To clarify my last post, my annoyance at vidboi does NOT stem from the fact that he is advocating using military tactics. I am annoyed that he rejects out of hand any other references JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ACTUAL COMBAT DOCUMENTS.
I didn't reject it out of hand, I read it and thought it pretty poor. "Don't use high RoF weapons" is exactly the opposite of what any player would advise, and having a specialised reloader (with no support weapons...) rather than an extra rifleman is also a pretty poor trade-off. If you need to reload magazines you shouldn't be doing it in battle. An extra rifleman would end the engagement sooner and then leave time for reloading when not in an engagement whilst still maintaining the combat readiness of the patrol.
My point however is that it's comparing an expert-written, peer-reviewed and tested combat manual to something that's been written for fun by an individual. There's no comparison.
Some military tactics and techniques lend well towards playing HvZ. However, military tactics are not designed with the game in mind, and one should be judicious in one's application of said techniques.
I don't think anyone's said that in the entire thread. What we've been saying is "yes, it doesn't apply directly to HvZ, but some of the concepts and directives could be used effectively in certain situations in HvZ, so why don't we try this out." The US military philosophy isn't necessarily the only thing that applies here.
1) Applying military tactics to HvZ is tricky, and takes a lot of thought and practice to implement well in the game. Put your trust less in field manuals and more in field tested techniques. Bottom line: hook up with veterans before, during, and after the game, and eventually YOU will become the veteran teaching the next generation.
I'm pretty certain the majority of forum users are veterans. We know how to play, we're discussing how we can look at other sources (in this case the rifleman's primer) to improve our playstyle. I don't think anyone would disagree that protecting a large group of humans is one of the most difficult tasks you can do in HvZ. We can all survive perfectly well on our own, but large groups pose a different problem. The army manual deals with managing fairly large groups effectively, so there's likely something we can learn from it.
2) Be open minded enough to accept ideas when they are offered to you. It doesn't mean you have to accept them, but please have the courtesy to consider them before you reject them.
We have considered all the ideas and made our contributions to the discussion. No one's come in and said that everyone should play like a rifleman patrol, we're just discussing how these tactics could be applied to HvZ if you so wish. I'm certain that trying these out would require a well organised group of humans, but there are many of them about.
3) I personally get really annoyed at teams who go full gung-ho mil-sim for HvZ. As a player and a moderator, I've seen it cause a lot of DBAD issues, so it's a particularly sore subject for me. Having yet another player determined to make this his or her "military experience" while rejecting out of hand any suggestions to the contrary frankly set me the f*** off.
Then don't tar everyone with the same brush. There are plenty more mil-sim teams that play perfectly fine with the rules and don't see themselves as superior to anyone else. They just have fun acting like they're real soldiers in a real situation, heck, some of them are real soldiers and are just doing what they've been taught. Any player can make a dbad move, so I wouldn't say it's wise to single out one group of players. The worst dbad-ers I've found are people who don't take the game at all seriously, and proceed to ignore moderators and make up their own missions, completely ruining the flow of the game for everyone else.