Never been in uniform, so I only know about these things from books and personal anecdote. But it seems odd that doctrine would not be structured with a modicum of flexibility, at least to the extent of taking the enemy's responsive capabilities into consideration. Siting water cooled, crew-served machine guns on a forward slope against, say, an enemy equipped with assegais and knobkerries is one thing, siting the descendants of such machine guns in full view of an enemy with modern artillery seems crazy to the non-specialist. Are not all such decisions regarding the employment of weapons necessarily situation-specific -- and more particularly, enemy-specific? How can they not be?
History Trumps Doctrine
Another instance of map not territory.
Never been in uniform, so I only know about these things from books and personal anecdote. But it seems odd that doctrine would not be structured with a modicum of flexibility, at least to the extent of taking the enemy's responsive capabilities into consideration. Siting water cooled, crew-served machine guns on a forward slope against, say, an enemy equipped with assegais and knobkerries is one thing, siting the descendants of such machine guns in full view of an enemy with modern artillery seems crazy to the non-specialist. Are not all such decisions regarding the employment of weapons necessarily situation-specific -- and more particularly, enemy-specific? How can they not be?
If you liked this article, you may be interested in a much longer piece on the subject published by Pacem magazine some years ago.
This link will take you to a copy of the piece stored on the website of Pacem magazine.
https://tinyurl.com/396ruaxh
This link will take you to the copy of the same article on file at the Military Learning Library
https://tinyurl.com/4zz2xntp