http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=COMBATSTYLE

My results:

#1 Eastern Doctrine
#2 Infantry Doctrine
#3 Paratrooper Doctrine
#4 Shock and Awe Doctrine
#5 Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
#6 Western Doctrine
#7 Mechanized Infantry Doctrine
#8 Sniper Doctrine
#9 Armored Doctrine
#10 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine

#1 Paratrooper Doctrine

#2 Infantry Doctrine

#3 Shock and Awe Doctrine

#4 Western Doctrine

#5 Armoured Doctrine

#6 Fire and Maneuvre Doctrine

#7 Eastern Doctrine

#8 Mechanised Infantry Division

#9 Unconventional Warfare Doctrine

#10 Sniper Doctrine

An Irishman who only ranked 10th in Sniper doctrine?
Surely some mistake? :D

#1 Western Doctrine
#2 Eastern Doctrine
#3 Paratrooper Doctrine
#4 Shock and Awe Doctrine
#5 Sniper Doctrine
#6 Armored Doctrine
#7 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine
#8 Mechanized Infantry Doctrine
#9 Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
#10 Infantry Doctrine

My unconventional should be way higher, since I emphasized avoiding direct close contact with the enemy and the importance of stealth and shock( though preferably the enemy starves from lack of supplies).

#1 Armored Doctrine
#2 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine
#3 Mechanized Infantry Doctrine
#4 Shock and Awe Doctrine
#5 Paratrooper Doctrine
#6 Western Doctrine
#7 Infantry Doctrine
#8 Eastern Doctrine
#9 Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
#10 Sniper Doctrine

#1 Paratrooper Doctrine
/////
An Irishman who only ranked 10th in Sniper doctrine?
Surely some mistake? :D

You got paratrooper doctrine, you should be happy about that. An entire nation cant be defended by snipers you know! :D ;)

I'd say my results are fairly accurate, although in truth its more of a synthesis of 1 and 2

An entire nation cant be defended by snipers you know! :D ;)


Yeah, car bombs help too :D

#1 Western Doctrine
#2 Armored Doctrine
#3 Shock and Awe Doctrine
#4 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine
#5 Mechanized Infantry Doctrine
#6 Sniper Doctrine
#7 Infantry Doctrine
#8 Paratrooper Doctrine
#9 Eastern Doctrine
#10 Unconventional Warfare Doctrine

#1 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine
#2 Infantry Doctrine
#3 Paratrooper Doctrine
#4 Western Doctrine
#5 Mechanized Infantry Doctrine
#6 Sniper Doctrine
#7 Armored Doctrine
#8 Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
#9 Shock and Awe Doctrine
#10 Eastern Doctrine

Fire and maneuver.... that has a conventional ring to it :|

#1 Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
#2 Eastern Doctrine
#3 Paratrooper Doctrine
#4 Sniper Doctrine

Unconventional Warfare Doctrine...that has an unconventional ring to it.

I just answered in the manner I play strategic games.
Will someone please explain shortly what these doctrines are in reality?

#1 Western Doctrine
#2 Shock and Awe Doctrine
#3 Infantry Doctrine
#4 Armored Doctrine
#5 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine

For example, when I play Cossacks, I like to
create an impenetrable defensive perimeter,
and then use that time to develop units and produce
much slow-moving assault units and artillery.

Then I roll slowly over the landscape, annihilating everything in the way,
while at the same time, I use quick-moving units to run around and
prevent the main body of the army to get flanked.

I just answered in the manner I play strategic games.
Will someone please explain shortly what these doctrines are in reality?

#1 Western Doctrine
#2 Shock and Awe Doctrine
#3 Infantry Doctrine
#4 Armored Doctrine
#5 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine

For example, when I play Cossacks, I like to
create an impenetrable defensive perimeter,
and then use that time to develop units and produce
much slow-moving assault units and artillery.

Then I roll slowly over the landscape, annihilating everything in the way,
while at the same time, I use quick-moving units to run around and
prevent the main body of the army to get flanked. - I remember playing old red alert, winning by surrounding the entire enemy base with tesla coils. :|

Computer enemy of course

#1 Paratrooper Doctrine...

ROFL. Shock and Awe is rubbish. Eastern Doctrine sounds more 'to the point'.

