Given that I have been exploring this particular subject in particular in depth for about 15 years and the subject of military operations research as it relates to operational effectiveness in general for about 27 years, yes it has provoked a lot of my thinking. I hope you do take the time to read and respond in depth, since I find the subject endlessly fascinating.Sheldrake wrote:I can see this has provoked a lot of thought. I am not sure I have the time read it or respond.
No, I don't think you could have read or thought about my response too much, since that is not the logic of what I said or even closely related to anything I said. Rather, what you have so carefully concocted there is a giant strawman. Glad to see you are able to knock it over so easily.If I understand the logic correctly, the additional fire power that the British applied to their beach assaults was all pointless as theoretically this can have inflicted no real damage on an enemy in cover. The increased amount of fire power on the British beaches was irrelevant and no amount of additional firepower short of PGMs could have reduced the high casualties suffered by the US Army on Omaha Beach
Sorry, but when you are ready to actually read and think about things, then come back with an actual argument rather than a collection of strawmen, I'll be happy to go further in depth on this subject. Until then, cheers!Sorry, but this does now wash at all. Am I reading an American arguing that there is a maximum amount of fire power worth flinging at an enemy, as this is pretty much contradicted by the way the US has waged war over the past 100 years.