untold influence and real power, yet its leaders have been unable (or unwilling) to sit down and put their heads together and dream up a way to admit and successfully matriculate raw recruits from Process Center A to wherever they eventually end up . . . without the need for any number of NCO's and junior officers along the way, and from what we've heard toward the end of the pipeline instead of the start, to play house and Dr. Kildare and everything else under the sun in an effort to "round them out." That's scary. It suggests that my remark re doctrine and the inherent limitations thereof was not far off the mark--as, of course, I knew it not to be. The problems of doctrine are almost as old as doctrine itself since they had to have set in immediately after the establishments of these rigid institutions of ways and means. I don't claim to have any ready answers, so please do not accuse of being arrogant or a know it all or something like that. I merely see the problem, or rather I once saw the system at work firsthand, and, judging from the confusion and wasted time it inevitably led to, I recognized at that time there must be something better. Just had to be. ScoutPL: I would like to say once to you that you have my respect and admiration for your service to our country, and I believe your presence here is a boon to one and all. I regret the bitter words thus far exchanged between us. I can only say that it was never my intention to upset you. Los: I think the confusion we shared stemmed from your initial post to me in which you chose to make reference not only to the post of mine which you quoted but also my reply to ScoutPL. It was because of this that I thought your main thrust focused on my piece which dealt mainly with Captain Kolenda's article. I hope at some time you care to share more of your experience and the insight you allude to as to the why and wherefore of our military's situation as you view it today. We certainly need a strong military, strongest possible, in today's screwed-up world--just listen to the clamor for some other state, that alone should tell you how very real the threat is. I can only hope that when it comes time for our boys to serve actively again they will be up for the challenge. I expect they will.

Thank you, Bobbaro, for disagreeing with me so politely. Allow me to respond to just one thought of yours. Tris, our military is being gutted to the future unnecessary loss of lives on the perception that trainees ought to not be mentally stressed or physically trained under conditions so tame as to absolutely preclude any chance of injury. You do not save lives in battle that way. In fact the little blood lost in tough training is more than compensated in battlefield experience. My example of martinet behavior as exhibited by most drill sergeants at the base I took my basic training at (Fort Campbell) should not be misconstrued as anything other than it was: a lone example of inferior technique which is allowed to continue on the altar of military doctrine. Does screaming at recruits when they first enter boot camp help them to become better soldiers? No, it does not. Do all armies embrace this primitive training doctrine? It's likely most of them do, for what that could be worth. But so what? Is it anyone's contention here that just because an activity is widely practiced it is necessarily a good thing in and of itself, that there might not be a more reasonable alternative to this behavior? Look. Basic training isn't just about getting off the bus. It's a process of some duration with an eye to getting these recruits assimilated into the army culture and equipping them with the minimal skills they will require in order to be able to go on to other, more advanced training. It's a long process to turn a civilian into a soldier, a good soldier, at least. So, when I referred to the yelling of drill sergeants I wasn't whining for the poor lads around me, or hugging a tree, or anything like that. I merely pointed to an example of how doctrine, per se, tends to get a grip on everyone around it who hasn't the intelligence and the backbone to stand up and say, "Wait a minute, that makes no sense." Well, my sergeant apparently had the sense to do just that--which might well explain why he was still where he was and the master sergeant had that other stripe. You buck the system and you get bucked right back, usually in the teeth. But Pitts was the better man, I've no doubt of that at all, and the training I received at his hands was nothing short of topnotch.

Los, I seem to have misread you insofar as I thought you thought I'd made reference to personal scouting experiences. Apparently, your objection was not this but that I had none of these to relate to, and also that I didn't quote any reference besides Kolenda's article. All I can say is that it was Kolenda's article which prompted my observations on the remarks made by ScoutPL, who seems to be substantially at odds with Kolenda's conclusions. I have no personal stake in this. My interest is academic. RE your other post, just a couple of notes. I've reached no conclusion re Kolenda's opinions. I have no way to know what happens at NTC since I'm not there. I only know what people write here and other places. I try to put that to good use by asking what I consider to be pertinent questions. I will say that Captain Kolenda did not come across in his article as some fuzzy-wuzzy and he seemed less entrenched in his thinking than ScoutPL. What, precisely, is your take on it? What is your view on how the army shakes out these days with regard to the theory and practice of the art of reconnaissance in war? You've made more than one reference to an officer corps which in your opinion is lacking in some major respects. How does that jive with Kolenda's article? How could the army better organize and make use of its reconnaissance assets? You written that nowhere is recon push an advocated technique, but you've also written (or strongly implied) that there may, in effect, be no certain reconnaissance doctrine whatsoever, that battalions and brigades throughout the army might well be doing it as they individually please and making it up as they go along! What are we to make of that? And how about Kolenda's call for closer relations between S2 and the Scout PL? You wrote earlier that this is an issue which you recognize from your own experience in the field. Kolenda took it further and suggested a "synergy" should be achieved in the relationship of and the efforts between these two people. Do you have an opinion on that? Speak to me, please.

