Posted on Jul 16, 2016
Where do you draw the line between doctrine vs. real-life experience? How do you integrate the two?
17.2K
108
62
6
6
0
Where do YOU draw the lie and how do you integrate the two? Examples are encouraged.
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 26
The best way is training and teaching. When ever you train new or young Soldiers you train the doctrine and then you incorporate real life experience like lessons learned and actually application. Soldiers who have seen and/or been through a lot in the Army over a career adds the pictures to Army doctrine, poetically speaking. Soldiers need a combination of book smarts and actually experience, either if it's from training or real world experience.
(11)
(0)
SPC Kirk Gilles
Right. I help provide small arms instruction. Occasionally, Been There-Done That soldiers (who I do admire and respect) will attempt to countermand the instruction with "We did it this way in Theater..." Some of those combat shortcuts can be safety concerns on a controlled range.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SPC Kirk Gilles - I was a Reflective Fire Training NCO during my 2nd OIF deployment and we had seniors saying it should be done this way or that way. The key different was experience and researching lessons learned. If you're giving instruction try to request or implement a way to have access to safety issues that may support or contradict your training. It's a balance of giving and receiving information that teaches Soldiers. When safety concerns come up try to understand why they entered those situations and get feedback on how they worked out.
This would be a good example, LTC West of 1CAV OIF 2003-2004. He chose controversial actions that effected his career but was the actions worth the outcome?
This would be a good example, LTC West of 1CAV OIF 2003-2004. He chose controversial actions that effected his career but was the actions worth the outcome?
(1)
(0)
2LT Everett I encourage you to have confidence in what you are taught during training. Chances are you will arrive at your unit with a better understanding of the current doctrine than any of the NCOs or Soldiers in your unit. You understanding of doctrine (which is based on TTPs derived from training and combat experience) will provide you a foundation to apply the lessons you learn during your application of the doctrine during training (you will learn to adapt your doctrinal training to the environment and circumstances presented by the situation and the enemy). So the line is not really a "line".....instead it is an every moving target that you adjust fire on (you need to know how to call for and adjust fire LT......your most powerful weapons are your mind and your radio). Pay attention to your Soldiers, NCOs and fellow Officers and strive to never repeat mistakes. Understanding and mastering doctrine will allow you to one day write the doctrine used by those who follow in your footsteps.
(8)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
Thank you for the response, sir. I used to CFF for a living as a 13F. No worries there! I did take advantage of the past year, learning all the doctrine I was taught. I even became annoying to the instructors in ARC because I asked so many questions. I didn't care. I figured I owed it to my future men to learn as much as I could before going to the line. I know for a fact that I have more doctrinal knowledge than any of my classmates. With that being said, we were constantly coached on doctrine and warned that it will not fit most situations. That we are to learn it so that we have a foundation to veer from. The Army moves slow though. And this doctrine is not always current. For instance, just recently (since the ATP/ATTP started coming out) the doctrine finally placed some emphasis on COIN in manuals outside of the COIN manuals. This kind of info would have helped build that foundation in a more diverse set of principles. The point I am getting at is that if doctrine is going to be our "base" of knowledge to make decisions from, then it needs to be 1. Written by or in conjunction with current Soldiers 2. Up-to-date
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CPT(P) (Join to see) - As a current Instructor/Writer at the Counterintelligence Officers Course I would like to throw in my two cents. As Instructors we must teach CTLs that are categorized for schoolhouse training. I am pretty sure that your Instructors should not be telling you to go against doctrine, even though they are trying to help you. CTLs and doctrine are discussed and set during an annual CTSSB (may be different for your CMF). SMEs from across the force come to discuss issues such as outdated doctrine, new trends, and new ways to do things. If problems are not brought up, it will never be fixed. I know people don't like PCSing to Fort Huachuca but being a yes man/woman and not talking ruins it for the force. When the CTSSB states a change must be made, it is usually pushed down to Instructor/Writers, who hopefully have the knowledge and experience to make the changes or additions. A problem we have is the ability to supply an Instructor/Writer with the knowledge base and recent experience to write the new doctrine.
