I think if this becomes a world war, the gov. i going to unleash some stuff that has not been seen by even some of the high ups. i mean, the let the B2 out a long time ago. they have to have something that blows that out of the water. that is just a guess, and a hope, but what do you all think?


CASTOR

Castor There are a whole buch of new weapons out . The ones I have heard of use sound and electrical impulses to immobalise the target. I just don't think we will hear a lot about the damage our weapons cause .

yeah, i have heard of those, but im saying stuff that hasnt been released to the public. New plains, guns, armor, camoflage. all that stuff. like you are saying though, i bet we never see the devistation. but they are now letting news people into the teams. so you never know. i guess we will find out whenever that day comes.


CASTOR

I read in the paper awhile ago that America would use a 'Microwave' weapon. It looks like an ordinary bomb but it explodes above its target. On detonation it will release a microwave blast with a 300m radius. The point of this is :-

1. it's meant to short circuit all microchips within the area - weapon guidance chips in particular which will make the weapon worthless

2. there will also be no civillian casualties, unless you have a pacemaker or a hospital happens to be in the radius of the blast

ya but then you hear of the "aw" biggest military attack soon to come, what do the allies have up there sleeve. They seem very confident b/c of it

I hope they won't use the MOAB.

They are using that already. I saw it on the news this morning. Those small mushroom clouds were the MOAB

War is the ultimate testing ground for new weapons, and this war really emphasized precision, laser-guided bombing and real time intelligence between the various air and ground units, in my humble opinion. Not exactly brand new, never been used before weapons, but still a huge difference in the war.

QUOTE (Homer @ Apr 8 2003, 01:46 PM)

...this war really emphasized...real time intelligence between the various air and ground units...

Or lack thereof.

The latest edition of New Scientist has done an article all about the communication breakdown between the Army and Air force, ultimately resulting in these incidences of friendly fire or ‘fratricide’. The article suggests that while fratricide can be expected “triggered by technological failures of 21st century military technology”, the real causes of it are not being properly addressed. That is, the article says, “the culture of rivalry that pervades the armed services” which is “often the biggest contributor of friendly fire”.

Tommy,
Your post only proves your lack of knowledge about the military services and warfare in general. So let me educate you. Friendly fire is an unfortunate circumstance of every war that has ever been fought, or ever will be fought. Rivalry between services is also another unfortunate circumstance, and breakdown in communication do exist, and in some cases, hatred of other branches causes deaths as well.

In World War 2, the Japanese military routinely killed members of rival branches. I know that is taking it to the extreme, but it is accurate.

What you fail to mention is that there is a commander over all forces and all branches take orders from the same chain of command. General Tommy Frank is the commander over all forces of all nations in the coalition. Intelligence is gathered by special forces from all coalition partners who have special forces on the ground there, satellites, drones, spy planes, as well as clandestine organizations who listen for chatter. The information is relayed through the chain of command in real time through 21st century military communications. That information is then analyzed and again goes through a chain of command that makes decisions on the analyzed intelligence. The next phase is precision bombs that eliminate specific targets. The only exception to this is if there is a ‘target of opportunity’ that mandates immediate attention without the information being fully analyzed.

This is not to say that there is no breakdown in communication, after all, 21st century military communication isn’t perfect. This is also not to say that there are no rivalries within the armed services. But I am saying that this is the most successful military campaign in history, and it is because of our precision, laser-guided bombing and real time intelligence between the various air and ground units. That is a fact.

I fail to see which part of my summary of the New Scientist article "proves [my] lack of knowledge about the military services and warfare in general."

QUOTE

“What you fail to mention is that there is a commander over all forces and all branches take orders from the same chain of command. General Tommy Frank is the commander over all forces of all nations in the coalition. Intelligence is gathered by special forces from all coalition partners who have special forces on the ground there, satellites, drones, spy planes, as well as clandestine organizations who listen for chatter. The information is relayed through the chain of command in real time through 21st century military communications. That information is then analyzed and again goes through a chain of command that makes decisions on the analyzed intelligence. The next phase is precision bombs that eliminate specific targets. The only exception to this is if there is a ‘target of opportunity’ that mandates immediate attention without the information being fully analyzed."

If any of this was in the article then it might well have been included in my summary. However most of it is superfluous.

QUOTE

“This is not to say that there is no breakdown in communication, after all, 21st century military communication isn’t perfect. This is also not to say that there are no rivalries within the armed services.”

It is these points that the article focuses on; not how the information is gathered or where it is relayed through, but, how the system is fundamentally flawed in that the way incidents of fratricide are investigated accentuates the methodology of blaming individuals rather than to address the organisational flaws that exist within the armed forces.

Scott Snook, the former head of the Center for Leadership & Organisations at the West Point military academy says “The deeper issues of inter-service rivalry and the difference in cultures between army and air force, and even within those, are very rarely addressed...These are often the biggest contributor to friendly fire…The overriding emphasis is to find someone to hold accountable. And often that trumps any learning form the incident.”

