> That is totally inaccurate. Do you think that we
>would have won every single war he ever
>fought(except Vietnam) If all our troops pointed
>above the enemys' head? Or eighty percent of them?
>That report is inaccurate.
>

I love how you assert something is inaccurate and your only proof you offer is the fact that we won some wars once. Did it ever occur to you that maybe we won those wars simply because the *other* side was doing the same thing, and we just happened to have better equipment or more guys?

The report may not be 100% accurate, but there's enough evidence to support it. For instance, in the Falkland Islands war, the British were outnumbered in some cases by about 3 to 1, and still managed to rout the Argentines, even though most military strategists would say that the attacker should have at least a 2 to 1 numerical advantage before even thinking about attacking. Why? Because the British troops were trained using the new methods developed post-WWII, and nearly all of them actually fought, whereas the Argentinians were either not trained at all or trained with the older methods and so had a firing rate of around 5% to 10%. It doesn't take a math genius to see that even a 3 to 1 advantage isn't going to help you if only 10% of those people are actually firing accurately while 95% of the guys on the other side are shooting to kill.

You may not personally want to believe it, but it seems to me to be a fairly well documented fact that most soldiers since the invention of the gun up to around the Vietnam era spent most of their time in combat not fighting. The reason anybody won any war was because of numerical or technological advantages.

-- Dave