I'll address this first. Hopefully it will serve to defuse any resident animosity between us, Los. Before I apologize for being to harsh Tris, go back and show me where in your original post you are quoting ANYBODY or citing some other book or reference. Which article? Do you mean my post to ScoutPL? If so, I referenced (without direct quotes--for brevity's sake I thought it best to be representative) for effect the article written by Captain Kolenda and tried to make sense of that in light of what ScoutPL had just written. By the way, I assume this "Kaneda" person you speak of is the Kolenda I refer to. One of us is mistaken, and I think it is you. If I'm in error I apologize sincerely to Mr. or Captain Kaneda. You wrote the post either inadvertantly or not so that it was coming from you as if these were your personal observations and experiences, so I guess you get whatever crap that asked for. First you ask the question, then you answer it yourself, only from within a pure vacuum. Sorry, but this is a rhetorical technique. I have offered no (read: zero, zilch, nada) personal observations re scouting for the military in the field. I clearly attributed my reference to the work of Captain Kolenda, so why you suppose I was delving into my military past in this instance is quite beyond me. Go back and read what I wrote one more time, please. I think then it will be more clear. And you are mistaken, Los. No one on this board or anywhere else deserves to be called out of name, no one deserves to be yelled at or browbeaten or talked down to or anything you'd care to mention of a similar abusive nature, no matter how grossly in factual error they happen to be. It is neither constructive nor civil to treat people with such little regard. For what it's worth, I'm still alive and kicking here. I can take it, if that's an issue. I repeat, though: it's not likely to get this discussion anywhere productive fast. Afterall, we're not here to toss grenades back and forth but to discuss tactics, no? While I suspected you are probably quoting Fussel, regardless you are obviously agreeing with his point. Quoting who? First you said I didn't quote anyone, now I'm quoting Fussel? And agreeing all in the same breath? In that case I stand humbly corrected. "Screaming at the top of your lungs, solely for effect, mind you, at some kid off a farm in Iowa two minutes after he tumbles off a truck in front of his first set of barracks will not make or break him in terms of the longterm picture of his military career. It will not serve to keep him any better out of harm's way, it will not provide him with a better jacket to stop enemy fire, it will not teach him to better think for himself in stressful situations." Of course you are incredible incorrect in this paragraph. I suppose I am to wait until this farm boy from Iowa is sitting in a foxhole next to me on night watch before I find out that he runs or breaks down into a blathering mess at the first shot? Or better off waste X amount of training resources and dollars on the guy before I find out on the basic training Live fire course or grenade range that the guy turns to jelly in situations of danger? In fact this is a silly debate, since it is precisely how all effective armies have always done this training since the beginning of time for precisely the reason I state. And BTW screaming in and of itself is not the sole tool of making a good soldier, it is one method of stress induction particularly in the most early phases of basic training. Now that you've had your say on the matter may I please have mine? I will give you an example of how Sgt. Pitts dealt with misfits. We had a few of those, as do most platoons in Basic. One of them was a wiseguy--you know the kind, always with the "When do the RA's [see note below] get their heads examined?" stage whispers and all that. Well, Pitts brought this kid around with quiet humor, designed to promote peer pressure. At first, you see, some of other recruits in the platoon laughed whenever the wiseguy made his remarks, but Pitts had plenty of opportunity to show this fellow up for what he was. For instance, ever hear of the Izzy-dizzy? A silly exercise where you spin with your forehead pressed to a baseball bat during platoon "games and competition" period (hey, don't blame me--I didn't write that cruise ship's itinerary). Anyway, so our platoon will be competing against the others in our company the next day and Pitts sits around with us in the barracks and makes up the list of who's to do what with whom. Sure enough, someone suggests the wiseguy ought team with him in the Izzy-dizzy. Pitts chuckled and said, "Well now that's a good choice--he's already dizzy." At that the kids laughed, only this time it wasn't in chorus to the wiseguy but more or less at him. There were countless examples of this use of fundamental psychology on the part of Pitts, with this wiseguy and others. Not every misfit was the same, of course. The thing is, Pitts did get us through and without yelling and screaming. Does this mean to say that Pitts was a softie, that he was incapable of giving proper basic training to recruits? Not at all. Pitts spoke with authority at all times. He was soft-spoken by nature, I'd imagine, yet somehow no one misunderstood him early on when he told us, "When you're at ease you may move everything but your left foot and your mouth." See what I mean? So it's different strokes for different folks. If you want to know, I'd say the army would be better off with more soldiers like Pitts. But where to find them? These men are exceptional. And so the army makes do with material of a lower caliber and resorts to the "use a bigger hammer" approach to getting the round peg of recruits into its square organizational hole. Now this might be practical--all things considered I'd think it is, now that you mention it--probably is inevitable, but none of that says it's the optimal approach to training, even at the very modest level of BT. NOTE: RA is an acronym for Regular Army, so the wiseguy's reference was to anyone stupid enough (in his opinion) to want to go into an army headed for the horror of Vietnam. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-13-2000).]

"Years ago I first saw army martinet doctrine in play, the brutish bootcamp technique of screaming at raw recruits as they jump off the trucks on the way in from the processing center. (Does this still happen, by the way, or has sense been driven home?)" ....Rest of crap snipped. If a more profound and utterly ridiculous load of horesh*t has ever been posted I'm hard pressed to think of it. Here we ago again. Why do you find it necessary to address what I wrote with such vehemence? It is a simple account of a simple citizen soldier's impression of what boot camp used to be like when he served. I didn't make that up. I also asked if things had changed First off for at least 15 years there has been a steady decrease in the quality of basic training recruits based precisely on the fact that boot camp has been dumbed down softened up. Even Marine Corps boot camp is a joke these days. Luckily mopst of this defficiency gets corrected in the manuever units or so we hope.(And yes I spent two years as a drill sergeant, and I was hardly a ballbuster.) I would not describe Pitts (E7 by the way) as a man who dumbed down anything. He was, in fact, one of the most able soldiers I ever came across. God forbid soldiers should be made to undergo 1% of the stress they will face under normal battlefield conditions. Screaming at the top of your lungs, solely for effect, mind you, at some kid off a farm in Iowa two minutes after he tumbles off a truck in front of his first set of barracks will not make or break him in terms of the longterm picture of his military career. It will not serve to keep him any better out of harm's way, it will not provide him with a better jacket to stop enemy fire, it will not teach him to better think for himself in stressful situations. This method of stress inducement seems to have served the Roman Legions fine. It seems to have gotten Wellington's legions through the penninsula and La Haye Sainte in a pinch, it got the German paras through their disastorous ordeal at Crete, it seems to have somehow helped Chuikov's 62d Army survive the cauldron of Stalingrad without cracking, apparently it got the 1st Marine Division out of the Chosin as in intact unit, it seems to have helped the NVA overcome the most harsh difficulties in their long march South on the Ho Chi Mihn Trail. But somehow it offends the sensibilities of one Mister Tris. And now it's "Mister Tris." Well, okay, you can be as rude as you please. Be my guest. "It's what we call being a "good soldier," or if you will a "good little German." While that will allow you to get along within the system, it might well cost you your life out in the field. You tell me which is ultimately more important." That's a simple question to answer. "The good little german" as you so snidely put it... I didn't make that up, either. It is part and parcel of our social experience, most especially with reference to the present topic. For what it is worth, my people come from Germany, my father's mother was born just outside of Leipzig, and I have no doubt whatsoever that you have used the term more than yourself to date. ...is precisely what any half-way competent initial military instruction is trying to arrive at. This much is true. But screaming is hardly the way to make a good soldier, from what I saw. It is certainly not the only way to take a recruit and mold him into fighting material. They're not trying to find or make a new Napolean, Patton, or Rommel in basic training. They're trying to impart bsic military skill and discipline. Later on as the years go by they will receive the instruction and experience and leeway neceessary for them to exercize initiative in an intelligent way. Except we know this isn't necessarily the case. You alluded to as much yourself, Los. But when it gets down to cutting the mustard and crossing that last hundred yards, it's discipline and obedience of the privates that wins battles and wars. Sorry if this simple principle is so profoundly absent in your understanding of things military. You don't sound sorry at all. You sound rather pleased with your (as you would have it) discovery. All I know is that I went in and came out in one piece and so I am able to to discuss this matter with you many years down the road. Without rancor or insult, I might add, so perhaps you can thank Pitts for something afterall. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-12-2000).]