#1 Eastern Doctrine
#2 Shock and Awe Doctrine
#3 Western Doctrine
#4 Mechanized Infantry Doctrine
#5 Armored Doctrine
#6 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine
#7 Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
#8 Paratrooper Doctrine
#9 Infantry Doctrine
#10 Sniper Doctrine

#1 Paratrooper Doctrine
#2 Infantry Doctrine
#3 Western Doctrine
#4 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine
#5 Sniper Doctrine
#6 Armored Doctrine
#7 Mechanized Infantry Doctrine
#8 Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
#9 Shock and Awe Doctrine
#10 Eastern Doctrine

#1 Eastern Doctrine
#2 Shock and Awe Doctrine
#3 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine
#4 Western Doctrine
#5 Paratrooper Doctrine
#6 Mechanized Infantry Doctrine
#7 Sniper Doctrine
#8 Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
#9 Armored Doctrine
#10 Infantry Doctrine

What exactly is the "Eastern Doctrine"?

Ruger .357 magnum.

I just answered in the manner I play strategic games.
Will someone please explain shortly what these doctrines are in reality?

Certainly, I can do my best.


#1 Western Doctrine

Well traditionally the Western doctrine is described like this.


http://www.ganesha.org/hall/#EastWest

The Western style, which comes from the Greeks and Romans, is confrontational, hard, and decisive. "Get in the enemy's face" sums it up nicely. Greek warfare had to be decisive because the typical soldier (hoplite) was a middle-class or wealthy landowner who could not spend a lot of time away from his farm. Both sides had the same problem, so they fought a decisive battle almost by common consent. Their phalanxes would line up opposite each other on level ground and charge each other. After about an hour of pushing, shoving, and stabbing, one side would usually break and run. (There wasn't any halftime.) The losers would ask for a truce to bury their dead, and the war was over. The Greeks used contact sports like boxing and wrestling to overcome the instinctive aversion to hand-to-hand fighting. "Harsh sports, fought for a clear-cut result, reinforced the Greek military ethic…" (Keegan, 1993, 247). The goal of a "clear-cut result" influenced European military thinking through Clausewitz' time and beyond. Today, the U.S. Military Academy requires male cadets to practice boxing and wrestling. Male and female cadets learn "combatives," a system of hand-to-hand self-defense. Everyone must participate in a contact sport for at least one semester (Donnithorne, 1993, 40-41).

The Romans adopted this decisive style of warfare, and built on it. The Romans usually began a fight by hurling the pilum, or javelin, into the enemy ranks. Each soldier then drew his gladius, or short sword, and got down to business. The Romans adapted their style of warfare to the sea by equipping their ships with the corvus, or "raven"- a bridge for grappling and boarding an enemy galley.

Wheras the Eastern approach can basically be summed by Mao Zedong's famous maxim:

When the enemy advances, we retreat!
When the enemy halts, we harrass!
When the enemy seeks to avoid battle, we attack!
When the enemy retreats, we pursue!

Yet the real distinction between Eastern and Western warfare is coming under fire now. Michael I. Handel has actually written quite a bit on this claiming that the notions of Eastern and Western warfare was based on mainly cultural differences and difference of paradigms that each side approaches warfare. Yet at the core, Eastern and Western warfare share the same basic logic and are not exclusionary opposites.

"Ultimately, the logic and rational direction of war are universal and there is no such thing as an exclusively 'Western' or 'Eastern' approach to politics and strategy....."
--Michael I Handel Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought pg.3


#2 Shock and Awe Doctrine

I actually tried to get a real source explaining what "shock and awe" is supposed to mean(because overall it is a BS doctrine) and I could only find this.


http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Shock_and_awe

Shock and awe" is the term the Bush administration uses for its massive hi-tech air strikes on the Iraqis. As a military strategy, it is discussed at length in a 1996 book published by the Command and Control Research Program (CCRP) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense of the United States.[1] Titled Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance, the book describes shock and awe as a strategy "aimed at influencing the will, perception, and understanding of an adversary rather than simply destroying military capability."

What may interest most people is that this doctrine(well its describtion) is not new, but is very much the core of almost any strategic doctrine. You find the basic arguments of "shock and awe" in Sun Tzu, Clausewtiz, even Machiavelli(who was better at explaining the relations between politics and warfare than warfare itself).

So to put it simply, its basically launch a bunch of high-tech do nothing weaponry and try to make it look like its actually acomplishing anything.


#3 Infantry Doctrine

Infantry doctrine is really basically the doctrine that governs the tactical use of ifantry in battle. I think this person is largely thinking about the use of large number of infantry to obtain dominance over the battlefield. Much like what occured in late 19th and early 20th century warfare.


