Forums

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm suspicious, because I think the history of training is pretty history-lite. My father was at Command and General Staff in the 70s, and the training was very good. And reading my grandfather's letters during WWII, his training went well beyond the "mailing list" they were talking about. He had training in tactical maneuvers over different terrain, and could write technically about deploying forces in complex maneuvers.

Also, stuff like suggesting the junior officers are internet saavy while the seniors aren't is kind of silly. Most of the people I know are mid-level officers, colonels and majors, and they are as internet saavy as the people who post here. I do think the army today is ready to give officers in the field some higher levels of indepence that the Pentagon might like, but I think that's because the civies in the Pentagon are idiots, and the senior officers have more faith in their officers in the field than in Wolfies' boys. And because they do understand that the training tactics they are using are being battle-tested for the first time in many cases.

Yes, but are they savvy?