On newspeak and newthink.

Snerk. JTG, the "Non-Line-of-Sight" moniker came from... Fort Leavenworth. Along with other silliness, such as UEx, UEy, and UA.

In a comment on yesterday's H&I Fires post JTG said:

Non-Line-of-Sight? Is that like, you know, Indirect Fire, which everybody has been doing for, oh, about a hundred years?

Shooting over hills? Pointing the sights one way and the gun, another? Estimating windage when shooting a BB gun?

They sure picked an unfortunate Marketing Name for that.

Gravity does affect trajectories. That is a very silly name, unless and until they do ome 'splainin.

This was in response to my whinging about just how darn ugly the NLOS-C is. Heh. Dusty, the A10 jock, snarked it - but I'll say this for the A10 - it's pugly. The NLOS-C is spugly. One is pugnaciously ugly, a good thing, the other is spud-ugly, which is not awe-inspiring. The NLOS-C may be a good gun (right now it's pretty much a self-propelled M777 made out of legos) and do it's job, but, well, not even a mother could love it. So, as is his wont when confronted by something bright and shiny, JTG fixates on that which no one else does, the acronym, the label.

Well, JTG, NLOS-C, and a lot of other acronyms, are wrapped up in guidance given to a buncha Colonels and Generals set to navel-gazing regarding the Revolution in Military Affairs, and Secretary Rumsfeld's enrapturement with same. I'm not a general fan of the Secretary - but on the issue of making the services get off of top-dead-center on roles, missions, and organization I think he did a good thing.

He wanted newthink. This required newspeak. [yes, that's on purpose]

This was so that the great minds who were rethinking warfare as a part of the Revolution in Military Affairs would not be unwittingly bounded and blinkered by outdated thought-modes and mental constructs, such as "artillery," "division," "corps," and "brigade." Mind you, TPM Barnett and that blithering gasbag Bill Lind will tell you little to nothing has changed. Especially Lind who is blinded by his BDS.

Ergo, the we wouldn't have no silly old-form thinking of the type that would have the Division Artillery of the 29th Division, 5th (US) Corps, landing their 105mm howitzers at Normandy, oh no, not that at all. That simply wouldn't do.

Rather, the NLOS-Cs of the Fires Unit of Action belonging to the 29th Unit of Employment (x) would be landing in the Vth Unit of Employment (y) area of responsibility, and would get their ammunition resupply from the Sustainment Unit of Action belonging to the 29th Unit of Employment (x). They might also get some support in road building, should they need it, from the Maneuver Enhancement Unit of Action belonging to the Vth Unit of Employment (y). Additionally, the NLOS-Cs organic to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Units of Action of the 29th Unit of Employment (x) would land in support of their Unit of Action's Combined Arms Battalions.

No. Seriously. I mean it.

And for a while there, the brainiacs were saying the the UE and UA monikers were going to survive, and become the new terminology. It was usually at that point I would be unable to contain myself any longer and a snort would escape, followed by "There is simply no way the terminology is going to survive when the command-select Colonels and Generals start assuming command of the units built under the new structure and were going to have to tell people, "Yep, I commanded the 1st UA, 3rd UE(x) as a part of V UE(y) in the March Upcountry. Yeah, right." Now, the new structure *is* being implemented, of that have no doubt - the conversions to the brigade-centric structure is years along and happening right now.

Anyway, I was argued with on that nomenclature issue, earnestly. I won.

Mind you - I don't know how well it worked as a tactic for getting people to think outside of ingrained structures, but I know it was a painful process trying to keep up with the latest terminology changes (heh, talk about Politically Correct speech codes) that had earned someone their latest Legion of Merit...