As is often the case, a particularly effective weapon is only part of the solution. The combination of weapons acting in an orchestrated fashion give an organization the synergy required to make the total exceed the sum of the parts. The proverbial “game changer” is often not a game changer at all. The very heart of the combined arms concept rests on orchestrating multiple superb systems into an outstanding team. The efficiency experts will championed a new technology without a full grasp of the parts required to support it. While I dislike sports analogies they are at times helpful. The great quarterback is not very effective without an offensive line, running backs and receivers.
The new EAOB concept rests on a silver bullet concept of the hidden truck with a missile to take out the ever growing Chinese Navy with little thought to the full spectrum complex equipment and seamless interactions required. While the German V-1 and V-2 Missiles were spectacular their impact on the outcome of the war were insignificant. For the Germans the juice was not worth the squeeze.
Thomas Kuhn wrote in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that there could in actuality be more than one revolution ongoing simultaneously and that they may or may not all come to fruition at the same time. Of course, he also wrote that his conception of the scientific revolution would not apply beyond the hard sciences but in this I believe he erred because what is actually under discussion here is not the science but the ins and outs of how the human mind processes what the science is saying. And in support of Douglas C Rape, I would note that there are numerous historical examples in which the technology of a new weapon or a new concept would come first and only afterwards would one or more someones look at it and say, "Hey, I know what we can do with this new thing" and would begin to develop tactics and operations applications and concepts that bring the change to full fruition.
As is often the case, a particularly effective weapon is only part of the solution. The combination of weapons acting in an orchestrated fashion give an organization the synergy required to make the total exceed the sum of the parts. The proverbial “game changer” is often not a game changer at all. The very heart of the combined arms concept rests on orchestrating multiple superb systems into an outstanding team. The efficiency experts will championed a new technology without a full grasp of the parts required to support it. While I dislike sports analogies they are at times helpful. The great quarterback is not very effective without an offensive line, running backs and receivers.
The new EAOB concept rests on a silver bullet concept of the hidden truck with a missile to take out the ever growing Chinese Navy with little thought to the full spectrum complex equipment and seamless interactions required. While the German V-1 and V-2 Missiles were spectacular their impact on the outcome of the war were insignificant. For the Germans the juice was not worth the squeeze.
Thomas Kuhn wrote in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that there could in actuality be more than one revolution ongoing simultaneously and that they may or may not all come to fruition at the same time. Of course, he also wrote that his conception of the scientific revolution would not apply beyond the hard sciences but in this I believe he erred because what is actually under discussion here is not the science but the ins and outs of how the human mind processes what the science is saying. And in support of Douglas C Rape, I would note that there are numerous historical examples in which the technology of a new weapon or a new concept would come first and only afterwards would one or more someones look at it and say, "Hey, I know what we can do with this new thing" and would begin to develop tactics and operations applications and concepts that bring the change to full fruition.
soixantequinzeboutisme
This is positively plagiarism of German’s best feature.