Split: What constitutes expertise on military matters?

For all your discussion of canon policies, evidentiary standards, and other meta-debate issues.

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
Knife1138
Redshirt
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:06 am
Location: Hunckered in my bunker

Post by Knife1138 » Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:59 pm

SailorSaturn13 wrote:
So, in your opinion, is it the training or the combat experience that is needed to effectively be able to participate in a Vs. Debate?
Neither. To participate in a debate you need knowledge. This can be part of a training but can just as easy come from a book. It's fighting practically where training is vital. There you learn how to use this knowledge in practice, under fire or by marsh, or in other hostile situations. THIS is what training mostly consists of - learning to do things fast and correct. This is not needed in computer debate.
Perhaps, how ever when it comes to theory and practical application, I'll take the prac ap in a situation. A text book situation and it's text book answer doesn't necessarily take into account various other bits of information on the subject. The sheer amount of FM's and FMF's available for just infantry offensive ops is staggering, without adding in related subjects like mout, comm., firemissions/indirect fire, etc...

When you're talking book knowledge, if someone wanted the max effective range of the M60, anyone can pull that tid-bit from a book. However anyone trying to pull the text book answer to the proper employment of the M60 on a defensive perimeter with various terrain and unknown dead zones with various other assets in the company; you are not going to have an answer in the book, rather the answer would be a combination of various 'books' and some experience with the practical application of all that knowledge.

coyote
Redshirt
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:25 am
Location: 321st EN BN.

Post by coyote » Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:53 pm

Plus I cannot recall ever encountering a textbook situation, certainly not in Iraq, and not in training-- even when 'textbook' scenarios were the goal. Much of that invaluable experience is developed when you have to learn flexibility when you don't have the resources available, or when things don't happen the way they should. Breakdowns, shortages, lack of proper equipment for a situation... the possibilites are endless, and so are the potential responses.

The terrain will vary, the objective, the environment (physical & psychological) and snap judgement calls have to be made that you really only get comfortable with after experiencing all the random variables the field will throw at you. Not to mention the confusing plethora of changing circumstances and ROEs that come at you from "behind" as your superiors try to put the day's spin on the mission!

User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:13 pm

coyote wrote:Plus I cannot recall ever encountering a textbook situation, certainly not in Iraq, and not in training-- even when 'textbook' scenarios were the goal. Much of that invaluable experience is developed when you have to learn flexibility when you don't have the resources available, or when things don't happen the way they should. Breakdowns, shortages, lack of proper equipment for a situation... the possibilites are endless, and so are the potential responses.

The terrain will vary, the objective, the environment (physical & psychological) and snap judgement calls have to be made that you really only get comfortable with after experiencing all the random variables the field will throw at you. Not to mention the confusing plethora of changing circumstances and ROEs that come at you from "behind" as your superiors try to put the day's spin on the mission!
I'm not sure of who you were responding too. But this is exactly what traning is for, like i've said, to get you comfortable with what happens, to make you better able to make judgement calls, to make you better handle things that in real life has to be decided on in a split second. To harden you 'psychologically'.

But in vs. debating there are no time-constraints, you can look at a split-second incident over and over and over. Judgment calls can be analysed as many times as you like and there is zero mental strain on you etc.

Also, I'm getting the feeling that some of you are intentionally trying to make this as difficult sounding as possible. Like a scientist a little too proud for his own good throwing out scientific terms and other complexities when talking to a 'simpler' person, even though he could just as easily say something everybody understands and can relate to. Operating in a squad isn't rocket science, it's a combination of theory (where i served there was almost no theory though) and your own common sense. Certainly some stuff like weapon emplacement might require one to know at least the basics of said weapon and its usage, but the other stuff is just pure logic. You don't go dig a hole and place the MG at the bottom of it, it's not something that 'civilians' are incapable of figuring out without training.

Let's put this into an example.

Say we see a squad of any given Sci-Fi show advance through a forrested area. They know there are enemies nearby and that they are supposed to defeat them. Now then, what makes a person who's had either basic combat training or NCO training better equipped to analyse this when compared to a war-crazy civilian who's taken it upon himself to learn whatever he can about the topic?

