06-26-2013, 03:25 PM
JA - you are correct and I agree with everything you are saying. The combined arms team combined with maneuver warfare is what most of your military planners will point to as the method to overcome that remaining 20%. The penalties are stiff when you are talking solely airborne munitions...but you have the ability for a creative commander (I know LRRPF52 is going to jump all over this) to use those indirect fire weapons at the company level - 60mm mortars and M203s - as well as the medium machine guns, to fill in probably 17 of that remaining 20%. Reach up to the Bn level and include those snipers, .50M2, Mk19s and 81mm mortars, you cover it up to about that last 1%. Is it perfect? No, it's not, and to complicate things, the enemy always gets a vote.
This is where training comes into the game. The individual soldier must be trained to the full capabilities (as well as understanding the limitations) of his tools - weapons, optics, communications devices, etc. The leader must be trained to understand not only the capabilities and limitations of his gear, but also the potential gear of the enemy and the capabilities and limitations of those young men who he is leading. He also must be familiar with what other assets may be made available to him and how to integrate those assets into his training/planning/fighting. This is the area where we in the military fail most of the time. We don’t train those small unit leaders to their fullest potential. We train to the average guy, not the superstar. This means your superstars either go SpecOps or opt out of the military altogether. Not always, but more often than anyone would like to admit.
It is a shame that we don't always have the best weapons in the world, or the best vehicles, or the best of everything for those kids who volunteer to extend politics by other means. The problem you run into always is $$$$. As the fighting in Afghanistan winds down, I see us entering a period not unlike what you saw in the mid-70s...no $$$ = no training, no new gear, and no incentives to retain the best and brightest to be our future NCOs and commanders.
How will this turn out? I would like to say there will still be those young men and women who gut it out for whatever reason, and are eventually in a billet where they can make reasoned decisions concerning procurement to fight the next war, but you never know. Bottom line, it is the people who have won the battles of the past and will win the wars of the future. THAT is the asset we must hone in on.
This is where training comes into the game. The individual soldier must be trained to the full capabilities (as well as understanding the limitations) of his tools - weapons, optics, communications devices, etc. The leader must be trained to understand not only the capabilities and limitations of his gear, but also the potential gear of the enemy and the capabilities and limitations of those young men who he is leading. He also must be familiar with what other assets may be made available to him and how to integrate those assets into his training/planning/fighting. This is the area where we in the military fail most of the time. We don’t train those small unit leaders to their fullest potential. We train to the average guy, not the superstar. This means your superstars either go SpecOps or opt out of the military altogether. Not always, but more often than anyone would like to admit.
It is a shame that we don't always have the best weapons in the world, or the best vehicles, or the best of everything for those kids who volunteer to extend politics by other means. The problem you run into always is $$$$. As the fighting in Afghanistan winds down, I see us entering a period not unlike what you saw in the mid-70s...no $$$ = no training, no new gear, and no incentives to retain the best and brightest to be our future NCOs and commanders.
How will this turn out? I would like to say there will still be those young men and women who gut it out for whatever reason, and are eventually in a billet where they can make reasoned decisions concerning procurement to fight the next war, but you never know. Bottom line, it is the people who have won the battles of the past and will win the wars of the future. THAT is the asset we must hone in on.