Printable View
I'd like to have some opinions about this article (and this one), especially from our friends in the US military.
Personnally, I'm a bit bugged by a simulation where you ask the ennemy to let you win... but I'd really appreciate some input (and comments) from people who have more data than me on the topic.
Well, if part of this very expensive exercise is to test, say, the Stryker LAV and the ship carrying the LAVs get "sunk" during the naval part of the exercise, do you just not test them? Likewise, if you've got a series of tests for the vehicles in different types of terrain, and they all get "toasted" in open terrain, do you not test them in mountainous, swampy, and urban terrain? This sort of exercise is best thought of as a series of related scenarios, rather than a continuing campaign. As for the results of the battles, this was American troops with simulated Iraqi equipment, led by a USMC general. This was not undertrained Iraqi conscripts, with real, worn out, Iraqi equipment, led by whatever general is non-threatening enough that Saddam hasn't purged him. We won't be asking Saddam to turn off his radar equipment. We actually turned most of them off with last Friday's airstrike. Any that survived that by being off & hidden on Friday, will be taken care of as they light up.
That seems about right. After all if your delivery method fails surely that means that the fault needs to be re-thought.Quote:
Originally posted by Cybrludite
Well, if part of this very expensive exercise is to test, say, the Stryker LAV and the ship carrying the LAVs get "sunk" during the naval part of the exercise, do you just not test them?
In R/L if the ship carrying the LAV's gets sunk, the LAV's are lost... Doesn't matter if their tested or not. lost is lost.
In the terms of an exersice, surely the whole point is to find out what is 'wrong' with the plan and equipment, rather than set up an urealistic simulation that doesn't truely find the faults so they can be jighlighted by live ammunition? Which is preferable?
For example, take the UK's Assault Rifle. The SA80. Now we are about to send supporting ground troops into this impending war with Iraq. Trouble is, the SA80 really suffers under desert conditions. Did in Gulf War 1, and again in Afghanistan... Now were facing Gulf War the sequal, and we have a sub-standard-issue weapon just to keep up with the 5.56mm fan club.
Good God... this means that I actually agree with a M... M... Marine (ret). :D
I agree with Cybrludite. The articles state that the General in charge of the Iraqi's used unorthodox tactics. He was motivated to win; Iraqi troops aren't motivated to do anything, only to surrender in large numbers.
Such simulations are useful in determining what exactly will be useful to oust Hussein. Do you use massive airstrikes? Conventional forces en-masse? Or maybe tactical nuclear warheads (very doubtful)? All I see is a very competent General outwitting his superiors. Where they thought he'd play a conventional game, he went out and tried untested tactics to see if he might win.
The Iraqis won't get help from the Arab world, unlike what we hear officially. Not one regime in the region is going to put its neck out for Hussein. They may not like what is going to happen to him, but they'll stay on the sidelines and bitterly nag about it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Gurden
That seems about right. After all if your delivery method fails surely that means that the fault needs to be re-thought.
In R/L if the ship carrying the LAV's gets sunk, the LAV's are lost... Doesn't matter if their tested or not. lost is lost.
In the terms of an exersice, surely the whole point is to find out what is 'wrong' with the plan and equipment, rather than set up an urealistic simulation that doesn't truely find the faults so they can be jighlighted by live ammunition? Which is preferable?
Right, you re-think what went wrong with that portion of the exercise. That doesn't mean you don't run the other parts. After all, if the point of the exercise is to see how the Stryker works under differing circumstances, you don't stop the whole shebang because it didn't work under one situation. You look at what went wrong, and you run your other tests to see how the rest of it goes. Look, a wargame that's testing equipment that isn't in general issue is different from a wargame done for training.. Even then, it's common procedure for folks "killed" early on in a regular training exercise to be recycled as "replacements" or "reenforcements" so they don't miss out on the training time. Let's say that Lt. Shmuckatelli gets "hit" by a sniper at the start of the scenario. If he sits the rest of it out, all he's learned is to keep his head down. He doesn't get to learn how to move his platoon through the terrain in question with the added stress of shooting and the fog of war. So, you have him sit out for the day & observe, (so his platoon gets the experience of operating without their officer, a common battlefield event) and he's brought in as a replacement the next day.