#4 Armored Doctrine

I believe this person is largely thinking of "Blitzkrieg" like warfare, which is about the descivie use of armored forces to achieve dominance on the battlefield. Although technically it just means the doctrine governing armored forces(not necessarily Blitzkrieg per se).


#5 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine

From what I understand, this is a basic infantry combat doctrine governing platoon level combat. And apparently theres problems with this definition.


http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1979/may-jun/lind.html

U.S. ground force doctrine is a good example of the problem. Theoretically, there are two basic types of ground force doctrine: firepower/attrition doctrine and maneuver doctrine. Both employ the same elements, fire and maneuver, but firepower/attrition doctrine uses maneuver primarily as a way to transport and position firepower so that firepower can physically destroy the enemy by attrition. According to firepower/attrition doctrine, the object of military action is physical destruction of the enemy. This is not the object of maneuver doctrine, where firepower is used only when necessary to create opportunities for maneuver. Maneuver doctrine's object is to break the spirit and will of the enemy command by creating surprising and dangerous operational or strategic situations.

So judging from that statement above and others I've read, "fire and maneuver" seems to be the attempt at a synthesis bewteen "fire"(which places emphasis on superior firepower to destroy the enemy) with "manuever"(which places emphasis on greater mobility to destroy the enemy).

Yes much of this very confusing even for people who have some knowledge and expertise in this area. Whoever wrote this quiz was clearly basing it on media-based stereotypes.

When the enemy advances, we retreat!
When the enemy halts, we harrass!
When the enemy seeks to avoid battle, we attack!
When the enemy retreats, we pursue!


They attribute this to Mao. Wasnt it Sun Tzu who first said this?

What exactly is the "Eastern Doctrine"?

Supposedly its based on more indirect and less confrontational methods than Western docrtine. As Mao Zedong said:

When the enemy advances, we retreat!
When the enemy halts, we harrass!
When the enemy seeks to avoid battle, we attack!
When the enemy retreats, we pursue!

But as I mentioned before, the notions of "Western" and "Eastern" doctrines is largely BS. You find the same basic characteristics in both doctrines really. For example, Mao Zedong was influenced greatly by Clausewitz.

THanks for the great explanations.

They attribute this to Mao.

Yes Mao said that!


Wasnt it Sun Tzu who first said this?

No, you're thinking of this quote; which basically carries the same message.

"All warfare is based on deception. Therefore, when capable, feign incapacity; when active, inactivity. When near, make it appear that you are far away; when far away, that you are near. Offer the enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike him. When he concentrates, prepare against him; where he is strong, avoid him."

See Mao was influenced by both Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. Contrary to popular notions, they're not opposities. They certainly approach warfare from different paradigms, but their basic logic is the same. Sadly this fact is lost on most people, even in the military. Worse, our popular notions on Eastern and Western warfare seems to come from Chin-Ning Chu's pathetic analysis in her book the Working Women's Art of War. Whenever I hear speak about Sun Tzu and Eastern warfare, I can't help but laugh at her idiocy. Further proving my instinct to avoid any woman's views concerning warfare.

When it comes to games, my favourite tactic to use is to defend until the enemy is weak, then counterattack. Giving them the initiative also gives them the chance to screw up.

#1 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine
#2 Western Doctrine
#3 Infantry Doctrine
#4 Armored Doctrine
#5 Mechanized Infantry Doctrine
#6 Shock and Awe Doctrine
#7 Paratrooper Doctrine
#8 Sniper Doctrine
#9 Eastern Doctrine
#10 Unconventional Warfare Doctrine

1. Paratrooper

#1 Paratrooper Doctrine
#2 Fire and Maneuver Doctrine
#3 Sniper Doctrine
#4 Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
#5 Eastern Doctrine
#6 Infantry Doctrine
#7 Mechanized Infantry Doctrine
#8 Western Doctrine
#9 Armored Doctrine
#10 Shock and Awe Doctrine


Yeah, I hate inefficient, massive Napoleonic infantry confrontations. Traditional Western doctrine is too "organized" and rule-bound for my tastes. It's confined unnecessarily by stale dogma. I'm more of a fan of Forrest than any other Civil War strategist.

But it is much easier and in general better to have large numbers of officers capable of doing things that will work most of the time, than a few genii who go by their gut instincts.

You can't rely on a genius being in the right place at the right time. One of the reasons that the Germans did so well in WWII was that their low-level officers and NCOs were in general more competent than average due to applied training and methods.

