Does Combat Experience Make a Better General?

[Devercia]

Even in Napoleon's day, you could weather a barrage of artillery to engage an army.

You can today, it just doesn't tend to end well.

Indeed. I'm not sure why you would say that though.

thus one can be naive even with experience.

Once again, the dictionary definition ""having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information;". Naivety is the opposite of experience, saying you can be naive with experience is like saying you can turn left and right at the same time.

That experience does not necessarily transfer to the topic at hand

Yes it does, otherwise you don't have any experience.

Of course, you are talking about a specific set of experiences, but it is not my understanding that a person can be naive in a very specific context only.

You have created a false dichotomy. The word "or" gives the option that a naive person might lack good judgment, or information. Thus, a person can be naive by virtue of bad judgment regardless of and even possibly in the abundance of experience. A lack of information might also be fixed by theory alone, meaning a person without any experience can be above 2 forms of naivety.

uhg, semantics

Both experience and theory can be misapplied, just as any tool can be misused.

In which case what you have is simply a bad general. The question is whether experience makes a better general, the implicit assumption there is that said general is competent in the first place.

I think I've made it clear that I think experience is useful, but am advocating for the underrated nature of theory when pitted against experience. Of course, you are correct, I am deviating from the subject with this. The entire point my involvement with this debates to put my theories to a test of experience....discussing a theory. Always good to expose your own misconceptions.

...ok, I am assuming you are not going to refute the point of the illustration.

That was the refutation. You're theory is that Amazon tribes will respond one way when presented with a crossbow. As you point out, history (the actual experience) did not conform to the theory.

It was a mental exercise, the assumption being these tribesmen were trying to figure it out. How they would react to the presentation of crossbows or first contact was not part of it. Part of me thinks you knew that.

If you really want to get picky, the word 'gave' is past tense and suggests that the Amazons already accepted. NO U

And what is theory but an educated guess about the nature of a subject?

That would be it's primary drawback, yes.

Indeed.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

-Major concerted offensive in the west (the Spring Offensives of course).  However, before they were unleashed in combat, many were retrained in assault tactics as Sturmtruppen.  Although these units suffered heavy casualties, the Germans knew that they were effective. 

They weren't, they were useless. They had some successes in small parts of the line yes, but breaking trench warfare requires you overwhelm and push it back, not penetrate in small areas. All the storm troops effectively managed was to bleed Germany dry of experienced men.

Their use was similar to how tanks were used in WW2 (well, how they were supposed to be used, in Blitzkrieg style).  The Sturmtruppen broke through in small parts of the line, yes, but then they pushed in to the rear areas and created havoc.  It was then the job of the regular infantrymen to destroy pockets of resistance (many of which collapsed once they realized they were surrounded).  The whole objective is to create instability along the enemy's lines and eventually collapse them.  Similarly large units could be surrounded and basically left under siege while the main offensive moves forward (though admittedly this was emphasized more in Blitzkrieg).

Earlier use of Sturmtruppen before 1918 never really achieved this, but the Operation Michael is a good example of when it did (with the help of a short but in intense bombardment just ahead of the attack and heavy fog).