Oh, I agree that the SA80 is a piece of crap, and it's scanalous that the thing is still in use. Even the improved version is still lousy. Factory reps ran a moderately rigged test of the things in Afghanistan, running them through a simulated patrol mission that ended with time on a range, with them doing proper maintence on the things. Two out of the twelve rifles jammed on the range. 83% availability despite proper care (and very likely rifles selected for their reliability) is unaceptable. The UK either needs to get M-16s or G36s to replace that miserable piece of $#|+... Most likely the G36, since H&K is now owned by a British company.Quote:
For example, take the UK's Assault Rifle. The SA80. Now we are about to send supporting ground troops into this impending war with Iraq. Trouble is, the SA80 really suffers under desert conditions. Did in Gulf War 1, and again in Afghanistan... Now were facing Gulf War the sequal, and we have a sub-standard-issue weapon just to keep up with the 5.56mm fan club.
Good God... this means that I actually agree with a M... M... Marine (ret). :D
I can understand the frustration of the Marine general. If he's told to win, then he should try and win. Marines aren't known for rolling over. But one thing I think the article(s) missed is the SOP for military exercises:
1) This wasn't one big war game, but a series of interrelated smaller engagements. If you do a search on the operation code name (which escapes me at the moment) on Google you can find some pretty good information about it. I got from the above articles that the General was litereally on the sidelines of the action. Being that this is the case:
2) Dead guys/equipment rise from the grave all the time. :) The idea is to get as much training and information as possible under different real-world simulations. Some ideas will fail, resulting in casualties, while others will succeed. Either scenario can be chalked up to a learning experience that will make a difference in the real world. This tests equipment, troops and command structure. The idea isn't to win or lose, but to learn. Having a former general with his nose out of joint is a secondary consideration to the knowledge that, hopefully, was gained that, hopefully, will save lives.
I can see the Pentagon wanting to have radar turned off, enemy force dispositions changed, etc, because they represent different possible battlefield conditions. If an invasion of Iraq happens, and I'm still of the mind that one isn't needed, more than likely an air campaign will once again pound outlying defenses to dust, which would result in a lack of communication between the forward posts and central command, disarray amongst the ranks and a lack of radar intelligence and response. That is the most likely scenario, but I'm perfectly happy in seeing the Marine General kick some ass early on in order to demonstrate that battles don't always follow the most likely scenarios.
Here's to hoping that this whole exercise was for nothing and that another solution is found.
First off, Heckler & Kock is no longer owned by Royal Ordinance, it was sold earlier this year to a group of German Investors.
Secondly, the MOD should buy the Steyr AUG instead, if it is good enough for the Aussies, Kiwies and the Irish Armed Forces, it should be good enough for the average British Squaddie.
Thirdly, ALL military high commands all over the world and throughout history HAVE always disliked and tried to surpress advocates and practioners of unconvential warfare and military technologies, and that definately, especially includes the Pentagon, remember what happened to General Billy Mitchell between the two worlds wars.
All well and good saying "Ah, but this was a motivated US commander with probably better equipment than the Iraqis would actually have". But the fact is, that equipment and his resources were still nowhere near those of the opposing simulated US forces and he still kicked ass. To be honest, a General who leads troops into battle expecting that the enemy won't fight very well is just asking to get bitten in the ass if it turns out he's wrong. And remember, last time we were just kicking the Iraqis out of Kuwait - not invading their own home country. Even if they don't like their leader, people will fight harder for their home than they will pretty much anything else (something Hitler learned the hard way from us Brits).
While I think Cyberludite's point about the nature of military exercises (and for all I know this one :)) was probably spot on, the article certainly implied that this was an "all in one" game - win or lose at any point - and that none of those standard rules were supposed to apply. Hence Van Riper's surprise.
It occurs to me, that the logical thing to do when this happens is halt the game, reset, rethink the strategy and try again. But that was probably too expensive, and the exercise too high profile to make it politically the right thing to do.
What concerns me most is not the resurrections or the "turn off your radar" command, but the apparent ignoring of the unorthodox tactics. (Although they must have allowed for some considering the armed "small civilian boats": have you ever tried something like that in Civilisation? Straight simulations tend to be a little too rigid.)
Is there any evidence that Saddam, having been beaten at all out warfare, has not been following recent events in Afghanistan and learning more about how to fight the Americans? If I was him, I'd have the majority of my intelligence assets watching US forces in action at every opportunity, in order to formulate just such unorthodox tactics...
Also, I have little understanding of how well Iraqi propaganda is working these days - but you only need a small cadre of well-motivated and trained fanatics (such as the kind in al Qaeda) to carry out the kind of operations Van Riper attempted. The regular army may wind up being wiped out as distractions while the Iraqi equivalent of special forces do the real fighting.
What concerns me most is that his real fighting may not even take place in the Gulf. Getting the various terrorist groups (already hyped up as a result of Afghanistan) geared up may be all he needs.
I'm no expert - so all this is just speculation...