I'm finding it real hard not fall into our insult/counterinsult method of debate again, but I for one am going to refrain. Go back and read my post again and put as much thought and introspection into it you claim to put in everything else you read. I have not meant to insult you ever. If you take (or have taken--which is abundantly clear) insult in something I just wrote then that's on you. What? I write something you don't like and solely for this reason it's by definition an "insult"? I don't think so. I think you'll find that I didnt say one doctrine was better then the other and I said repeatedly that I know very little about other doctrinies, not that I wasnt interested in exploring them. I did not accuse you of saying any such thing, but I think it's clear from any number posts of yours that you feel the methodology taught to you by the army, and practiced by you in the field, is superior to alternative approaches. Now I don't find that to be a problem from where I sit, except as it tends to come across, at times, as if you wished to talk down to others who, in your view, apparently, are not as well qualified to judge these things. (And that may well be the case, though the tone of some of your discussion hardly lends itself as an outstanding mechanic for ongoing discussion.) Even here, right away you are on the defensive. Why? The discussion is about what Kolenda had to say and your attempt to rebut his remarks. How do I personally figure into any of this? I did not write Kolenda's article for him, I did not write yours. My position is is to make heads or tails of the discussion as a reader. I can argue at closer quarters with you, naturally enough, since you are on this forum. Kolenda is not. Should Kolenda appear I'd be happy to discuss his views more closely with him. But here's the thing, and if I'm not mistaken this is what you choose to take umbrage with: I do feel as though Kolenda's view is entirely more open-minded than your own. He at least sees real and potential problems with the American doctrine and suggests that maybe, just maybe mind you, that the Germans or Soviets (why do we call them Soviets, by the way--aren't they just Russians now?) could have something else worthwhile to say on the matter. If you have real interest in other doctrines then why don't you research these? If you have researched other doctrines, why do you not buttress your discussions with references to same in an effort to more clearly point out how what you've used in the field would be better on balance? this was, by the way, the exact approach Kolenda took, however flawed his article might have been in other respects. I dont know how you came away with the comments about my post that you did. I didn't come away with comments, I came with with impressions. If my impressions are errant it would be more to the point if you made an effort to explain to me how this is so. From there we could more easily get on with the topic at hand productively. Instead, you seem content to cite complaints about me of a personal nature. I tried to explain each of my conclusions about the Kolenda articule while at the same time attempting to keep from getting into this mud slinging fest you seem hell bent on. There you go again. Anything of a critical nature I write, as it pertains to you, right away you label this as "mudslinging." Why can't you take this criticism as it is intended, as analysis of thoughts you've bothered to make public? You tell me this: what possible good could come from a discussion of this sort if the participants were not critical? You seem to want to come out fighting. I will offer good advice: instead of statements about the other person it is far better in any discourse to limit yourself to how you feel, what you meant to say, what your motives are. I hope you can see the difference. The reason why this is a good policy is twofold: first, your method tends to excite the other party because it assigns blame, and second, you are not an authority on what motivates someone else or what someone else thinks, but you very well might be an authority on what motivates you and what you think. Thats your perogative brother. I just think that pretty soon you're going to be fighting alone. And finally this. You took the same tone with Pillar, almost the very same words, in a post to that gentleman on another thread. In fact you did it twice to Pillar. My name is not "brother" and I do not feel as though I have a "fight" with you or anyone else on this board. I might add that I feel as though you are at some effort to browbeat or otherwise intimidate anyone who dares to criticize your ideas or argue with your assessments. The other night you came out of the blue and delivered yourself to the rather snide opinion that I should do better for myself if I took my "pill." And this after a long series of posts different people, back and forth and whatnot, as if I was the only person around "raising his voice." Well, it is a matter of public record I never called anyone out of name and did not hurl insults at people in the process of stating my opinion on (I will not mention the "ugly" term here) the subject in question at that time. I noticed, however, that there were one or two others who were not at all shy about hurling invective in my direction after I dismissed myself. Would these individuals, by any chance, be the sort of people you are afraid I might divorce myself from in the future with re to intelligent discussion on this board? If so, all I can say is good riddance. There is but a small percentage of people who frequent the BTS site with whom I would care to discuss much of anything for long. Most of what is written on this board is fluff and garbage. In any event, I cannot control who wishes to discuss what with me, I can only control what I wish to discuss, and with whomever. In the meantime, I have posed, indirectly, some pertinent questions to you. You are not obliged to answer these publicly and I shall take no offense if you choose not to, but they were intelligent questions nevertheless and I would recommend that you at least privately consider the implications of some of what I've written. It isn't as if it's gibberish.