(0)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see) SSG Robert Webster SGM (Join to see) COL Johnny Powers
Too often Doctrine is written by people that have limited or NO real life experience. The US Army hires civilians to write doctrine, and institutional knowledge. This is a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. From my time, many of the doctrine writers were Vietnam Veterans with Combat experience, but that experience was dated and for a specific theater and set of parameters. They had the advantage of longevity, but the disadvantage of age, NOT age as in physical age, but rather age as in the age of their experience. That is why we too often as not write doctrine for tomorrow based on combat actions that may be 20 or 30 years old. And we all know that once doctrine is in pace it can be harder to get rid of that than to get rid of an X-Wife. There needs to be a balance, an equal number of CURRENT Warfighters and Civilian writers in EVERY OFFICE. At Fort Benning the support units that wrote training support packages and Infantry doctrine all had a civilian there. These were competent men, but they needed to have a coworker that was still an ACTIVE "Green Suiter" with OPERATIONAL COMBAT EXPERIENCE to add to the mix.
The best example I have of this came from the 2005 Infantry Conference at Fort Benning. SGM (Join to see) and I were walking through Building Snore (Building 4) looking at some of the exhibits of new equipment from Natick Labs and the Soldier Center. There was a mannequin wearing all the at the time "New" MOLLE gear. As Sergeant Major and I were looking at it, the civilian asked us what we thought of this NEW Lightweight Equipment that was able to carry more stuff and .... I asked him if he had ever been an Infantryman, and when he said no, I asked him if he had ever been a Soldier. Again, he answered NO. "Have you worn this gear for an extended period of time to see how it fits, rides wen you carry it on a forced march or anything like that?" Again no. So I looked at him and said, "Sir, it is really pretty gear and I hope it works, but understand that if you put a pouch or pocket someplace that a Sergeant Major with nothing better to do and a Hummer to ride in will figure out SOMETHING to put there to fill it up, likely as not to be something we will NEVER use (Like an Aluminium Mess Kit left over from World War Two that we are still issued and I NEVER used in 24 years in over two decades in the Infantry). Sir Please remember that 75 pounds of Lightweight Equipment is STILL 75 POUNDS when it is on your back." Such is it with Doctrine Vs Experience. Civilian Doctrine Writers make lots of money, but the Soldiers that need to be doing it are looking over their shoulders for the QMP notice.
Too often Doctrine is written by people that have limited or NO real life experience. The US Army hires civilians to write doctrine, and institutional knowledge. This is a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. From my time, many of the doctrine writers were Vietnam Veterans with Combat experience, but that experience was dated and for a specific theater and set of parameters. They had the advantage of longevity, but the disadvantage of age, NOT age as in physical age, but rather age as in the age of their experience. That is why we too often as not write doctrine for tomorrow based on combat actions that may be 20 or 30 years old. And we all know that once doctrine is in pace it can be harder to get rid of that than to get rid of an X-Wife. There needs to be a balance, an equal number of CURRENT Warfighters and Civilian writers in EVERY OFFICE. At Fort Benning the support units that wrote training support packages and Infantry doctrine all had a civilian there. These were competent men, but they needed to have a coworker that was still an ACTIVE "Green Suiter" with OPERATIONAL COMBAT EXPERIENCE to add to the mix.
The best example I have of this came from the 2005 Infantry Conference at Fort Benning. SGM (Join to see) and I were walking through Building Snore (Building 4) looking at some of the exhibits of new equipment from Natick Labs and the Soldier Center. There was a mannequin wearing all the at the time "New" MOLLE gear. As Sergeant Major and I were looking at it, the civilian asked us what we thought of this NEW Lightweight Equipment that was able to carry more stuff and .... I asked him if he had ever been an Infantryman, and when he said no, I asked him if he had ever been a Soldier. Again, he answered NO. "Have you worn this gear for an extended period of time to see how it fits, rides wen you carry it on a forced march or anything like that?" Again no. So I looked at him and said, "Sir, it is really pretty gear and I hope it works, but understand that if you put a pouch or pocket someplace that a Sergeant Major with nothing better to do and a Hummer to ride in will figure out SOMETHING to put there to fill it up, likely as not to be something we will NEVER use (Like an Aluminium Mess Kit left over from World War Two that we are still issued and I NEVER used in 24 years in over two decades in the Infantry). Sir Please remember that 75 pounds of Lightweight Equipment is STILL 75 POUNDS when it is on your back." Such is it with Doctrine Vs Experience. Civilian Doctrine Writers make lots of money, but the Soldiers that need to be doing it are looking over their shoulders for the QMP notice.
