Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
An argument for the pace and not the cubit
#17
James,

A completely separate answer as it's deserved...

Actually I think you'll find that all military tactical formation training is 'thought of' from a 100% perspective - particularly (in our context) when it comes to deploying and moving on the battlefield, for that represents the 'maximum'.

When numbers are lower, for whatever reason, then you just 'cope'! Smile And adapt and overcome, and all those other good phrases.

In addition I'm afraid that I cannot agree with the operational or strategic dominance element, for, especially in logistic terms, you have to have the tactical base.

If indeed you were to try and come up with an entire military doctrine from scratch, then you have to do a classic 'V' approach - drill from the initial military need down to the Tactical battlefield and then back up again. It's the tactics and thus the formations you are going to use that drive the answer - once you know who your enemy is.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
An argument for the pace and not the cubit - by antiochus - 12-11-2013, 11:08 AM
An argument for the pace and not the cubit - by antiochus - 12-13-2013, 03:17 AM
An argument for the pace and not the cubit - by Mark Hygate - 12-14-2013, 06:21 PM
An argument for the pace and not the cubit - by antiochus - 12-15-2013, 07:27 AM
An argument for the pace and not the cubit - by antiochus - 12-17-2013, 09:58 AM
An argument for the pace and not the cubit - by antiochus - 12-20-2013, 05:54 AM
An argument for the pace and not the cubit - by antiochus - 12-22-2013, 01:50 AM
An argument for the pace and not the cubit - by antiochus - 12-22-2013, 04:15 AM
An argument for the pace and not the cubit - by antiochus - 01-03-2014, 01:32 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  "in pace recepti"? Thiudareiks Flavius 5 3,225 07-10-2001, 02:08 PM
Last Post:

Forum Jump: