|
Unless you consider anything company sized and over "small unit". That's the same in the Dutch military, where the emphasis still lies on top down command, and moving company sized units as a whole. What I'm talking about is tactics for elements, not platoons or companies, and with NCO's in charge, and not some company or higher officer deciding for everyone where they should be and what should be done. Alas, that doesn't happen in the U.S. Marine Corps & Army nor in the Dutch army, for that matter, as you can read very clearly in some of the former Marine Corps instructor H. John Poole's books on *real* small unit tactics and how they can be used effectively against an enemy that does know how to use them (Japanese, Chinese/North Koreans, VC/NVA, Taleban etc.). :-(
Basically, our western armies have improved the fire power, but not the tactical skill needed, whilst many armies with lower tech weaponry have learned from the past and have started to use *real* small unit tactics to be able to deal with a fire power heavy western army. We might win most of the battles, but that's usually because the opponent doesn't fight but simply melts away when being confronted. They don't rely on fighting to the death for some worthless hill top or other nonessential landmark, and they don't use meaningless numbers such as kill ratio to determine their strength in comparison to their opponent. We're basically not doing much different tactically now than we did in world war 2. :-(
|
|
That's what they might say, but in reality there isn't much emphasis on small unit tactics. New 
BoaterTalk 