(7)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
CPT (Join to see) - Ma'am I will take it then that I did NOT see what I saw my last 5 years in the Army at Fort Benning. I hallucinated those meetings where someone from the Military-Industrial Complex was trying to convince civilians that the best way to cover the dismount battle drills for the Bradley and Stryker was an Anti-Personnel Javelin Missile, at $65,000 bucks a pop while those in Green Suits suggested a 7.62mm MINIGUN fired remotely from the Stryker weapons station at .39 cents a round....
Yes, I am sure that those meetings took place, as did the meetings to discuss the re-introduction of heavy machine gun training AFTER Jessica Lynch happened....training that had been cancelled because some person in a suit and tie thought it was extraneous and could be replaced with 8 hours of Consideration of Others Training.
Sorry, I was not sleeping and dreamed it nor was I hallucinating. Doctrine needs to be written by WARFIGHTERS.
Yes, I am sure that those meetings took place, as did the meetings to discuss the re-introduction of heavy machine gun training AFTER Jessica Lynch happened....training that had been cancelled because some person in a suit and tie thought it was extraneous and could be replaced with 8 hours of Consideration of Others Training.
Sorry, I was not sleeping and dreamed it nor was I hallucinating. Doctrine needs to be written by WARFIGHTERS.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG Roger Ayscue - you are confusing army doctrine and army acquisition policies and procedures. They are not the same thing. Not remotely. Colorful examples are getting you lots of pats on the back from others who have also confused the two topics...shrug. That doesn't change the facts. I am not saying you didn't experience what you did, just that none of the stories related to doctrine which was the original topic.
(0)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
CPT (Join to see) - No Ma'am, again I am not confusing the two.
Army DOCTRINE was that Heavy Machinegun training was NOT needed but more CO 2 WAS, So M-2 and MK-19 training was eliminated for IET Soldiers UNTIL it became obvious that it had been a bad call.
In the Acquisition of a $65,000 anti-personnel Javelin WOULD BE FOLLOWED by DOCTRINE of how to employ it, written by someone that in too many cases has NEVER been under fire.
Captain, Doctrine is written in all too often instances by someone that has never been in a Green Suit, never been under fire, who has not done the job...Or if they have it was decades ago. My point is to have Green Suit wearing SOLDIERS, Officer and NCO write Doctrine, so we do not have to constantly reinvent the road wheel.
Army DOCTRINE was that Heavy Machinegun training was NOT needed but more CO 2 WAS, So M-2 and MK-19 training was eliminated for IET Soldiers UNTIL it became obvious that it had been a bad call.
In the Acquisition of a $65,000 anti-personnel Javelin WOULD BE FOLLOWED by DOCTRINE of how to employ it, written by someone that in too many cases has NEVER been under fire.
Captain, Doctrine is written in all too often instances by someone that has never been in a Green Suit, never been under fire, who has not done the job...Or if they have it was decades ago. My point is to have Green Suit wearing SOLDIERS, Officer and NCO write Doctrine, so we do not have to constantly reinvent the road wheel.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG Roger Ayscue - you aren't using the term properly and clearly don't want to hear that you are wrong. TTPs aren't doctrine. Purchasing is not doctrine. And yes, those fields are in fact dominated by civilians with no military background. If you would let go of the word "doctrine" you'd have a valid observation, but as long as you want to insist you are talking about Army doctrine, you are wrong as I and several other senior officers have taken the time to point out to you.
(1)
(0)
Four observations:
1. Doctrine isn't just "made up" by dreamers. It comes from groups of SMEs including combat vets, Lessons Learned, and then it's signed by generals only after senior commanders staff it out. Lots of real world experience goes into it.
2. Very often, SM who have been in a couple of branches in a couple of wars in a couple of hemispheres become senior people and think the doctrine is wrong, when really they don't have enough perspective to understand that the doctrine has more experience and a bigger world view than they have.
3. Doctrine is meant to be implemented with personal judgment. To put it crassly, "Rules are for people who don't know what they're doing.
4. Very often, when I went against the rules, years later I found out--or figured out--that the rule was there for a good reason.
You can't integrate your own experience into doctrine unless you really understand the doctrine.