Well, various people interviewed on this from the British military have said uncategorically that Saddam has been watching US tactics very closely. And one thing he knows for certain is that putting his troops in the cities where you can't get 'em with bombs for fear of massive civilian casualties is a viable tactic.
Actually, it's a war crime to endanger civilians that way. If civilians are hurt or killed as a result, it's the fault of the ones who put a military target in a civlian area. And I don't think it will stop us from hitting what needs to be hit.Quote:
Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
And one thing he knows for certain is that putting his troops in the cities where you can't get 'em with bombs for fear of massive civilian casualties is a viable tactic.
Surely you must be mistaken.Quote:
Originally posted by Cybrludite
Actually, it's a war crime to endanger civilians that way. If civilians are hurt or killed as a result, it's the fault of the ones who put a military target in a civlian area. And I don't think it will stop us from hitting what needs to be hit.
Because if you are correct, then America committed a warcrime today, by stationing SAM units in Washinton, and various other US Cities. As seen on CNN and BBC news reports today, a SAM Humvee on the street outside the Whitehouse, with the report stating that similar units were in cities across the USA...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2249797.stm
The UK has been committing this same war crime for over 200 years with the Garrison at Horse Guards (down the road from Buckingham Palace) and the Garrison in the Tower of London (sure its only small and ceremonial, but they are real soldiers)...
All these are valid military targets within highly populated cities.
And bot Izreal and Switzerland by ensuring that their population are fully trained, fully equipped soldiers on call for duty are also committing this very same war crime as each of their adult citizens represents a valid (and armed when at home) military target.
I can pull out several more of these examples, all from 'our side'. but the only war-crime valid is actively targetting a Civilian target.
Ok, are you so blind that you can't see the difference between a defensive deployment of equipment to protect areas from attack, and deploying equipment near mosques or hospitals in the hopes of manufacturing an enemy atrocity? Or the difference between a ceremonial unit who parade for tourists, and folks hiding expolsives & wanted terrorists in ambulances to smuggle them past security? Also, a reservist not on active duty is a civilian, just as is a recently discharged veteran who still remembers all of his training. It is a war crime to dilberately use civilian areas to protect your forces, or to abuse the assumed neutrality of ambulances. Likewise, it's a crime to deliberately target civilians. (Unless, apperently, those civilians are Jews in the Middle East...)Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Gurden
Actually, you must be mistaken.
Because if you are correct, then America committed a warcrime today, by stationing SAM units in Washinton, and various other US Cities. As seen on CNN and BBC news reports today, a SAM Humvee on the street outside the Whitehouse, with the report stating that similar units were in cities across the USA... The UK has been committing this same war crime for over 200 years with the Garrison at Horse Guards (down the road from Buckingham Palace) and the Garrison in the Tower of London (sure its only small and ceremonial, but they are real soldiers)...
All these are valid military targets within highly populated cities.
And bot Izreal and Switzerland by ensuring that their population are fully trained, fully equipped soldiers on call for duty are also committing this very same war crime as each of their adult citizens represents a valid (and armed when at home) military target.
I can pull out several more of these examples, all from 'our side'. but the only war-crime valid is actively targetting a Civilian target.
As for Saddam Hussein being a great military strategist, he is neither a strategist nor is he schooled in the operational art nor is he a tactician nor is he a general nor is he a soldier. Other than that, he's a great military man.
H. Norman Schwarzkopf, 27 February 1991
What more needs to be said?
No. Not blind.Quote:
Originally posted by Cybrludite
Ok, are you so blind that you can't see the difference between a defensive deployment of equipment to protect areas from attack, and deploying equipment near mosques or hospitals in the hopes of manufacturing an enemy atrocity? Or the difference between a ceremonial unit who parade for tourists, and folks hiding expolsives & wanted terrorists in ambulances to smuggle them past security? Also, a reservist not on active duty is a civilian, just as is a recently discharged veteran who still remembers all of his training. It is a war crime to dilberately use civilian areas to protect your forces, or to abuse the assumed neutrality of ambulances. Likewise, it's a crime to deliberately target civilians. (Unless, apperently, those civilians are Jews in the Middle East...)
A realist. We Know thats what he will be doing... Now Prove it. The two are not exclusive.
I proved that the US has stationed troops in civilian areas today, and that the UK does it permanently. Now prove to me where it says in the rulebook that doing so endangers civilians and is a war crime.
The reason they are there is different, but by the letter of the law, the difference is irrelevant.
BTW: The troops are not in London for ceremonial duties alone... that is just one aspect of their presence, so please dont over-simplify, thats where the problem lies...