Shock and Awe Doctrine.

The idea of overwhelming your opponent before initial confrontation through a massive launching of missiles, rockets, bombs, and other destructive technology followed by orchestrated attacks with infantry and armoured mobile weaponry intrigues me for some reason. It worked quite well in Iraq. The war was quick and casualties were minimal. The only downside of it is expense.

Shock and Awe Doctrine.

The idea of overwhelming your opponent before initial confrontation through a massive launching of missiles, rockets, bombs, and other destructive technology followed by orchestrated attacks with infantry and armoured mobile weaponry intrigues me for some reason.

If that's shock and awe, then the concept has existed since the beginning of warfare. Hell WW1 trench warfare was characterised by massive bombardments of enemy positions for weeks before infantry attacks.


It worked quite well in Iraq. The war was quick and casualties were minimal. The only downside of it is expense.

The downside is it doesnt work at all!

http://www.g2mil.com/Apr2003.htm

From the little we know, the conquest of Iraq is going okay; it's not going great. The war began with a pleasant surprise. It seemed the Pentagon was just bluffing about employing a mad doctrine of terrorizing civilians with heavy bombing, a concept recently renamed after a horrible book Shock and Awe. When armchair experts who fail to read military history advocated this, military experts laughed, until General Myers supported the idea. Surely the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs was just taunting the Iraqis. Since the US military hadn't bombed Kabul into rubble to crush the Taliban in Afghanistan, it was assumed the concept of massive strategic bombardment had finally died after a series of failures since World War II.

Two days later, the surprise ended as a mindless bombing campaign began, mostly the result of a distorted concept of "jointness". Navy surface ships and submarines are of little value in this war, yet admirals insisted they be allowed to fire hundreds of million-dollar Tomahawk missiles at "something". The Air Force spent billions of dollars on their B-2 bombers as part of its "Global Reach" concept; so they must bomb "something" too. Aircraft carrier pilots also like bombing buildings too since they can drop JDAM satellite-guided bombs miles away from Iraqi anti-aircraft systems. So these groups had a grand time planning and executing a bombardment to pummel Iraqi government buildings in Baghdad.

Once the fun began, it didn't look good on television. Reporters on the scene noted that government buildings under attack had been empty for days. They said Iraqi civilians were angry at the pointless destruction, which also broke their windows and frightened all. It soon became apparent that "Shock is Awe" was a failed strategy, but it was too much fun to stop. Then the first 10% of precision-guided munitions which malfunction slammed into houses, then another into a marketplace. A couple years ago, the Navy would drop 500 lb bombs filled with concrete in Iraqi cities to limit civilian damage. As the US Air Force dropped 2000 lb bombs filled with high explosives onto Baghdad, it didn't take an expert to determine this caused civilian deaths even when the bomb impact point was perfect. The leader of Iraq's main Shiite opposition group was so angered at the destruction that he stated US troops must leave as soon as Hussein is overthrown.

Television images of the senseless bombings inflamed world opinion against the war, except in the USA where TV executives decided to censor them. Corporate television news also avoided reports of any battles with significant American losses, even after a detailed story of heavy fighting appeared in USA Today, which miraculously claimed only one American was injured in the firefight. There are always large numbers of unhappy troops complaining about things, yet no negative remarks appeared on American TV, nor images of wounded GIs on the battlefield. As a result, a Russian website with believable reports has become popular. Antiwar.com continues gain readers for their excellent links to foreign news sources, while former soldier Scott Miller posts interesting comments each day.

The Pentagon tried to spin the onslaught and assure everyone that civilian areas are never "targeted", meaning they don't feel responsible when precision weapons malfunction. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters that what was shown on television was not really happening. He bragged that these precision weapons had accuracy "undreamt of in earlier wars." He was proven correct after some of these weapons hit Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia; no one had dreamt weapons could miss their targets by hundreds of miles. It was possible their GPS signals had been jammed by the Iraqis. The Pentagon denied this, and then announced it had destroyed six Iraqi GPS jammers. They claimed the jammers were ineffective and caused no problems, yet put them on top of their target list for immediate attack, and criticized capitalist Russians for selling them.

