Thanks for the interesting thoughts, I especially agreed with Randy Shetter. Employment contexts are evolving and near-peer conflict is more likely. This requires a focus on conventional war-fighting capabilities, like having enough infantry with the artillery and armour they need to win.
It is amazing that so many naval personnel from the past several generations, as well as some from the current one, see the fallacy of FD while our current leaders do not. Could it be that not many have experienced significant combat and just don't realize / appreciate the value combind arms to the ground commander. Moreover, do they not understand the capabilities of our peer enemies and their known ability to locate,isolate, and overwhelm small unites. War gaming, which apparently was not used, certainly would have provided some significant insights.
Thanks for the interesting thoughts, I especially agreed with Randy Shetter. Employment contexts are evolving and near-peer conflict is more likely. This requires a focus on conventional war-fighting capabilities, like having enough infantry with the artillery and armour they need to win.
It is amazing that so many naval personnel from the past several generations, as well as some from the current one, see the fallacy of FD while our current leaders do not. Could it be that not many have experienced significant combat and just don't realize / appreciate the value combind arms to the ground commander. Moreover, do they not understand the capabilities of our peer enemies and their known ability to locate,isolate, and overwhelm small unites. War gaming, which apparently was not used, certainly would have provided some significant insights.
That is my assessment; see my comment near the bottom of today's list. S/F
I believe many know but are unwilling to speak out. To get along, they go along.
Someone with integrity and authority needs to stand up, for the good of the Corps!