I like your use of browns in with the green hues of grass especially. What I hate to do is give up my precious grids--any chance of talking you into "gridding" your hi-res grass? Meanwhile, I download what you have, too.

The attitudes of officers come right back to army training and doctrine. Years ago I first saw army martinet doctrine in play, the brutish bootcamp technique of screaming at raw recruits as they jump off the trucks on the way in from the processing center. (Does this still happen, by the way, or has sense been driven home?) While other drill sergeants screamed and bullied and yelled for pushups, meanwhile the top kick grinned like some fool as he overlooked all, my instructor, a professional soldier from Louisiana called Pitts, calmly, quietly organized his charges and marched us into the barracks to begin our assimilation into the greater army culture. Pitts' more studied approach continued throughout my bootcamp experience. While other instructors missed no opportunity to act out any manner of histrionics at the expense of the men assigned to their tutorage, Pitts never uttered a harsh word or raised his voice, and yet our platoon scored as high as any other as far as I know. Of course, one does not necessarily have to raise one's voice to "scream," intimidation comes in many forms, and when los refers to proper procedures with regard to written reports and plans, and to stepping out of the box, I shudder, for I have no doubt there's some of that at work, too. It's what we call being a "good soldier," or if you will a "good little German." While that will allow you to get along within the system, it might well cost you your life out in the field. You tell me which is ultimately more important.

In a nutshell, Captain Kolenda argued present US doctrine dictates the plan of attack before infield reconnaissance, hopes its plan is viable if not outright optimal, and uses whatever feedback it receives from its infield reconnaissance effort to develop its pretty-much-set-in-stone plan if it is convenient to that plan, but the plan itself is nevertheless going ahead. And then everyone prays for the best and relies on firepower to carry the day. Present US doctrine, according to Kolenda, also (in practice) argues against any great initiative, in terms of analysis or independent thought, taking place within the context of its infield reconnaissance assets, to the point, given by way of example, of not even noting whether armored assets discovered during reconnaissance were moving or where they might be moving to (in the example cited by Kolenda, this data might well have indicated to planners that the enemy was not postured for assault but was instead obviously arranging itself for an active defense). What I found most disturbing in Kolenda's article was the apparent limitation (one almost wants to use fallacy here) of such an approach in any situation other than a hasty attack, yet the Ft. Hood example did not seem to be of that description. Was it? In any event, the Ft. Hood scenario unfolded with unhappy results for the attacker. Was the gap Kolenda mentioned a trap? I considered that and wondered why Kolenda did not at least mention the possibility. Perhaps he felt that that fell out of the scope of his argument in light of knowledge after the event, but I'd have felt easier if he had dealt with it in passing (perhaps footnoted). But I hear rationalization on your part, too. Your counterargument to Kolenda is riddled with assumption and apology. The method you champion seems to assume if not a beaten then at least a not completely organized enemy position; lack of adequate time for any other more systematic approach is blithely assumed, to the point where you wink at the battalion commander investing time at Brigade while duties press at his own HQ; you acknowledge openly that a plan (with variations possibly in play) has, by doctrine, been committed to prior to this reconnaissance; you furthermore assume that satellite imagery and air reconnaissance assets might somehow provide all the data needed for Battalion to make intelligent decisions in the first place with regard to its plan(s); this in itself assumes (implies) that this data will, for all practical purposes, render infield scout intelligence a sort of after-the-fact luxury, something with which battalion might embellish its otherwise stellar plan with. There's more, but that's the gist of my take. Let me ask you a few questions. Don't you suppose that the German doctrine, if indeed it is German doctrine to use recon pull tactics exclusively--I haven't had time to research what the Germans and Soviets are up to or how they affect their own doctrines--all work off the same 24-hour clock the US army must watch? How do the Germans cope with these demands and restrictions of time and still use RP effectively? Why have the Germans chosen a doctrine which you argue to be of minimal special use at best? For that matter, to what degree are other military doctrines more hybrid by nature than the present US Army approach? You never ask, at least you didn't mention any interest in your argument above--you do not strike me as all that interested to find out, really. I have interest, though, and at least Kolenda has interest to examine other possibilities, to wonder if there might not be a better way. I don't claim to have wisdom. I do have have questions, and my first question, if I were in the army, would be: why do we have just one doctrine with regard to the effective interface of reconnaissance with higher planning? I would also ask why there is (seems to be) such resistance to the notion that any other doctrine might be superior to ours, even if only in special circumstances. Finally, I would question in principle any doctrine subscribed to which in spirit demands of its practioners simple faith. Faith might move mountains, but I would rather place my trust in a dollar's worth of common sense when it comes to my life on a battlefield. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-12-2000).]

Waypoints for Group Moves - Just as it says... Move em all at once and plan their routes all at once. I have always been against this. I still see it as a holdover from RTS game fans who don't want to be bothered with moving individual units, since with RTS games you typically move large #s of units together in mass. CM is just not that kind of game. The way to best model group moves and still stay within the spirit of the system would be to implement discreet formation commands to platoon/company commanders, who would then pass these instructions down to any units then in their command radii. So, you want a platoon of infantry with attached bazooka/MG/mortar assets to move from here over to there in a V formation, you click on the commander, which brings up the order menu, where there's another option called FORMATION. Click on that and a submenu pops up with the various group formations to select from. In this manner the game can then juggle the various factors involved (intrinsic unit speeds, experience, fatigue and battle worthiness) and decide best how to carry out the movement order. A different approach would be needed with regard to road traffic concerns. First of all, no command considerations were built in with vehicles in mind (again, this limitation might well have been influenced by a desire to see the game playable on lower platforms, then again it could just as easily have been a conscious design decision, whatever the rationale--if so, I think the developers went the wrong way), so a method would be needed to assign a string of vehicles to a group, and then to order this group to proceed in line formation along a given roadway. But this implies other command restrictions. What if we found tanks in the rear of trucks and wished to get our tanks to the fore of the column and then proceed as described above? I presume this would need to be juggled manually by the user prior to the issuance of his vehicular FORMATION order--it would be nice, though, to see some reasonable order of intelligence with re to traffic control employed by the AI. No doubt it would slow down affairs gamewise, but then are we in any particular hurry? Is the community which has interest in CMBO such that it would balk at the "inconvenience" of having to wait for the system to calculate more sophisticated movement routines? Well, I have seen it before but I don't know. That's an item for BTS to ponder. My vote is always for greater realism, my advice is to always design up, not down. Another point: vehicles do not always want to move on roadways or in column. What to do with a platoon of tanks in open ground to cross? What to do with halftracks carrying infantry? There are many circumstances to examine. Something should be done. At present we lack good control at times since this aspect of play was wholly passed over, perhaps for reasons having to do with a desire to ensure the game would fit in below some arbitrary hardware threshold, perhaps due to time restrictions in terms of overall development of the project. It doesn't really matter for purposes of this discussion: some users are left with game play they feel to be unsatisfactory insofar as it introduces unrealistic restraints into a simulation which otherwise wants to behave more realistically; these users feel frustration with regard to intelligent manipulation of assets given system restraints. Maybe BTS will say this requested change simply can't be done, and that might be the case. There is nothing surprising or gamey about the request, however, as it would buck up the quality of play. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-12-2000).]

As long as we have this thread to ourselves at the moment . . . do you have Marco's Sherman mods? If so, have you had a problem with the program getting the program to recognize the changes? I ask because I went into "A Walk in Paris" this afternoon just see what the difference of ambience would be with Magua's buildings/pavement--looks good, by the way--and while I was in there decided to play a few turns. The Allied force is French but the tanks are marked American. SO I ran the Free French batch file but the tank markings stayed the same. I went into my BMP directory and sure enough the batch file had successfully swapped out the .BMP files as intended. All I can think of is that the scenario designer mistakenly gave the Free French American tanks. Any ideas?

Yeah-yeah. So why the Basque handle?

