Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
Well after reading his blog a bit I've decided its not worth the effort. Anyone who would translate:
"But if the definition is in extremis, where ‘dedicated’ means “an aircraft optimized for CAS to the point that the Air Force believed fielding it would compromise overall force effectiveness, or would produce an aircraft too vulnerable to survive, without support in the threat environment, with aircrew trained ONLY for CAS missions, well then OF COURSE the Air Force objected to and resisted buying and fielding such a CAS force."
...into meaning the AF doesn't care 'enough' about the CAS mission is beyond the reach of reason. This is especially true in contrast to the definition I provided that the AF does 'comply with'.
But if I thought it was worth it, I would ask the author if he would agree with an equivalent statement on another topic. Such as:
"But if the definition is in extremis, where ‘dedicated’ means “an assault rifle that was optimized for clearing buildings to the point that the Army believed fielding it would compromise overall force effectiveness, or would produce infantry units too vulnerable to survive, without support in the threat environment, with 'legs' trained ONLY for clearing buildings, well then OF COURSE the Army would object to and resist buying and fielding such a narrowly missionized force."
And if he did agree, I would ask him why the cognitive disconnect.
I enjoyed some of his small arms posts, though.
Jul 9, 2015, 3:07:27 PM