Knife1138
Redshirt
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:06 am
Location: Hunckered in my bunker

Post by Knife1138 » Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:05 pm

l33telboi wrote: Also, I'm getting the feeling that some of you are intentionally trying to make this as difficult sounding as possible. Like a scientist a little too proud for his own good throwing out scientific terms and other complexities when talking to a 'simpler' person, even though he could just as easily say something everybody understands and can relate to. Operating in a squad isn't rocket science, it's a combination of theory (where i served there was almost no theory though) and your own common sense.
You admit little to no therory taught to you and yet you think those that do are over complicating it?
Certainly some stuff like weapon emplacement might require one to know at least the basics of said weapon and its usage, but the other stuff is just pure logic. You don't go dig a hole and place the MG at the bottom of it, it's not something that 'civilians' are incapable of figuring out without training.
Infantry tactics and combined arms have long ago stopped being 'knuckledragger' work. Training gun crews on enfilade fire or various other ways to engage a target depending on various sets of factors to best utilized the weapons beaten zone is a little more than 'aim the gun at them'. Let alone leading those gun crews and squads deciding which weapon to utilized to cover what avenue of approach and assigning FPL's and PDF's, let alone covering dead space.

Like I said, you admit you had little in the way of 'therory' and yet thin we over complicate infantry tactics and modern doctrine. If it were really that easy, Iraqi insurgents would own American troops in stand up fights with their supposed numerical superiority.
Let's put this into an example.

Say we see a squad of any given Sci-Fi show advance through a forrested area. They know there are enemies nearby and that they are supposed to defeat them. Now then, what makes a person who's had either basic combat training or NCO training better equipped to analyse this when compared to a war-crazy civilian who's taken it upon himself to learn whatever he can about the topic?
First off, a trained NCO would have had prep before going on a patrol, his squad would have had their immeadiate action drills rehearsed before step off. Also a trained NCO would have had their orders given and then relayed to the his/her troops, including fire support and comm. , let alone friendly troops in the area and their freqs.

In his orders, and if missing he/she'd make a point to find the info from the S2 shoppe, would have a SALUTE report of some sort in it, so he/she could leave conteplating various tactics to employ on contact knowing, or presuming, enemy strengths and weakness's.

Once on scene, and per prep, he/she'd have various check points and presumably a ORP by where they thought the enemy was, for final prep. Once in the forest, and presumably after a terrain change, the trained NCO would redeploy his troops into other fireteam formations inside the squad formation.

All that would depend entirerly on the actual terrain and possilbe locations of the enemy. In a heavily wooded area you'd want to run flankers for security, weather they were a whole team or if you split two man unit off for em, is up to the actual terrain inside the woods and possible enemy locations.

I wouldn't recomend a 'ranger file', maybe a loose squad V spread out a bit, keeping the teams on the side of 'possible enemy contact' and/or possible amush points or avenue's of approach in a echelon formation to maximize firepower on that particular side. Keep the point in a wedge though, unless the foilage is too thick, then I might actually run two colums, perhaps a twenty to fifty meters apart.

As for the boom part, as always that all depends on information you didn't provide and information I'd have in that situation.

User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:11 am

Knife1138 wrote:You admit little to no therory taught to you and yet you think those that do are over complicating it?
Yes. Because while i didn't get a lot of theory before we were already out in the field, i did get a lot of practical traning to compensate. The theory at that point was more like a kick to the head and a mild rant on what exactly i did wrong. And i do not see why someone interested in the topic wouldn't be able to get enough from theory to be able to participate in vs. debating.
Infantry tactics and combined arms have long ago stopped being 'knuckledragger' work. Training gun crews on enfilade fire or various other ways to engage a target depending on various sets of factors to best utilized the weapons beaten zone is a little more than 'aim the gun at them'.
No offense, but enfilade fire isn't exacty an example of something that you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out. This is exactly what i meant with common sense. Anyone even mildly interested in the topic would realize the benefits of this.
Let alone leading those gun crews and squads deciding which weapon to utilized to cover what avenue of approach and assigning FPL's and PDF's, let alone covering dead space.
Again, how is this impossible to learn in real-life? Heck, this is even something that's much easier in vs. debating then in real life, we have a better view of things and better understanding of what exactly is going on, not to mention the ability to re-watch sequences where these kinds of things would come in handy.
Like I said, you admit you had little in the way of 'therory' and yet thin we over complicate infantry tactics and modern doctrine. If it were really that easy, Iraqi insurgents would own American troops in stand up fights with their supposed numerical superiority.
Problem is that Iraqi troops don't really have access to the information people in our part of the world have. Where are they going to look up squad tactics? Heck, all they have *is* practical application and they fail miserably at it. Not to mention minor details, like American troops having far superior equipment and such.

