Panzer_Leader Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 For those interested in the latest doctrinal concepts of the US Army, refined after 10-plus years of continuous war fighting, they are available to download from a single page at: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/MCCOE/Doctrine2015Tables.aspThere’s some excellent and accessible (most papers are less than 20 pages long) stuff here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thonar Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 For those interested in the latest doctrinal concepts of the US Army, refined after 10-plus years of continuous war fighting, they are available to download from a single page at: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/MCCOE/Doctrine2015Tables.aspThere’s some excellent and accessible (most papers are less than 20 pages long) stuff here.Geat! Thank you for sharing this with us! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazjar Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Is this not secret? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rump Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Is this not secret?Nope:DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION:Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.(from a cover of one of the documents).And thanks, Panzer Leader, good find. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Leader Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 Nope:DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION:Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.(from a cover of one of the documents).And thanks, Panzer Leader, good find.In addition to rump's comments, it was promoted on Twitter by the United States Army Combined Arms Center (@usacac), which is how I discovered it, and it sits on a public URL so, no, it's definitely not secret.Enjoy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Yes its one of TRADOC’s guiding principles to ensure that potential adversaries know what they are in for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Leader Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 Yes its one of TRADOC’s guiding principles to ensure that potential adversaries know what they are in for. Now that's confidence! :sonic: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stemik Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Not to mention it also goes along with the current administration's propensity to leak classified military information. See the Navy SEALS for details. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanPatrick Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Not to mention it also goes along with the current administration's propensity to leak classified military information. See the Navy SEALS for details.I was just listening to a radio show discussing this very topic. The guest was confident that the recent "leaks" are intentional, at least in part. Their justification was that the material being released is available only to a select few.Of course, the guest also mentioned the possibility of an insider going to the local bar and blabbing a few secrets to his journalist friend just to get his jollies seeing it in the paper the next morning. ...Who knows? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJ_Fubar Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Well after a brief reading through the whole lot, if this is the best TRADOC can come up with after ten years, the US Army is...not being well served. I love how thier stated goal of "transforming the Army's doctrinal base to deliver doctrine - clear, concise, current and accessible - to the point of need" is immediately subverted in the opening pages of ADP 3-0 with "logic charts" graced with such worthy statements as "Cognitively link tactical actions to strategic objectives"; zounds! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnO Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Trust me, you will be wasting your time reading those documents. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 That's not one Defence Contractor commenting on another writing team / Contractor's work is it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Sean Posted September 12, 2012 Administrators Share Posted September 12, 2012 But they come from your neck of the woods! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 So you are paying Australians to write the doctrine? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazjar Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Hmmmmmmmmm...... I think that the ambiguity is intentional. Why else would it be distribution statement A? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnO Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 That's not one Defence Contractor commenting on another writing team / Contractor's work is it? Maybe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stemik Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Well after a brief reading through the whole lot, if this is the best TRADOC can come up with after ten years, the US Army is...not being well served. I love how thier stated goal of "transforming the Army's doctrinal base to deliver doctrine - clear, concise, current and accessible - to the point of need" is immediately subverted in the opening pages of ADP 3-0 with "logic charts" graced with such worthy statements as "Cognitively link tactical actions to strategic objectives"; zounds!Already think that if I read this my head will explode. I'll stick to the FM 100-5 that I still have when I left uniformed service 20+ years ago (it was published in '86 when the US actually had a REAL Commander in Chief). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowlmovement Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Already think that if I read this my head will explode. I'll stick to the FM 100-5 that I still have when I left uniformed service 20+ years ago (it was published in '86 when the US actually had a REAL Commander in Chief). A REAL Commander-in-Chief? You mean the one we currently have is FAKE? Goodness, you had better alert the authorities then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryOwen Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Already think that if I read this my head will explode. I'll stick to the FM 100-5 that I still have when I left uniformed service 20+ years ago (it was published in '86 when the US actually had a REAL Commander in Chief).Please let's not get into religion and politics stuff in the open forum.See: Forum RulesGeneral Forum rulesNo foul language... No political/Religion/Sex discussion No Porn links . . . . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 ...No Porn links . . . .Damn :-(;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted September 15, 2012 Members Share Posted September 15, 2012 Damn :-(;-)Let's be honest - you don't need this site to find your daily dose of online porn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.