I have to dispel a few myths.
Having not been in combat, I still consider myself a good instructor. I understand the whole individual training system, and why it works (and why it doesn't work - at times). You can have an instructor with combat experience who can relate empirical stories about a specific situation, or you can have a competent instructor who can think outside the box and adapt. To think outside the box, you first have to understand what that box is, how it works, and understand that sometimes inside the box thinking is exactly what is needed. Just as a one-size fits all approach to kit doesn't work, same with training. I don't care if you're talking about training for a parade, for battle or for your wedding night.
All this to say that there are basics. Earlier, Mission analysis, battle procedure, etc were mentioned. In my opinion, these are vital tools that MUST be used properly in order to understand what it is you have to do and how to convey that information to your subordinates in a manner that you know that they will understand. This is the proverbial "box". Thinking outside the box (eg: turning the BG around and fighting 180 in the opposite direction) is something that can be done quite quickly, but you MUST first understand WHAT you want to do.
It all boils down to paying proper attention to detail. For riflemen, it may mean watching your arcs, looking for the odd clues that something is amiss. For a staff officer, it may mean ensuring that you understand your higher commander's intent. We cannot simply say that we pay attention to detail in garrison, and then throw away that box once the bullets fly. Let's face it, we are not the first army to go to war, ever. Our doctrine, manuals, methods of teaching, etc, are all products of men who fought other wars, and these are the tools that helped them. Some of those tools may need upgrading, and others maybe may need to be cast off, but to throw the whole thing out the window once someone shoots at you? Nonsense. We may as well just give our recruits a few hours on learning how to use an automatic rifle and then send them on their way!
We have procedures, and these are baseline, and as always, they can be amended. As an earlier poster mentioned, they got FRAG Os that were brilliant. That is awesome. FRAG O's are also part of our doctrine, which realises that you don't always have the luxury of time to sit down and spend 8 hours on a problem before issuing orders. Heck, if you only have thirty minutes, you then don't have time for information briefs, wargames, etc. Fine. That's why we can do combat estimates. Spending ten minutes developing a workable plan, relying on drills (another time saver!) will serve you well. If you "situate the estimate" and come up with a plan without even understanding what your problem is, you are looking for trouble.
So, experience and qualification does not necessarily mean competence. The mystique of "he's got combat experience" can only go so far. Pay attention to detail, avoid silliness (eg: all wearing the same kit as though on parade) and be prepared to wisely use that box, or avoid it altogether, but for God's sakes, be competent! And never be boring!
[/rant]
