Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Glory, strange tactics.
Message-ID: <15460@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 11 Apr 90 03:17:12 GMT
References: <15221@cbnews.ATT.COM> <15267@cbnews.ATT.COM> <15390@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 33
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)

In article <15390@cbnews.ATT.COM>, eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
: 
: 
: From: eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond)
: 
: In <15267@cbnews.ATT.COM> David Emery wrote:
: > One of the more controversial policies during the Civil War was that
: > regiments were treated as "non-renewable resources".  Rather than
: > refilling a depleted regiment (black or white) with new soldiers, the
: > Union Army instead replaced the entire regiment with a new one
: > (usually green), and they got predictable results.
: 
: Soviet operational doctrine does things this way; they burn up whole
: formations, dissolve them and use the few survivors for cadre or repple-depple.
: By contrast, U.S. and NATO doctrine is (when possible) to rotate a formation
: out when it's taken 40%-60% casualities and rebuild it.

The U.S. seems to periodically use different approaches to using up formations.

Sometimes they keep them in one piece, rotating units in and out.
Sometimes they keep the unit in place and rotate personnel in and out.

The latter method seems to have had some drawbacks when used during the
Viet Nam thingie, such as increased morale problems.

------------
"Up the airey mountain, down the rushy glen,
   we daren't go a-hunting for fear of little men..."
('cause Fish and Game has taken to hiring axe-carrying dwarves)