In reference to the breakdown in communication, no standardisation of combat ID has been embraced as yet, which has lead to numerous tragedies in the past. In 1994, two US Air Force F-15s shot down two US Army Black Hawk helicopters because the Black Hawks were not considered ‘aircraft’ and so were not entered in on the mission sheet saying which aircraft were in the air that day. 26 servicemen were killed. However, the article does say that “NATO is planning an All-embracing digital combat ID system…but this will not be fitted until at least 2006…”

I was never questioning your opinion that "this is the most successful military campaign in history", but that as highlighted in the article, flaws in the system do exist and have to be addressed more pragmatically if incidences of friendly fire are to be minimised in the future conflicts.

Tommy,
What I had issues with, was your statement "Or lack thereof." when replying to my previous statement "...this war really emphasized...real time intelligence between the various air and ground units..." My statement was based on fact, and there is absolutely nothing that can be said by anyone and at anytime that can dispute that fact. That is what proved your "lack of knowledge about the military services and warfare in general." If you would have had knowledge about the military services and warfare in general, you would not have replied with 'or lack thereof'.

You said that what I had wrote was superfluous, but you are wrong about that as well. What I had wrote were examples of the processes involved with real time intelligence gathering, information sharing, and execution of specific tactical military objectives. You should know by now that I will never engage in debate without backing it up with examples or evidence or facts. That is what I did. There is nothing superfluous about that.

Now I didn't read the article, and I'm just going by what you posted. I actually looked for it tonight on their website, but I didn't find it. But by your posts, and I could be misinterpreting it, is that the article is linking how friendly fire incidents are investigated, with minimizing future friendly fire incidents.

The problem I have with this is that the way you describe the article, the two can't be linked in the way I percieve they are trying to link it. I completely agree with the article in that the system is fundamentally flawed in the way incidents of fratricide are investigated, and even that rivalries exist among the different branches that to some extent cause this flawed system. But the reasons for this has yet to be addressed, and the reasons Scott Snook states are the biggest contributors of friendly fire is incorrect. I don't care who he is or what his credentials are, those are two different issues and they are not directly linked together.

The real reason why the system is flawed, and that there are rivalries among the different branches, regardless what anyone else says, is due to military funding and prestige. Nothing else. For example, a friendly fire incident will unfortunately occur, but the cause of the incident is not based on a flawed system, however the investigation of it is based on a flawed system. Branch A blames Branch B because Branch A doesn't want to be embarrased or it's funding compromised. When the flawed system finally comes to terms on which branch to blame, that particular branch quickly reacts by blaming the individual involved, instead getting to the root of the problem, so as to limit it's own liability and save it's own funding.

If this system can actually be fixed, that won't minimize friendly fire incidents. It only fixes how they are investigated. How friendly fire incidents can be minimized is by better intelligence-real time intelligence-and better communication throughout the chain of command and with the various air and ground units. That is what I had issues with what you said. We have excellent communication between the various units, and yet you said 'the lack thereof'

Lets keep in mind, that half of the friendly fire incidents in Operation Iraqi Freedom didn't involve aircraft at all. They were exclusively ground units on ground units, meaning no branch rivalry involved. Also, half of the incidents occured against other nations.

Lets put this in perspective, shall we? Almost 20,000 sorties and about 150,000 coalition troops on the ground in Iraq, and only about a dozen individuals killed by friendly fire. With statistics like that, unparalleled in all military history, I don't see a flawed system, but a superior fighting force lead by superior leadership, fighting with superior equipment. Their deaths were not based on any breakdown caused by inter service rivarlies, but because of the unfortunate mishaps of war.

QUOTE

What I had issues with, was your statement "Or lack thereof."

Ahh Homer I wish you would have said that at the beginning! I assumed when you said "your post" you meant my post in its entirety, and not just the first 3 words.

If you are looking for the article, I believe that they are put up on the web at least a few editions back. It is entitled Recognising friend from foe. unless the military changes it's culture of blame, friendly fire accidents will continue.

You are right in assuming that the article does link how friendly fire incidents are investigated, with minimizing future friendly fire incidents, as it goes on to talk about a new investigative technique called STAMP.

Tommy,
I found and read the entire article, and I agree with it for the most part as well. Without actually reading it before, and only reading some excerpts, I found myself at odds with what I perceived the article was about.

I had agreed from the beginning that the system is flawed in how the incidents are investigated, and that inter-service rivalry prevents a thorough investigation of getting to the root of the problem. What I was in disagreement with(before reading the article) was what I perceived the article was saying that this inter-service rivalry was creating an atmosphere that contributes to friendly fire incidents in the first place.

Although I agree with what the article is saying, I don’t agree with some of the wording of the article. Using something you already posted:

QUOTE

“…the shooting down of two US Army Black Hawk helicopters by two US Air Force F-15s in the No Fly Zone over northern Iraq in 1994. The incident, which killed 26 servicemen, occurred in part because the jet pilots had no record that the helicopters would be in the area.

