Now if you could only get the wonks in the five (5) sided puzzle palace aka pentagon to listen to you!! How about a correspondence course! Like in the old days when you could go to AWS (amphibious warfare school) via Marine Barracks 8th and I!! It does seem so that precise, clear language untroubled by wonk speak gets the point across more vibrantly. Like a “model” drawn in the dirt with rocks and sticks to bring the 5 paragraph operations order into sharp focus for every rifleman in the rifle platoon....
Aug 16, 2023·edited Aug 16, 2023Liked by Bruce Ivar Gudmundsson
Victorian military writers did not yet possess the contemporary cornucopia of neologisms and acronyms, which themselves decay into nonsensical syllables and hence become simply new, opaque and ugly words. Their descriptions sometimes take on a degree of abstraction, such as a battalion that throws itself athwart the advancing enemy's path. But usually there are vignettes where blood and dirt and weapons and horses and smoke and other tangible things are described in ordinary language, and a vivid image is left with the reader. Somehow the idea has arisen that this sort of thing is less than professional. So much the worse for the professionals who read contemporary military writing and have to try to learn from it.
Especially the acronym part, a common failing of mine (much to the irritation to my fellow enthusiasts).
Speaking of organisational graphics
I would like to recommend BattleOrder's work to everyone here.
Their very early graphics are what got me into the history and analysis of military unit structures, and the quality has gone from strength to strength.
While you have enumerated several common errors that make military writing, specifically, so disagreeable, your forgot one essential corrective (of course, applicable to every written word ...)
Write, pause, then EDIT, then take a break, then EDIT again, and after you are happy with your result, EDIT one more time, for good measure. That should do it.
Now if you could only get the wonks in the five (5) sided puzzle palace aka pentagon to listen to you!! How about a correspondence course! Like in the old days when you could go to AWS (amphibious warfare school) via Marine Barracks 8th and I!! It does seem so that precise, clear language untroubled by wonk speak gets the point across more vibrantly. Like a “model” drawn in the dirt with rocks and sticks to bring the 5 paragraph operations order into sharp focus for every rifleman in the rifle platoon....
Victorian military writers did not yet possess the contemporary cornucopia of neologisms and acronyms, which themselves decay into nonsensical syllables and hence become simply new, opaque and ugly words. Their descriptions sometimes take on a degree of abstraction, such as a battalion that throws itself athwart the advancing enemy's path. But usually there are vignettes where blood and dirt and weapons and horses and smoke and other tangible things are described in ordinary language, and a vivid image is left with the reader. Somehow the idea has arisen that this sort of thing is less than professional. So much the worse for the professionals who read contemporary military writing and have to try to learn from it.
I think you’ve bowdlerized the F in FUBAR.
Indeed I have! The Tactical Notebook is a family-friendly blog!
Great information
Especially the acronym part, a common failing of mine (much to the irritation to my fellow enthusiasts).
Speaking of organisational graphics
I would like to recommend BattleOrder's work to everyone here.
Their very early graphics are what got me into the history and analysis of military unit structures, and the quality has gone from strength to strength.
https://www.battleorder.org/graphics
While you have enumerated several common errors that make military writing, specifically, so disagreeable, your forgot one essential corrective (of course, applicable to every written word ...)
Write, pause, then EDIT, then take a break, then EDIT again, and after you are happy with your result, EDIT one more time, for good measure. That should do it.