1. Doctrine isn't just "made up" by dreamers. It comes from groups of SMEs including combat vets, Lessons Learned, and then it's signed by generals only after senior commanders staff it out. Lots of real world experience goes into it.
2. Very often, SM who have been in a couple of branches in a couple of wars in a couple of hemispheres become senior people and think the doctrine is wrong, when really they don't have enough perspective to understand that the doctrine has more experience and a bigger world view than they have.
3. Doctrine is meant to be implemented with personal judgment. To put it crassly, "Rules are for people who don't know what they're doing.
4. Very often, when I went against the rules, years later I found out--or figured out--that the rule was there for a good reason.
You can't integrate your own experience into doctrine unless you really understand the doctrine.
(5)
(0)
CPT Dennis Stevenson
Point 3, point 3, point 3. When I was at Infantry Officers Basic there was a little poem:
Here lies the bones of Lt. Jones,
A graduate of this institution,
He died last night, in his first fire fight,
Using the School solution.
Here lies the bones of Lt. Jones,
A graduate of this institution,
He died last night, in his first fire fight,
Using the School solution.
(1)
(0)
Capt Michael Greene
CPT Dennis Stevenson - CPT (Join to see) Yep. My entire career was overseas, at sea, or at a remote location, where decisions were made quickly and locally, usually without benefit of chain of command.
The most successful wing commander I ever worked for said "Rules are for people who don't know what they're doing." He meant that if you don't know what the right thing is, then you should get your answer from the book. If you have a good grasp of the big picture, then you don't need the book.
One time at a seriously remote base, my squadron deployed but the commander left me behind to fix one more fighter jet and send it to him. We needed a piece of secret gear. It was in the secret vault, and the custodian was TDY somewhere unknown to us. Deadline was approaching, so when somebody said "I can break into the vault, Lt." I said, "Do it" and walked away. We got the gear, fixed the jet, and sent it out on time. An hour later I was called into the section office, and some captain I never met before read me my rights to charge me with burglary. You be the judge.
The most successful wing commander I ever worked for said "Rules are for people who don't know what they're doing." He meant that if you don't know what the right thing is, then you should get your answer from the book. If you have a good grasp of the big picture, then you don't need the book.
One time at a seriously remote base, my squadron deployed but the commander left me behind to fix one more fighter jet and send it to him. We needed a piece of secret gear. It was in the secret vault, and the custodian was TDY somewhere unknown to us. Deadline was approaching, so when somebody said "I can break into the vault, Lt." I said, "Do it" and walked away. We got the gear, fixed the jet, and sent it out on time. An hour later I was called into the section office, and some captain I never met before read me my rights to charge me with burglary. You be the judge.
(0)
(0)
CPT Dennis Stevenson
Sir, I would have turned my back on the theft. You accomplished the mission and nobody got hurt. I suppose he could have gnawed on you a bit, but that's all.
(0)
(0)
Capt Michael Greene
CPT Dennis Stevenson - Oh, the Captain had me dead to rights. And even if he "only" complained about it, the higher ups might have considered me immature and lacking judgment. They would be correct.
I thought about this many years. Doctrine says I should have attempted to call the commander, or his commander. Legally, I guess, I should have called the cops to connect with the HMFIC of secret stuff on the base. Of course, neither of those methods would have accomplished the mission. From a mission-centric practical point of view, I should have personally watched the break-in, to ensure that nobody took anything or saw anything they shouldn't have. Then made sure the vault was secured against future break ins. So, all around, I failed. But we got the jet airborne.
As it was, I managed to contact the commander that night, and he spoke to the captain, and I never heard anything about it again. So you turned out to be correct this time.
I thought about this many years. Doctrine says I should have attempted to call the commander, or his commander. Legally, I guess, I should have called the cops to connect with the HMFIC of secret stuff on the base. Of course, neither of those methods would have accomplished the mission. From a mission-centric practical point of view, I should have personally watched the break-in, to ensure that nobody took anything or saw anything they shouldn't have. Then made sure the vault was secured against future break ins. So, all around, I failed. But we got the jet airborne.
As it was, I managed to contact the commander that night, and he spoke to the captain, and I never heard anything about it again. So you turned out to be correct this time.