While the ground offensive has visibly stalled, there have been no disasters. No Anglo-American units have been defeated in battle, few oil wells were set afire, and many bridges were captured intact. Nevertheless, the supply system is fouled up and the ground offensive stalled for the reasons G2mil warned about last February in: "The Crusade to Baghdad ". The US Army blamed Rumsfeld and the Air Force for concentrating airpower on meaningless targets in Baghdad, while the Air Force blamed the Army for not requesting air support. While everyone outside the Pentagon realized "Shock and Awe" had failed and was actually counterproductive, the Air Force and Navy continued pointless bombings while their "targeteers" scoured images of Baghdad rooftops for more fun. An Air Force General explained this madness last year when he admitted: "We don't like to bomb mud". Post strike photos of craters are not as impressive as destroyed buildings. Meanwhile, the US Army will soon learn that clearing enemy infantrymen from building rubble is far more difficult than from undamaged buildings.

There were just a couple dozen legitimate military targets in Baghdad after Iraqi military forces had deployed into the field and government officials moved elsewhere. Attacking these few targets was justified, so long as civilian casualties were avoided. However, Congress and the American people must demand an end to this satanic practice of wasting billions of dollars to bomb empty buildings while killing hundreds of innocent Iraqis by accident. Isn't the USA "liberating" Iraq? Hasn't the USA promised to rebuild Iraq? Haven't constant images of bombing Baghdad enraged the world? Aren't dropping thousands of weapons of minor destruction on a city as bad as a single weapon of mass destruction? Shouldn't the remaining bombs be reserved to support US Army operations? The first step to winning the war is to STOP BOMBING BAGHDAD, at least until US troops arrive there and need close air support. "Shock and Awe" was a lousy idea, which fooled some politicians and generals with little historical knowledge about warfare. It has failed! Stop bombing Baghdad for fun!

Carlton Meyer editor@G2mil.com

Navy surface ships and submarines are of little value in this war, yet admirals insisted they be allowed to fire hundreds of million-dollar Tomahawk missiles at "something".

LOL, yeah, I remember reading about the ships and subs in the Gulf that were ordered to launch missiles just so they wouldn't feel left out. Kill civilians, waste taxpayer money, it makes the Navy feel important!

I prefer surrounding the enemy and using artillery to barrage them into dust. Then send in tanks to take out the surviving enemy tanks and then send in infantry to round them up. Infantry units are the most important to me though.

#1 Shock and Awe
#2 Infantry Doctrine
#3 Mechanized Infantry Doctrine
#4 Armoured Doctrine
#5 Eastern Doctrine

It worked quite well in Iraq. The war was quick and casualties were minimal.

LOL we will see about that...

The war is by no means over.

LOL we will see about that...

The war is by no means over.

I would not go so far as to call it a "war". World War II and Vietnam were wars, this is a pussified effort to keep savages like muslims in the place where they belong.

I would not go so far as to call it a "war". World War II and Vietnam were wars, this is a pussified effort to keep savages like muslims in the place where they belong.


Are you saying you support the American "effort" in Iraq?

Are you saying you support the American "effort" in Iraq?

LOL probably, he's just an American teenage Nazi-wannabe.

That is possible, but I have seen much more idiosyncratic views of geopolitics. I have encountered self-described "National Socialists" who actually favor the Allied side when discussing matters related to WWII. My wager is that such folks are recent "converts" who still have some left over "American Patriotism", or at least get a vague sense of pride derived from 1) seeing America as having a sort communal purpose, and/or 2) just a simple enjoyment of one's own country participating in a military action.

Teenage Nazi wannabe? I've never even said I was a NS and you dont know anything about me so shut your mouth you Godless communist bastard.

As for supporting the war in Iraq I dont think we should have went over there because Saddam had those Muslim bastards under control. Even he said they were "savage monkeys". But now that we are over there I say we have to stick it out. We are going about it the wrong way though. Muslims can never have a democratic government anyways. I think we are wasting our time. They are filthy people and only n1ggers are lower on the Pieces of Sh1t of Humanity scale.

Teenage Nazi wannabe? I've never even said I was a NS and you dont know anything about me so shut your mouth you Godless communist bastard.


Your username, avatar and profile are hints. And what is wrong with being Godless?


Muslims can never have a democratic government anyways. I think we are wasting our time. They are filthy people and only n1ggers are lower on the Pieces of Sh1t of Humanity scale.

Yeah. That's why Mesopotamia was the Cradle of Civilization and Sumeria, Babylon and Assyria were far ahead of Europe in their day. And why Arabs invented our numeral system, algebra and distillation and preserved Classical knowledge while Europe was in the Dark Ages.

The Muslims have been causing problems for over a 1000 years and even attributed to Europe's dark ages. Whats wrong with being godless? Plenty.

Please try to behave..no need for flames