Author Topic: How Technology Failed in Iraq (Read 529 times)

AKcurly · « **on:** November 08, 2004, 01:02:06 AM »

Fascinating read at http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/11/talbot1104.asp

Slow load, btw. 5 page article.

curly

Mini D · « **Reply #1 on:** November 08, 2004, 01:33:02 AM »

The title is a bit misleading.

AKIron · « **Reply #2 on:** November 08, 2004, 08:44:25 AM »

Back to the drawing board. I bet they'll get it more functional in time for Iran or Saudi.

lazs2 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 08, 2004, 08:48:42 AM »

good thing we are getting these things sorted out in such a small conflict.

lazs

Maverick · « **Reply #4 on:** November 08, 2004, 09:24:08 AM »

The articles preposition isn't necessarily confirmed by the report itself. They admit that higher HQ had the data they needed and was adequate. What the article does say is that HQ did not feed the data that was needed back down the chain. That is not a problem of technology, it is a problem in analysis speed and transmission back to the troop units.

This is the same situation the developed without technology. The information has to be analyzed and prioritized for feed back to the troop unit level so they get some benefit from it. It isn't the amount of data that is so crucial, it is the critical data that is important. Given the speed of battle this process may not be fast enough to return data back to the front in time to do anything about it.

This situation is covered in every troop unit's SOP. Do not assume the battle is over simply because the shooting has stopped. The lul may be very temporary. You should always consolidate, regroup and prepare to defend the territory taken or continue to advance.

Frankly a reliance on technology is not a good thing in ground combat. The "order of battle" hasn't really changed as long as people are in armed combat. If you enter into an urban area the combat will resolve itself into a situation the same as it was in WW2. Clearing enemy from building to building and pocket to pocket. This won't change until we develop a technology to enable people to see through walls like the movies. That bit of movie art ala Blue Thunder does not exist in the real world.

WpnX · « **Reply #5 on:** November 08, 2004, 09:24:59 AM »

How's it goin Curly?
Technology is a nice luxury when it works but it is never relied upon. We are leap years ahead of what the soldiers had in WW2 and Vietnam.
Still, they have yet to come up with a better information gathering device than us - soldiers on the ground.

AKIron,
What are you talking about, you mean before we invade Canada and France:)

Yeager · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2004, 11:30:47 AM »

WpnX !

Mini D · « **Reply #7 on:** November 08, 2004, 01:31:15 PM »

That's what I was thinking too Maverick. There was an issue getting the recon data to the front line... but that's not as bad as it's been in the past.

The fact that one company completely anihilated two brigades speaks for technology itself. There were other companies present, but no help was ever requested/needed.

A quote from their Unit commander (quoted in the article) about the actual battle itself:

Quote

The amazing part was is that we didn't realize how big the force we were fighting, and it was one tank company that fought that brigade. He never called for reinforcements. I had a company on reserve that was defending the bridge itself, and was also ready to move to reinforce north to east. Captain Robbins and his men had the situation well in hand against the clearly superior force -- he was one company.

Wolfala · « **Reply #8 on:** November 08, 2004, 02:59:31 PM »

WeaponX - same WeaponX from Simnet back in the day?

Wolfala

WpnX · « **Reply #9 on:** November 09, 2004, 08:59:29 AM »

Yeager,
How's it been goin bud!! Do you still have my email address? Can you drop me an email, my address book is gone, and I'm leaving again next week for about 7 months.

Wolfala,
No, never heard of simnet, I was Wpnx in Warbirds and AH.