Vice Chief Disagrees With TRADOC...sort of.
This is from ROTORHUB News
Nashville, Tenn: US Army is not getting out of the deep attack – as some have said. Panel of top leadership, including Gens Cody, Curran, Sinclair and Packett took time during a panel here to deny an impression Apaches would be put on close fight duties and not do heavy attack. Consensus was there’s a new definition of what deep means anyway. Sinclair says it’s more defined by time and is a shaping question more than anything else. Cody – Army VCS – says the deep attack continues and is more a ‘joint’ concern than ever before but the impression the Apache is somehow being pulled back is just wrong.
Reading this closely though doesn't necessarily give one the impression that they do in fact disagree with the TRADOC commander (whose comments I talked about HERE) All it tells me is the definition is changing and we are calling it shaping operations now...so quit bothering us.
Not that these aren't smart men, because they are, but Army aviation has suffered over recent years because its leaders are among the most inexperienced aviators in the unit. Now if a commander was smart he would search out his experienced people and seek their advice, the not so smart, unsuccessful commanders would ignore that voice of experience and go their own way because they were commanders...sometimes it worked, some times it didn't, but it's not the smartest or best way to do business...but hey that's the nature of the beast that is Army Aviation...not that any of that has anything to do with the story above...I'm just saying...don't ya' know.
What the HELL do I mean by that last paragraph? Well, I have yet to read any article or paper on small unit or team tactics in Army aviation. Every article I have ever seen published in professional journals covers logistics or the big picture (my unit is great). While that is all fine and good, it ignores the fact that commanders became static in their thinking about how to fight the enemy. There were people within aviation that have tried to change how we do things and until aircraft started getting shot down they were resisted...now we scramble to change things...when tactics should have been a gradual constantly re-evaluated changing process all the time. We are just now getting in the ballgame...and its because of that static rigid thinking...in some ways we became the Soviet Army that we defeated...no original thought, fight the plan not the enemy...it's a shame that people had to suffer to get to this point. Let's hope it doesn't ever happen again.
Thanks to ROFAsix for pointing the ROTORHUB News thing out to me!
Nashville, Tenn: US Army is not getting out of the deep attack – as some have said. Panel of top leadership, including Gens Cody, Curran, Sinclair and Packett took time during a panel here to deny an impression Apaches would be put on close fight duties and not do heavy attack. Consensus was there’s a new definition of what deep means anyway. Sinclair says it’s more defined by time and is a shaping question more than anything else. Cody – Army VCS – says the deep attack continues and is more a ‘joint’ concern than ever before but the impression the Apache is somehow being pulled back is just wrong.
Reading this closely though doesn't necessarily give one the impression that they do in fact disagree with the TRADOC commander (whose comments I talked about HERE) All it tells me is the definition is changing and we are calling it shaping operations now...so quit bothering us.
Not that these aren't smart men, because they are, but Army aviation has suffered over recent years because its leaders are among the most inexperienced aviators in the unit. Now if a commander was smart he would search out his experienced people and seek their advice, the not so smart, unsuccessful commanders would ignore that voice of experience and go their own way because they were commanders...sometimes it worked, some times it didn't, but it's not the smartest or best way to do business...but hey that's the nature of the beast that is Army Aviation...not that any of that has anything to do with the story above...I'm just saying...don't ya' know.
What the HELL do I mean by that last paragraph? Well, I have yet to read any article or paper on small unit or team tactics in Army aviation. Every article I have ever seen published in professional journals covers logistics or the big picture (my unit is great). While that is all fine and good, it ignores the fact that commanders became static in their thinking about how to fight the enemy. There were people within aviation that have tried to change how we do things and until aircraft started getting shot down they were resisted...now we scramble to change things...when tactics should have been a gradual constantly re-evaluated changing process all the time. We are just now getting in the ballgame...and its because of that static rigid thinking...in some ways we became the Soviet Army that we defeated...no original thought, fight the plan not the enemy...it's a shame that people had to suffer to get to this point. Let's hope it doesn't ever happen again.
Thanks to ROFAsix for pointing the ROTORHUB News thing out to me!
posted by Outlaw 13 at 08:59
<< Home