Comparing self-learned western civlians to Iraqi insurgents is about the last thing you ought to do.
First off, a trained NCO would have had prep before going on a patrol, his squad would have had their immeadiate action drills rehearsed before step off. Also a trained NCO would have had their orders given and then relayed to the his/her troops, including fire support and comm. , let alone friendly troops in the area and their freqs.

In his orders, and if missing he/she'd make a point to find the info from the S2 shoppe, would have a SALUTE report of some sort in it, so he/she could leave conteplating various tactics to employ on contact knowing, or presuming, enemy strengths and weakness's.

Once on scene, and per prep, he/she'd have various check points and presumably a ORP by where they thought the enemy was, for final prep. Once in the forest, and presumably after a terrain change, the trained NCO would redeploy his troops into other fireteam formations inside the squad formation.

All that would depend entirerly on the actual terrain and possilbe locations of the enemy. In a heavily wooded area you'd want to run flankers for security, weather they were a whole team or if you split two man unit off for em, is up to the actual terrain inside the woods and possible enemy locations.

I wouldn't recomend a 'ranger file', maybe a loose squad V spread out a bit, keeping the teams on the side of 'possible enemy contact' and/or possible amush points or avenue's of approach in a echelon formation to maximize firepower on that particular side. Keep the point in a wedge though, unless the foilage is too thick, then I might actually run two colums, perhaps a twenty to fifty meters apart.

As for the boom part, as always that all depends on information you didn't provide and information I'd have in that situation.
It's always nice to see what you would have done in the situation. But that wasn't quite what i was asking. What i was asking was what parts of this would you say is impossible for a self-learned civilian to figure out without any actual military training, and why?

Knife1138
Redshirt
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:06 am
Location: Hunckered in my bunker

Post by Knife1138 » Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:26 am

Yes. Because while i didn't get a lot of theory before we were already out in the field, i did get a lot of practical traning to compensate. The theory at that point was more like a kick to the head and a mild rant on what exactly i did wrong. And i do not see why someone interested in the topic wouldn't be able to get enough from theory to be able to participate in vs. debating.
Hmmm, I'm going to go out of order and pair this with something you said later on in your response;
Problem is that Iraqi troops don't really have access to the information people in our part of the world have. Where are they going to look up squad tactics? Heck, all they have *is* practical application and they fail miserably at it. Not to mention minor details, like American troops having far superior equipment and such.

Comparing self-learned western civlians to Iraqi insurgents is about the last thing you ought to do.
My quip originally was that you thought that I was over complicating infantry tactics with my experience in both the theory and practical application there of. You admit that you have no experinece in the actual therory (as since you said you were low rank and did nothing but the practical) I'm assuming you just did entry level basics in the prac-ap too.

You pretty much state the same for the Iraqi's, in that they have all the prac-ap time in the world yet no theory. This is the underlying problem and why (if you flip the thing on it's head and go all therory and no prac-ap) those with experience are saying you're missing something with just one side of the equation.
No offense, but enfilade fire isn't exacty an example of something that you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out. This is exactly what i meant with common sense. Anyone even mildly interested in the topic would realize the benefits of this.
Granted, you'll usually have the handy dandy charts; however it is actually rocket science to figure out trajectories and ordinates along with some basic geometry as that beaten zone legnthens at range and to align it with the long axis of a target.
Again, how is this impossible to learn in real-life? Heck, this is even something that's much easier in vs. debating then in real life, we have a better view of things and better understanding of what exactly is going on, not to mention the ability to re-watch sequences where these kinds of things would come in handy.
Yes, picking apart a plan or a series of moves is easy on an internet debate, but you're missing the underlying point here. Let me use another one of your threads to illistrate; the 'deadman switch' thread. There is a lot of contention in that thread over the point that a failsafe/deadman's switch to a (to put it lightly) dangerous system that could destroy the ship.

A simple failsafe is being deridded because in a combat situation if the deadman's switch fails, they loose that system. Those with a bit of perspective are saying that a failsafe on a volital system is a good thing, based off a statement by someone with both theroritical and practical application.

On the military front, yes a civilian with a TM can sit there and watch a sci-fi battle and hit rewind and pause and slowly pick out the stuff he just read about. How ever they might loose sight of the forrest through the trees where someone with experience in both area's can look at it and deduce either reasons for the flaws seen by the civvie or actually see the benifits of what the civvie thought was flaws.
It's always nice to see what you would have done in the situation. But that wasn't quite what i was asking. What i was asking was what parts of this would you say is impossible for a self-learned civilian to figure out without any actual military training, and why?
It's not impossible, however the trap is that a guy with a bunch of FM's may think he has the training of an actual person with rea life training and experience and without actually being trained, meaning no one to tell you you're wrong while you're reading/implementing you're knowledge, a self trained person does not have a realistic idea of his/her actual skill.