It goes on to say:

QUOTE

When asked why the Black Hawks had not been entered on the mission sheet detailing the aircraft in the air that day, the USAF serviceperson responsible said: "We don't consider helicopters to be aircraft." The omission is a startling indication of how communications can break down, says Snook. "Here's an important word like 'aircraft' and that word meant something completely different in these different cultures."

Although I agree that this is a major breakdown in communication, I don’t see this as an inter-service rivalry. I don’t agree with the term ‘rivarly’ when you see two services that train differently, train apart from each other, utilize different terminology and have different procedures, who are then thrown together and expected to coordinate with each other. There will be a breakdown in communication, and this breakdown will result in friendly fire, but I don’t see this breakdown as a result of a rivarly.

My feeling is that the breakdown occurs from a lack of training and coordination between the services, but once an incidence of friendly fire occurs because of the breakdown, then the rivalry surfaces, and this rivalry creates an atmosphere which prohibits a thorough investigation. This lack of thoroughness then prevents the root of the problem from being addressed, which continues the practices that contribute to friendly fire incidents.

So after reading the article, I’m not disagreeing with, but I do feel a better job could have been done on the wording. I apologize about me saying that the investigation of the incidents, and minimizing future incidents, are not directly related. By my previous thinking, they aren’t directly linked, but after reading the article I see now that I wasn’t looking at the whole picture, and they are directly linked.

I apologize for coming to judgement with you Tommy. It was my error in perceiving the article incorrectly. I should have read it prior to commenting on it.

No probs Homer.

QUOTE

My feeling is that the breakdown occurs from a lack of training and coordination between the services, but once an incidence of friendly fire occurs because of the breakdown, then the rivalry surfaces, and this rivalry creates an atmosphere which prohibits a thorough investigation. This lack of thoroughness then prevents the root of the problem from being addressed, which continues the practices that contribute to friendly fire incidents.

This definitely makes more sense than what Snook would have you believe. For better or for worse, he is speaking through his personal experience, and I believe the article perhaps over-emphasises his bias opinion on ‘inter-service rivalry.’

gotta agree with Homer on this one. this war showed the greatest amount of coordination between different forces than any other war. that's the reason for the swift victory.

i played this military game called Hearts of Iron. its an ok game, i suppose, but the really interesting thing was that you could research all these war tactics that improved how your armies worked. the game was centered on WWII so you got to see the reasons behind the Germans rambling across Europe- it really had to do more with superior logistics than anything else. i think that Gulf War II took lessons from the Germans and Gulf War I to even further advance our logistical capabilities. it was like a 21st century blitzkrieg. we also greatly increased the technological advantages we have over our enemies- mostly at the standard infantryman's level. these new advances are why we lost so few men/women in this war. don't think this was some cakewalk, because it clearly was not. we simply kicked their asses so thoroughly that they couldn't do much harm to us.

I have been playing war games for over 20 years, and have even designed one that I believe is better than anything on the market. However, when you're playing a wargame, there is no breakdown in communications or inter-service rivalries to worry about.

Lets not forget the psycological warfare we used against them. Remember during the sandstorm, CentCom said they were halting the march towards Baghdad for 4 days to strengthen our supply line and get more food/water/fuel/ammo to the front lines? That was an outstanding plan and it worked brilliantly. Our front line had everything they needed, and we simply marched on their flanks for a couple days while the air campaign decimated the Republican Guard.

While the Republican Guard was waiting for "4" days, The U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division and the U.S. Marine Corp's 1st Expedition Force were spitting distance away in 2 days, and completely annihilated the Republican Guard.

At no time during the entire campaign was the coalition supply line ever compromised or the troops ever lacking, and in the end, this major ground/air war lost fewer casualties than Gulf War I, where they had 5 weeks of bombing and 100 hours of ground war.

hey Homer, if you ever need someone to play with drop me an e-mail. what games do you play? i play lots of different computer games and occasionally play board games when i can find some friends. i love strategy games, but i have a little problem in that no one ever beats me. i think you might have a shot and id love a challenge

also would be interested in finding out more about the game you designed.

DS,
I know what you mean about the lack of competition, I have had that problem most of my life with regards to strategic games.

Unfortunately, I have not had the pleasure of playing computer or online games as a civilian. Before and after the military, I have only played board games.

I must confess I'm not a tactician, and I'm only average with tactical warfare. I am a strategist, though, and have never found an equal to strategic warfare. The wargame I designed is also based on strategic warfare. I don't have any time for games at this point in my life, but hopefully in a month or so I will. I will send you an email or PM about the game I designed, if you still want me to.

surely, Homer. whenever you feel up to it. i have 4 months of peaceful life left before i will probably be working multiple jobs taking care of the new baby and wife, so i definitely understand.