(0)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see) Ok.... as a force developer... doctrine is what drives the remainder of the DOTMLPF-P (look it up).... the Lessons Learned.... those real life experiences... help refine... and redefine... doctrine. So its not a "line that gets drawn"... its a cyclic process that also that results in ATPs and ATTPs... that helps further train and educate the force.
My example of differenceS.... is the emplacement of the claymore per 21-2 and the assoc T/C/S.... and having placed them in actual ambush.... you do not test the claymore in the ambush position... you test them before you ever leave the PB or AA.
Hope it helps
My example of differenceS.... is the emplacement of the claymore per 21-2 and the assoc T/C/S.... and having placed them in actual ambush.... you do not test the claymore in the ambush position... you test them before you ever leave the PB or AA.
Hope it helps
(5)
(0)
Considering your situation, my first question is - Do you have a reading list? If not develop one. My first recommendations would be to acquire the Tom Clancy guided tour series: Airborne, Armored Cav, Marine, Fighter Wing, Submarine, Carrier, and Special Forces and then Tom Clancy's command study series: Into the Storm, Battle Ready, Every Man a Tiger, and Shadow Warrior's and last his war gaming book - SSN Strategies of Submarine Warfare. To round things out, I would then suggest that you read and study "The Canal Builders" by Julie Greene and "The Path Between the Seas" by David McCullough, you might be surprised at what you could learn from these last two. Then I would look for a good book on military logistics and a book on supply and demand logistics as conducted by UPS and FedEx.
(4)
(0)
There are no lines only the environment. Ex: If you understand movement and maneuver or sustainment doctrinally then you will apply it differently to the situation or environment that you are training in or are fighting in. SSG Foster correctly asserts that doctrine serves as our baseline of understanding. Next, the environment in which your unit is in while require you to adapt and that is where TTP and lessons learned come into play.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
And sir, if he reads the doctrine, he will find that it says exactly what you just said.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) - I agree. But you will see in your career that very few folks read their manuals and even fewer read and update their section, unit, CO, BN, BCT SOPs, battledrills, CCIRs, staff estimates, ect, I could go on. Capturing Lessons Learned, reading doctrine, training personnel, understanding the equipment then all becomes a routine part of a successful team.
(0)
(0)
When I was a command sergeant major at the command level of the Army Reserve I served on the Army Reserve CSM Board of Directors (BOD) and also had input into policy decisions through the SMA to the Army Chief of Staff. I was also called to Fort Myers to participate on panels developing drafts to replace outdated and obsolete Army Doctrine, Policies and Regulations. These drafts would go through several iterations before being approved by the Chief of Staff. FM-7 Training for Full Spectrum Training, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, AR 670-9 updates are a few examples of panels that I participated in.
And these panels were not just comprised of senior staff officers and sergeants major long removed from line units providing this input. These panels included Soldiers of all ranks and disciplines. If you ever wondered what some of the responsibilities of those winners of Army "Best of" competitions, include this on that list. Best Warrior, Drill Sergeants of the Year, Instructors of the Year, Recruiters of the Year winners are regular participants on these panels. Other high speed Soldiers selected from line units are also brought in for input. Including SMEs on the subject being addressed is always an integral part of developing new policy.
The battlefield is a constantly changing environment. Lessons learned from the front are the driving force for Doctrine Change. A major issue for changing doctrine is the flash to bang time it takes to develop, approve, update and implement new changes to the field. But that process is evolving also. That's one of the reasons that you don't see as many paper manuals being distributed any more. By the time you go through the expense to print and distribute new manuals, they may already be outdated.
So the thought process that all Army Doctrine is written by strictly by civilian PH.Ds with no military experience in a vacuum in some back room of the Pentagon is ludicrous.
And these panels were not just comprised of senior staff officers and sergeants major long removed from line units providing this input. These panels included Soldiers of all ranks and disciplines. If you ever wondered what some of the responsibilities of those winners of Army "Best of" competitions, include this on that list. Best Warrior, Drill Sergeants of the Year, Instructors of the Year, Recruiters of the Year winners are regular participants on these panels. Other high speed Soldiers selected from line units are also brought in for input. Including SMEs on the subject being addressed is always an integral part of developing new policy.
