TexasCHLforum.com

RogueUSMC wrote:Doctrine...you have to establish yours.

A country's military trains under a given doctrine. In WWII, Russia's doctrine was throw the kitchen sink in there and the heck with casualties. American forces do not and have never adopted that doctrine but doctrine it was.

You have planning and you have doctrine. Planning is done to apply to a given tactical or strategic situation. Once contact is made, the plan usually deviates from it's original form to adapt to the situation that has been changed by the enemy's actions. This is where doctrine takes over.

If platoon 'A' loses comm with platoon 'B', platoon leader 'A' knows roughly what platoon leader 'B' will do next because of doctrine. They can coordinate to a certain extent without communication.

When carrying a gun, you need to establish your doctrine for yourself. Well, this applies to other facets of life as well but...

Your doctrine needs to be decided before the call for it is needed. If you draw your gun, plan to use it...if you use it, plan to stop the threat...stopping the threat is best accomplished by stopping a heartbeat. The answers that are established here will be doctrine.

The only decisions that should need to be made IN the situation is when/if to stop that process already determined by doctrine.

If you wait until you are in a situation to decide how to handle it, you are doing yourself and those others involved a disservice...

Jago668 wrote:I view them being confined as a bonus. It limits their ability to move off the X once you start shooting. I would barely have to track targets, you could almost just blind fire in a straight line.

jason812 wrote:

Jago668 wrote:I view them being confined as a bonus. It limits their ability to move off the X once you start shooting. I would barely have to track targets, you could almost just blind fire in a straight line.

That was my thoughts when I saw the video.

WTR wrote:What is your rationale for not intervenelng on the platform which is not confined?

Flightmare wrote:

WTR wrote:What is your rationale for not intervenelng on the platform which is not confined?

That would depend on the environment. If I was able to keep distance from the mob of attackers and there was no threat of hitting an innocent on the other side, things would likely be different. There is not enough information in that video to tell me what was to the left and right to make that determination.

WTR wrote: Would it depend on the environment if was one of your family members were be beaten unconscious? However, you want the perfect "environment " to come to the aid of a man being beaten by a mob of thugs.

parabelum wrote:Can we all just agree how slimy and detestable the parasitic Lib drones are?

mloamiller wrote:

WTR wrote: Would it depend on the environment if was one of your family members were be beaten unconscious? However, you want the perfect "environment " to come to the aid of a man being beaten by a mob of thugs.

Whether or not my immediate loved one was involved would definitely make a difference in terms of whether or not I engaged, given the same environment. In other words, if it were my wife or child being beaten, I would absolutely engage and not be as concerned with the environment than I would if it were a complete stranger. I am much more willing to take greater risks to protect my family than I would a stranger, and honestly, less concerned about possible collateral damage.

Does that make me a coward, or less of a man because I might not do the same for a stranger? I don't think so; I think it makes me a husband and a father.

oljames3 wrote:

mloamiller wrote:

WTR wrote: Would it depend on the environment if was one of your family members were be beaten unconscious? However, you want the perfect "environment " to come to the aid of a man being beaten by a mob of thugs.

Whether or not my immediate loved one was involved would definitely make a difference in terms of whether or not I engaged, given the same environment. In other words, if it were my wife or child being beaten, I would absolutely engage and not be as concerned with the environment than I would if it were a complete stranger. I am much more willing to take greater risks to protect my family than I would a stranger, and honestly, less concerned about possible collateral damage.

Does that make me a coward, or less of a man because I might not do the same for a stranger? I don't think so; I think it makes me a husband and a father.

The Fire Support Annex to my OPLAN assigns priority of fires to those for whom I am directly responsible. On Order shift of fires should the situation allow.
70% disabled Vietnam Era vet. Commo and fires is the best I have to offer.

WTR wrote:

oljames3 wrote:

mloamiller wrote:

WTR wrote: Would it depend on the environment if was one of your family members were be beaten unconscious? However, you want the perfect "environment " to come to the aid of a man being beaten by a mob of thugs.

Whether or not my immediate loved one was involved would definitely make a difference in terms of whether or not I engaged, given the same environment. In other words, if it were my wife or child being beaten, I would absolutely engage and not be as concerned with the environment than I would if it were a complete stranger. I am much more willing to take greater risks to protect my family than I would a stranger, and honestly, less concerned about possible collateral damage.

Does that make me a coward, or less of a man because I might not do the same for a stranger? I don't think so; I think it makes me a husband and a father.

The Fire Support Annex to my OPLAN assigns priority of fires to those for whom I am directly responsible. On Order shift of fires should the situation allow.
70% disabled Vietnam Era vet. Commo and fires is the best I have to offer.

What does your disability have to do with it?

carlson1 wrote:

WTR wrote:

oljames3 wrote:

mloamiller wrote:

WTR wrote: Would it depend on the environment if was one of your family members were be beaten unconscious? However, you want the perfect "environment " to come to the aid of a man being beaten by a mob of thugs.

Whether or not my immediate loved one was involved would definitely make a difference in terms of whether or not I engaged, given the same environment. In other words, if it were my wife or child being beaten, I would absolutely engage and not be as concerned with the environment than I would if it were a complete stranger. I am much more willing to take greater risks to protect my family than I would a stranger, and honestly, less concerned about possible collateral damage.

Does that make me a coward, or less of a man because I might not do the same for a stranger? I don't think so; I think it makes me a husband and a father.

The Fire Support Annex to my OPLAN assigns priority of fires to those for whom I am directly responsible. On Order shift of fires should the situation allow.
70% disabled Vietnam Era vet. Commo and fires is the best I have to offer.

What does your disability have to do with it?

Disability has everything to do with it. Simply those who suffer old age or disability cannot act as those with good health or youth could.

WTR wrote:
I reckon I have more disability than the majority' of folks here. I won't be worth anything physically. However, I can shoot and shoot well. I not about to stand by and watch anyone beaten. I'm no sheep.