Unit Experience vs. Unit Training

[Shawn Mulock <01340743@xxxxxxxx>]

srydzews@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Just a thought.  Because a divisor is such a big deal, it
> would mean that any troops, even if poorly-trained, who have
> actually been in combat a few times would have accuracy
> roughly equivalent to well-trained ones that haven't 'seen
> the elephant'.  I don't know if that strikes people the wrong
> way or not.  There's more to being effective than simple
> accuracy, but it sure counts for a lot.

That sounds about right. There are stories of the Green Beret and Navy SEAL
teams in Vietnam being soundly thrashed by the VC and NVA, simply because
the lot from the US had up to that point seen very little action. The same
can be said of the UNPROFOR & KFOR troops against the likes of the Serb
Paramilitaries (Arkan, Bokol and all those fun types) and the (now defunct,
I think) KLA. A soldier always performs better if 5 major requirements are
met:

1) He is confident in his leader
2) He is confident in his equipment
3) He is familiar with the environment
4) He is well supported
5) His morale is well maintained.

If you take a look at each of these situations, the "western" forces
involved lacked (initially) the third requirement. Once they meet number
three you see a marked increase in unit effectiveness. In Vietnam it was too
late (for too many reasons to recount here), but (so far) it has not been in
the Balkan Zones of Conflict.

S.

NOTE: There are a large number of other, smaller requirements that may
gravely effect the performance of a unit, but it has been too bloody long
since I have had to apply any knowledge in this field.