september - october - Fort Sill

COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF SCHOOL
inadequate Pinkerton information service had been replaced by a modern
G-2 organization?
Our test problems have been coming along at the rate of only one or
two a week, but many afternoons of late have been devoted to map
manœuvres, both of the "two-sided" variety, between groups of students,
and "one-sided," with the instructors playing the enemy rôle. Starting with
a reinforced regiment, we worked up through the brigade to the division,
which involves quite an array of bits of cardboard to move around on the
map. These map manœuvres have obvious limitations; they are surrounded
at best by a somewhat artificial atmosphere; they need skilled direction in
order not to lag, and most of the instructors do not claim real expertness in
directing them. With all that, they seem to me very valuable in illustrating
principles, in teaching certain details of technique, in compelling an officer
to think on his feet, in affording much needed practice in giving verbal
orders. After the purely tactical problems, come map manœuvres that
simulate the functioning of a staff, with the parts of the various G's and also
of the administrative staff played by the students. It all helps mightily to
round out the picture the school is trying to paint for us.
SCHEME OF INSTRUCTION
The general scheme of our morning instruction continues unchanged.
There is no denying that the conferences do at times get pretty deadly.
There is a difference in the inherent interest of the various topics for
discussion, and a good deal of difference, too, in the ability of the various
instructors to "put it over." Some instructors, with no better knowledge of
the subject, but perhaps a better understanding of the psychology of their
audience, put just the right touch of unexpectedness, of allusion, of
humor into the discussion. They use graphics wherever applicable. They
seem to put their finger on just what difficulties the student has, and leave
him with a concrete picture. It is interesting to try to analyze just wherein
lies the difference! It has been a surprise to me, too, to note the rapid
rotation in instructors; we have had to date about sixty different
instructors for less than two hundred and forty conferences and lectures,
or an average of less than four periods per instructor. Needless to say, we
are not imbued with the personality of individual instructors, but rather
are we left with the impression of a composite of the whole faculty;
instruction by mass, rather than individual performers, so to speak. Of
course, the personality of the directing heads makes itself felt, but there is
this distinct impression of a system of instruction paramount to any
individual.
The problems, though they come less frequently than the
521