From what I've read so far it isn't bad but awful stodgy in style. Of interest, surely, but like I said dry and heavy going in the main. I doubt if many here would make heads or tails of it judging by what I've read of this forum to date. By the way, I had a ball over at that other site you referenced the other night in your email to me--kind of like reading a digest of my own thoughts from the past 40 years or so, but then I was all Randed out by grade school. This thread ought to have excited interest. I presume it has not for the reason that 1) no one has bothered to follow the provided links, 2) did so but couldn't make heads or tails of that material either, 3) could make heads and tails of the material but found it so contrary to their own preferred notions that they have no intention at all of going public with this new blow to their gross denial or 4) some demented combination of all of the above. All I know for sure is the most popular type of posting to this greater forum is of the "I love Hetzers!" variety, that and an obnoxious proclivity for flames whenever one's precious opinions are challenged. I like this game a lot, it's quality stuff and the developers should be praised to high heavens, but I am disappointed with the overall caliber (call it the character) of people who frequent this site and actually play CMBO--I speak to the collective here, not every individual, many of whom I have not corresponded with. In the past my experience has been that wargamers conduct themselves in a more mature manner than, say, sports simulationists, but that has not been the case here. This is a knowledgeable crowd in some respects--that is to say, there are some people around here who have knowledge, though plenty who apparently know nothing useful at all, too--but again, what good is that when all it leads to are hurt feelings due to lack of overall intellectual balance? The answer to that one: very little. So what have you done today? And why the Basque handle? [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-11-2000).]

Well, that's fair and I'll abide. Doubt if others will, though. FM 100-5 (if I have that right) is just too long to read tonight. I'm bushed. Tomorrow for sure, though. The first part reads a bit like Clausewitz, not a good sign--looks like heavy going.

Good read, the article by Capt. Kolenda, that is. It both made me shudder a bit at the doctrinal approach our Army seems to have at this date with re to reconnaissance and the implied effect this would likely have at some juncture when live rounds fly versus a well-trained and modern-equipped enemy, as well as offer me at least a bit of inisght into why ScoutPL argues his biases vis-a-vis scouting in the manner he does, both in terms of his battle experience and how this element fits (or does not fit) into the CMBO model. My ongoing tests continue to depress me with their regular drumbeat of more dead sharpshooters with not much to show for it, which essentially equates to: this simulation simply has no realistic way to model WWII tactical reconnaissance. Hardly feedback to cheer. Well, I'm off to read those other two links.

My card's a Diamond Viper V770 TNT2 w/32MB. I just downloaded the latest driver from NVIDIA to see if that will help matters. Can't hurt.

Yes, I'm getting a bit groggy here as 0400 approaches on the wrong coast finally, too. Time to take Beamer across the street to the park, then to bed. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

Pillar, you could do that but it really opens up another aspect of battlefield tactics. CM isnt really setup to model stealthy reconnaissance, which you would need to get a good idea of how to proceed with your attack prior to launching it. That's been my result thus far. It was a bad sign how quickly my sharpshooters bought it, and rateed Elite/Crack/Crack/Veteran at that. Imagine how fast split squads would go down. Something needs to be done about this. Also it takes me forever jsut to get through a 20 turn PBEM. 200 turns could last for months. In a way this is a nonissue, depending on one's desires. What's the difference between playing many smaller scenarios for two motnhs or one larger scenario for the same period which unfolds slowly and brings with this effort all the benefits which continuity and "family togetherness" can bestow? I understand that a gamer might not wish to commit to a larger game, but I can also understand why another would. Besides, we're not talking two months here by your reckoning, rather more like six. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

Pillar, as it stands my scenario could theoretically stretch out to 600 turns, and the map is about as large as I dare given my computer--a mere PIII 450. (By the way, I've 256K RAM and it seems to make no difference--does anyone know if this game can utilize anything over 64K or thereabouts?) Anytime you're up for playtesting it give me a holler. I'm trying to wheedle Gene into this chore and there's always room for more. I want to be sure it's good to game from both sides, plus I could use feedback from others re the OOB, map, etc.

What do you mean "now"?

You cite it as being an exceptional example. However, you didn't answer my question. Would you defend someone's right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater? No, I would not condone such behavior. But this brings us to the precipice of "prior constraint." At which juncture I draw the line. That is, while I would penalize a person who committed such an outrage I would not feel justified to encarcerate someone before the fact on the assumption that he might. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]