Author Topic: Fancy US ARMY beaten (Read 685 times)

Animal · « **on:** August 22, 2002, 07:21:24 PM »

from kuro5hin.org

Quote

The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting on $253 million (US) worth of war games that took place this month, and the retired Marine Lieutenant General who protested the fixed result "by quitting his role as commander of enemy forces". (The Washington Post also has a story.)

"The Army Times reported that, as commander of a low-tech, third-world army, General Van Riper appeared to have repeatedly outwitted US forces."

Apparently the forces he commanded, which were meant to imitate an unnamed Middle-Eastern country, were able to get around a lot of the high-tech weaponry US planners have begun to depend on, such as the ability to eavesdrop on the communications of the other side (Van Riper used motorcyle couriers). This made the war machine look bad, or would have if it had been reported widely enough.

Is the result, which Van Riper says was fixed in advance, supposed to make me more confidant in the ability of US planners and war-makers to roll over Iraq? All I get out of this is the feeling that, once again, this Adminstration is not being honest with itself about the costs of the actions it wants to take for political gain.

Heh, lucky there are no excellent enemy generals on the middle east... so far.

From the Sidney Herald:

Quote

When General Van Riper agreed to command the forces of an unnamed Middle Eastern state he thought he would be given a free rein to probe US weaknesses. But when the game began, he was told to deploy his forces to make life easier for US forces.

"We were directed ... to move air defences so that the army and marine units could successfully land," he said. They were also ordered to turn air defence systems off or move them.

batdog · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2002, 07:47:36 PM »

Uhhh..he's retired. When did this happen? Why wasnt it reported here? Hell the US papers would take this and run....

To be fair...in NTC the "soviet" forces use to routinely beat the bellybutton of many a U.S. force for years. It was said they where better than the real thing.

I servered in a light infantry type unit. We where pretty "primative" but highly effective. Leadership and training makes a big difference. So far we've had the edge in this AND technology vrs middle eastern tyrrants. Lets hope we continue this trend.

xBAT

Pongo · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2002, 11:26:39 PM »

sounds like a political hack to me. they should have picked someone to run the op for that wanted to help develope an effective war plan, not make the national news.

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2002, 11:38:19 PM »

I recall Top Gun 95, when the French Air Force M2000s beat the Agressors in the range. Woaa, you should have seen the yadiyada! I will always recall the interview of the Agressor pilots before and after the mission... From cockyness to head shakes.

To make US feel better, I recall an engagement between the Fosh (old french CV) and a US CV. We didn't even detected you guys that we were already sunk hihihi.

A sweet illustration from "Lock On"

just to had some powder on the fire.

whgates3 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 23, 2002, 01:46:49 AM »

William Arkin's Dot Mil column in the post is very illuminating on topics like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/dotmil/

Jekyll · « **Reply #5 on:** August 23, 2002, 03:03:29 AM »

"for during the table top maneuvers, the theoretical American forces broke through and bombed Nagumo's carriers while their aircraft were away from their mother ships attacking Midway ... Lieutenant Commander Okumika, the umpire, ruled that the enemy had scored nine hits, sinking both Akagi and Kaga. But Ugaki would not suffer such lese majeste, and immediately overruled Okumiya, allowing only three hits, with Kaga sunk and Akagi slightly damaged. And later, when conducting the second phase practice, he blandly resurrected Kaga from her watery grave to participate in the New Caledonia and Fiji invasion"

'Miracle at Midway' - by Gordon W Prange.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

john9001 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 23, 2002, 03:51:32 AM »

i don't think any of you know what a "war game ' is , it's practice, you try your moves against their moves
to say some one won or lost a "war game" is like saying a football team won or lost a practice
the score don't count until the real game starts

wulfie · « **Reply #7 on:** August 23, 2002, 03:56:08 AM »

I'd be really scared.

After all, remember all the 'strategic/operational/tactical' virtuoso of the media who predicted massive Coalition losses in a ground war vs. Iraq in '90...their predictions being based on 'war games'...

Yeah, those (impartial, never seeking to sell copy thru shock value created by using information that is untrue and/or totally out of context...everyone can stop laughing now and keep reading my post) media types are rarely wrong.

Mike/wulfie

Animal · « **Reply #8 on:** August 23, 2002, 05:13:08 AM »

Thats why I said we are lucky they dont have good generals.

KG45 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 23, 2002, 06:52:26 AM »

riper retired in '97. he was an ME expert.

the wargamers made a mistake.

they shouldn't have hired a marine to play the foe. he did what marine are trained to do. marines are often out gunned and out-manned.

so, he improvised, he adapted, he made do. he launched pre-emptive strikes. he loaded missiles on scows and sunk a carrier. he anticipated US moves and destroyed an airborne attack on an airfield. he didn't play by the rules.

of course, wheather his role playing reflects the kind of leadership and innovation US forces would face in an ME military expedition is speculation.

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 23, 2002, 08:33:48 AM »

I believe our dutch little frigat beated the winconsin once on exercise

US army depends to much on technology

Sikboy · « **Reply #11 on:** August 23, 2002, 09:02:56 AM »

I think the only solution is to increase live amunition training. It's time we open Vieques to the US army.

-Sikboy

midnight Target · « **Reply #12 on:** August 23, 2002, 10:40:47 AM »

Nice one!

Kieran · « **Reply #13 on:** August 23, 2002, 10:57:54 AM »

Are we to assume that no US commander can be beaten, or that our technology can't be worked around? Sorry, totally unrealistic. That's why we train, to uncover those types of scenarios. I don't see a problem here.

gofaster · « **Reply #14 on:** August 23, 2002, 01:13:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by wulfie
I'd be really scared.

After all, remember all the 'strategic/operational/tactical' virtuoso of the media who predicted massive Coalition losses in a ground war vs. Iraq in '90...their predictions being based on 'war games'...

During Desert Shield (remember that one?) and Desert Storm, I remember the news channels would show computer re-enactments of the air war...and they were using Electronic Arts' "Jane's F-15" to do it!