Posted on Jun 29, 2016
The View from Blue Eye, MO and Tablerock Lake: Fwd: FW: Interesting article by WP graduate on the...
5.85K
2
4
0
0
0
This was passed to me in an e-mail. A very good read, to the point and I can guarantee some opinions will arise, so I've got my flake vest on. The following was written by Mac Johnson, so read it first then the article:
For two years as a senior combat trainer (observer/controller) at the National Training Center and another two as the G3 of the 1st Armored Division in Germany, I was fortunate enough to be responsible for their training as around 50 Armor and Infantry branch Lieutenant Colonels lead their battalions through the most rigorous, realistic large unit training the US Army has ever offered. I conducted the formal after action review for every battle and so was very familiar with what took place and why. If the "battles" we fought had taken place with real ammo instead of lasers, artillery simulators, and subjective mine field and air attack assessments, every single one of those battalion commanders would have lost (dead, wounded, captured or destroyed) the equivalent of at least three complete battalions worth of men and equipment over the space of just two weeks. Every single one that is except Fred Dibella.
At the National Training Center, Fred's battalion soundly defeated the best "Soviet Armored Regiment" that ever strapped on tanker boots in 5 consecutive battles! And it was not even close! Lt Col Dibella understood tactical warfare and how to prepare his leaders and their men before they ever arrived on the battlefield. They came to the NTC with a mutual understanding of how every single piece of the task force affected every other piece and they understood that every leader's battle plan must support the plan of the entire task force. The manner in which Lt Col Dibella had prepared and trained his leaders and soldiers before the first shot was ever fired was the best I have ever seen. The manner in which they actually fought the NTC battles was unequaled!
My entire experience with Lt Col Fred Dibella was over the course of those two weeks. But I can tell you that he knew more about how to fight and how to train his people to fight than any other battalion commander I had the opportunity to help train. So pay attention to what he writes in the article that follows.
Mac Johnson
For two years as a senior combat trainer (observer/controller) at the National Training Center and another two as the G3 of the 1st Armored Division in Germany, I was fortunate enough to be responsible for their training as around 50 Armor and Infantry branch Lieutenant Colonels lead their battalions through the most rigorous, realistic large unit training the US Army has ever offered. I conducted the formal after action review for every battle and so was very familiar with what took place and why. If the "battles" we fought had taken place with real ammo instead of lasers, artillery simulators, and subjective mine field and air attack assessments, every single one of those battalion commanders would have lost (dead, wounded, captured or destroyed) the equivalent of at least three complete battalions worth of men and equipment over the space of just two weeks. Every single one that is except Fred Dibella.
At the National Training Center, Fred's battalion soundly defeated the best "Soviet Armored Regiment" that ever strapped on tanker boots in 5 consecutive battles! And it was not even close! Lt Col Dibella understood tactical warfare and how to prepare his leaders and their men before they ever arrived on the battlefield. They came to the NTC with a mutual understanding of how every single piece of the task force affected every other piece and they understood that every leader's battle plan must support the plan of the entire task force. The manner in which Lt Col Dibella had prepared and trained his leaders and soldiers before the first shot was ever fired was the best I have ever seen. The manner in which they actually fought the NTC battles was unequaled!
My entire experience with Lt Col Fred Dibella was over the course of those two weeks. But I can tell you that he knew more about how to fight and how to train his people to fight than any other battalion commander I had the opportunity to help train. So pay attention to what he writes in the article that follows.
Mac Johnson
The View from Blue Eye, MO and Tablerock Lake: Fwd: FW: Interesting article by WP graduate on the...
Posted from blueeyeview.blogspot.dk
Military Career
Infantry
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
0
0
0
Wow. If what Mac Johnson says is accurate, then the guy is seriously good at what he does. I don't even necessarily disagree with some of his points regarding men and women serving together. But I have to say I am in disagreement with his position that women don't have what it takes to be warriors. Women generally are socialized differently than men in this country. But that doesn't mean a motivated woman can't become a warrior. I think instead it speaks to a false perception about women and their potential in general.
Everyone knows not to mess with a Mama bear's cubs. Everyone knows that some women can be nasty, dirty fighters. Hone those attitudes and qualities and you might find you have an exceptional warrior.
I'm not saying there aren't a lot challenges to including women officially amongst those in combat. I'm not saying that there won't be challenges with men and women serving the same unit. But we are all taught to adapt, improvise, and overcome aren't we?
He may have been a brilliant tactician, but I don't think these comments represent him well.
Everyone knows not to mess with a Mama bear's cubs. Everyone knows that some women can be nasty, dirty fighters. Hone those attitudes and qualities and you might find you have an exceptional warrior.
I'm not saying there aren't a lot challenges to including women officially amongst those in combat. I'm not saying that there won't be challenges with men and women serving the same unit. But we are all taught to adapt, improvise, and overcome aren't we?
He may have been a brilliant tactician, but I don't think these comments represent him well.
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
1LT Susan Bailey Me, personally, I have to do a little more digestion, read again before I make a comment. I was impressed with what Mac Johnson said, and being in his position, it gives some insight into the article, author and judgement. I've always asked myself is everything being pushed too hard to far for being politically correct?
I do agree with the comments made we are tweaking down the warrior attitude in men to be more politically correct. Many times the hard charging guys are that way. His assessment of the overall tearing down our military as a whole, I see it and wonder.
I do agree with the comments made we are tweaking down the warrior attitude in men to be more politically correct. Many times the hard charging guys are that way. His assessment of the overall tearing down our military as a whole, I see it and wonder.
(0)
(0)
1LT Susan Bailey
SGM Mikel Dawson - I agree, it does need more digestion for sure. And you're right, I don't agree with dumbing things down or getting too PC. It makes no sense when it comes to being warriors. Our enemies are anything but PC and will go to extremes. We must be ready to counter with an as strong offense if not a deterrent level of offense. Wussing out our warriors doesn't set us up well for the fight to be sure.
This situation today makes me think of the battle tactics used by the British against the Revolutionaries where they moved into columns to fight while the Revolutionaries used guerilla tactics. Even a dingball could figure out that columns don't equal success against such tactics. To the British it was a break in decorum and protocol, to the Revolutionaries it was smart and decisive, and tactically warranted.
Old thinking doesn't always produce better results, but neither does ignoring the history of military success from the past. I think we can learn from both new and old ideas in a lot of ways. Except we need to keep in mind what the job of a warrior is, and treat it like that.
This situation today makes me think of the battle tactics used by the British against the Revolutionaries where they moved into columns to fight while the Revolutionaries used guerilla tactics. Even a dingball could figure out that columns don't equal success against such tactics. To the British it was a break in decorum and protocol, to the Revolutionaries it was smart and decisive, and tactically warranted.
Old thinking doesn't always produce better results, but neither does ignoring the history of military success from the past. I think we can learn from both new and old ideas in a lot of ways. Except we need to keep in mind what the job of a warrior is, and treat it like that.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google