User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:29 am

Knife1138 wrote:Hmmm, I'm going to go out of order and pair this with something you said later on in your response;
Problem is that Iraqi insurgents for the most part don't have professionals, with theory to back them up, kicking them in the head when something goes wrong. And though I only had a little theory, I did still have theory.
My quip originally was that you thought that I was over complicating infantry tactics with my experience in both the theory and practical application there of.
No, I’ve said that you try to make stuff sound more difficult then it is. Not that it is less difficult then you say.
You admit that you have no experinece in the actual therory
No, I’ve said I have little experience of theory and that most of it came in the form of "no, you're doing it wrong, you're supposed to be doing it this way." while in the field.
Granted, you'll usually have the handy dandy charts; however it is actually rocket science to figure out trajectories and ordinates along with some basic geometry as that beaten zone legnthens at range and to align it with the long axis of a target.
And this becomes relevant in vs. debating at what point? If anything, if setting up a MG becomes difficult to the point where you have to start calcing things (and I have to say, that not once during our training did we have to calc anything involving the MG. Though of course, I wasn't the designated MG:er in my fireteam either.) then a person sitting at home is better off, having a better view of the field as well as ton of more time.
Yes, picking apart a plan or a series of moves is easy on an internet debate, but you're missing the underlying point here. Let me use another one of your threads to illistrate; the 'deadman switch' thread.
Uuh. I haven't even posted in that thread. I know you consider me a "Dorkstar Cockgoblin" as you so eloquently put it and that you're under the impression that I’ve been dealing with them from beginning, but just because such a thread exists on SFJ doesn't mean it's 'mine'. Heck, if you'd be really smart, you would have noticed that my join dates on all sites are far to recent to ever have been involved in any debate with these guys in the past and if you were even smarter, you'd see that I’ve yet been in any open communion, at all, with Darkstar on this site.

Sorry, got a little derailed there. Do continue, but make your posts about stuff I’ve actually had anything to do with if you're going to compare stuff with each other.
On the military front, yes a civilian with a TM can sit there and watch a sci-fi battle and hit rewind and pause and slowly pick out the stuff he just read about.
Which is exactly my point. No more, no less.
How ever they might loose sight of the forrest through the trees where someone with experience in both area's can look at it and deduce either reasons for the flaws seen by the civvie or actually see the benifits of what the civvie thought was flaws.
Could you give a concrete example?
It's not impossible, however the trap is that a guy with a bunch of FM's may think he has the training of an actual person with rea life training and experience and without actually being trained, meaning no one to tell you you're wrong while you're reading/implementing you're knowledge, a self trained person does not have a realistic idea of his/her actual skill.
Dude. If someone in a vs. debate makes stuff up, people are going to point it out to him. And it is true that some people get carried away and think they are know-it-alls, but this is a character flaw and as such even military people are subject to it.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:49 am

Just a small note...
Knife1148 wrote:Granted, you'll usually have the handy dandy charts; however it is actually rocket science to figure out trajectories and ordinates along with some basic geometry as that beaten zone legnthens at range and to align it with the long axis of a target.
When you start looking at the people who study rocket science and talking to them (and there aren't all that many of them), not many are interested in going into the infantry.

Rocket science in general is just a little bit more complicated - once you set up all your geometries, you usually have a batch of differential equations to solve. I know more about that than setting up a machine gun, but I have trouble believing that setting up a machine gun is in practice as complicated as even the simpler rocket problems.

Knife1138
Redshirt
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:06 am
Location: Hunckered in my bunker

Post by Knife1138 » Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:17 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:Just a small note...
Knife1148 wrote:Granted, you'll usually have the handy dandy charts; however it is actually rocket science to figure out trajectories and ordinates along with some basic geometry as that beaten zone legnthens at range and to align it with the long axis of a target.
When you start looking at the people who study rocket science and talking to them (and there aren't all that many of them), not many are interested in going into the infantry.