The battlefield is a constantly changing environment. Lessons learned from the front are the driving force for Doctrine Change. A major issue for changing doctrine is the flash to bang time it takes to develop, approve, update and implement new changes to the field. But that process is evolving also. That's one of the reasons that you don't see as many paper manuals being distributed any more. By the time you go through the expense to print and distribute new manuals, they may already be outdated.
So the thought process that all Army Doctrine is written by strictly by civilian PH.Ds with no military experience in a vacuum in some back room of the Pentagon is ludicrous.
(3)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
CSM William Payne that's the major issue. The time it takes for doctrine to reach us. Info placed into manuals on COIN took a decade to be inserted. Now it's not as relevant as when we needed that guidance most.
A possible solution in the future may be to make all doctrine electronic ONLY. This will illuminate the need to print, thus saving time and resources and it will cut back on the economic impact of doctrinal changes. We would be freed up to make minor changes. The technology is getting there. The issue is access in the field. I knew a couple NCOs that would carry their personal iPad to the field for the purpose of accessing manuals. It may be some time before the Army heads in a completely digital direction, but it can significantly change the way we look at doctrine.
A possible solution in the future may be to make all doctrine electronic ONLY. This will illuminate the need to print, thus saving time and resources and it will cut back on the economic impact of doctrinal changes. We would be freed up to make minor changes. The technology is getting there. The issue is access in the field. I knew a couple NCOs that would carry their personal iPad to the field for the purpose of accessing manuals. It may be some time before the Army heads in a completely digital direction, but it can significantly change the way we look at doctrine.
(1)
(0)
CSM William Payne
Lt. Everett, you are indeed correct, but the Army is well aware of that. That's why there were several updates to AR 670-9 that were never fielded in print. The uniform updates were coming so fast with the War on Terrorism that it made no sense to send to print.
Soldiers were always asking me when the changes to the reg were coming out because they wanted to see it in hard copy and black and white.
Print is no longer a determining factor to updated changes. Most young Soldiers today have smart phones that allows them access to whatever information they may need. My last couple of years in uniform I just maintained an updated link list to policies and regulations I needed most.
I can't tell you how many times I've stopped discourse between Soldiers dead by producing the appropriate reg on the phone and letting them read it themselves. Especially when it comes to questions about uniform violations.
Soldiers were always asking me when the changes to the reg were coming out because they wanted to see it in hard copy and black and white.
Print is no longer a determining factor to updated changes. Most young Soldiers today have smart phones that allows them access to whatever information they may need. My last couple of years in uniform I just maintained an updated link list to policies and regulations I needed most.
I can't tell you how many times I've stopped discourse between Soldiers dead by producing the appropriate reg on the phone and letting them read it themselves. Especially when it comes to questions about uniform violations.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CSM, the "Pentagon back room" is one of those persistent myths that just won't go away. I guess people feel like saying it makes them look like a knowledgeable insider, when in reality, they are just making crap up.
(1)
(0)
CSM William Payne
Roger that Captain Wolfer.
The SMA and Chief are huge proponents of the use of social media for input on policy changes. I think they are up to speed.
The quick changes to the tattoo policy and rolling up of the sleeves on the ACU are great examples. Most of the suggestions for change come in from the field through some sort of online input.
In the future I see many panels and boards being converted to virtual to save expense and expediency.
There will always be room for improvement, but we have come light years from where we were just a decade ago.
The SMA and Chief are huge proponents of the use of social media for input on policy changes. I think they are up to speed.
The quick changes to the tattoo policy and rolling up of the sleeves on the ACU are great examples. Most of the suggestions for change come in from the field through some sort of online input.
In the future I see many panels and boards being converted to virtual to save expense and expediency.
There will always be room for improvement, but we have come light years from where we were just a decade ago.
(0)
(0)
use doctrine to teach and train the fundamentals and use real world experience and lessons learned to develop your TACSOP and TTPs
(2)
(0)
In armor officer terms...doctrine is the school solution (i.e., proven principles, strategies) of 'how to fight'; whereas real-life experience comes by doing what you've got to do to win. They're not always the same. You've got to be smart enough and flexible enough to bend if necessary and do what is required to keep your troopers alive and complete your mission. One might look at doctrine as a blueprint and at real-life experience as an engineering change order (ECO)...a modification...to improve your odds in favor of achieving a desired result or outcome (end state).
(2)
(0)
Read This Next