Rocket science in general is just a little bit more complicated - once you set up all your geometries, you usually have a batch of differential equations to solve. I know more about that than setting up a machine gun, but I have trouble believing that setting up a machine gun is in practice as complicated as even the simpler rocket problems.
Lunch time so I'll reply to this one and when I get home from work I'll respond to l33ts longer post;

Didn't say setting up a machinegun is rocket science and I'm sorry you came away with that. Rather, what I meant was that the calculations of trajectories and ordinate is rocket science, but like I said we had handy dandy charts instead of doing the calcs ourselves.

coyote
Redshirt
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:25 am
Location: 321st EN BN.

Post by coyote » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:05 pm

Something to bear in mind is not just the claims of military training, but actual mission experience with hand-to-hand fighting, weapons fire, and leading squads of men-- some of whom died.

It is not easy to get that kind of experience legally without being part of the military or police. And it is even rare in police work, unless you're part of a big city SWAT team.

Regardless, in the training issue, bear in mind that there are many things training doesn't cover, or they cover it in blocks and it is up to the soldier or NCO to actually put it all together. The typical Armny manual explains how to set up a CCP. Period. It also has a chapter on setting up a TOC site. Period. And an LP/OP. Period. And fighting positions for individual infantry. Period. And positions of a machinegun. Period.

It is up to the NCO to take all these puzzle-bits and put them together into a coherent overall picture: a defended position that takes advantage of terrain for maximum integration of machinegun fire, grenades to cover dead space, observable zones of fire (yet camouflaged), with a forward LP/OP and running password, mapped out indirect fire zones, and a defensible CCP close to an LZ and a TOC that is close enough to be useful but not vulnerable. All while taking into account your soldier's abilities, personalities, etc and putting them in the place where they're most useful.

Even as a civilian in a war zone such as Iraq or "random African craphole" you won't get this without experience.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:21 pm

Coyote, while I do agree that nothing will ever beat first hand experience in anything, you have to agree that theory will still take you a long way in actual combat, or else they would not waste any time teaching it to you.
You can be the best marksman there is, the best hand-to-hand combattant, but if you have no knowledge of what to expect in a war environment, you won't last very long in combat, because your lack of knowledge will affect how you move, how you take cover, how you follow orders, follow your fellow soldiers, anticipate enemy attacks, etc...

For example, although I've never played professionnal hockey, I've played many years in little leagues, and then played Deck-Hockey, and played on exterior ice once in a while.
Which means I know when an NHL player makes a mistake on the ice, even moreso if I played the same position as he does.
Does that mean I would have reacted differently had I been in his place?
I don't know, but what I do know is what he should have done, and I know this from all those theoretical sessions I had which drilled into my head the simple principle that says "Never pass the puck in front of your own net when an opponent is near" (yup, I played defence).
Then, I've had the immense "honor" of learning, in play, why it was bad.
The pass was intercepted, and they scored.
I made the mistake under stress, but it doesn't mean that the theoretical training I received was faulty.

So, IMO, theory good, actual real-life experience better.
But theory good nontheless... :)

coyote
Redshirt
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:25 am
Location: 321st EN BN.

Post by coyote » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:50 pm

Theory does put you ahead of the casual observer. If I saw a war movie like Rambo and asked three people what their opinions were-- an actual infantry soldier; an armchair general who'd read all the books and seen all the videos; and a totally uneducated civilian, I'd get three very different answers. The typical civilian would be caught up in the wankiness of it all and not think of the un/realities.

Likely the armchair general type would recognise the flaws in the movie and point them out, but I'd still give more weight to what the infantry soldier said.

A good example is from the last phases of the Israeli-Lebanon war, prior to the 1999 withdrawal. Hezbullah fighters fired a TOW missile through the vision slit of an Israeli bunker, killing the men inside. The inventor of the missile did not believe that such a thing could be done; he didn't believe it had that much inherent accuracy for such a pinpoint strike.

A person relying on just the tech manuals and what the engineers said/did in testing and training are not always indicative of the true capabilities of the weapons system in the books.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:53 pm

So then the case is closed.
We both agree:
Actual practice >> Theory >> No knowledge at all...

Cool!

User1464
Welcome the new member!
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re:

Post by User1464 » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:33 pm

GStone wrote: -Have I ever been in a knife fight? Answer: Yes.
Me? Yes, it's really hard for me to recover the first knife fight.. so scared..


__________
sog seal pup knife

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Re:

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:17 pm

strongman wrote:
GStone wrote: -Have I ever been in a knife fight? Answer: Yes.
Me? Yes, it's really hard for me to recover the first knife fight.. so scared..


__________
sog seal pup knife
Shrill?

Post Reply