Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Animal on August 22, 2002, 07:21:24 PM
-
from kuro5hin.org
The Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/printArticle.pl?path=/articles/2002/08/21/1029114137298.html) 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27728-2002Aug16?language=printer) 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:
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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":D just to had some powder on the fire.
(http://www.lo-mac.com/ss/Mirage-Tomcat.jpg)
-
(http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I49816-2000Feb29)
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/
-
"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.
-
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
-
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
-
Thats why I said we are lucky they dont have good generals.
-
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.
-
I believe our dutch little frigat beated the winconsin once on exercise
US army depends to much on technology
-
I think the only solution is to increase live amunition training. It's time we open Vieques to the US army.
-Sikboy
-
Nice one!
-
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.
-
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! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Kieran
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.
Did you read the article or just posted out of knee jerk reaction?
Here is a snip:
Van Riper said exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against the Blue, or friendly, forces, and on several occasions the Red forces were directed not to use certain weapons against Blue.
So you fail to see the whole point.
The problem is that the scenarios are avoided and the found vulnerabilities discarded, just to get good PR.
Read the articles. Its not just the sydney herald,
When the guy put his AA batteries in a position the enemy could get in trouble, high command ordered him to move them away, and a few other crucial denials against his strategy
How do you believe we should train?
By stacking the odds against our forces to make them lose so that they learn from their mistakes, or making them win easily to believe they are invulnerable so that they be dangerously confident in battle?
I prefer the former.
But then again, this whole thing is a publicity stunt, it has nothing to do with making better soldiers, just making the citizens believe we are indestructible (maybe they need that reassurance after these last toejamty months). They couldnt have the Blue forces loose a massive exercise that was two years in the making!
I say we make our soldiers go thru hell in training, make them lose horribly, so that they wont make the same mistakes in case someday we are not so lucky anymore and face the next Napoleon or Patton and he teaches us a very bloody lesson.
Try to view the whole thing objectively.
In combat, there wont be bureocrats telling the enemy general "those awesome tactics are not fair for our troops, change the whole thing and charge mindlessly like you did in 1991!"
-edit-
oh and dont give me that roadkill that the articles are lies and that its impossible that happened. we know how it works in the modern military, take the bloodbath in somalia for example. Generals are not allowed to make final desicions. but if even the citizens approve of these frauds, then maybe many soldiers have it coming to them.
-
When the Blue naval forces sailed into the Persian Gulf early in the experiment, Van Riper's forces surrounded the ships with small boats and planes.
Much of the Blue force's ships ended up at the bottom of the ocean. Oakley said Joint Forces Command officials had to stop the exercise and "refloat" the fleet in order to continue.
Heh, so "thats the way we train" huh Kieran? To find those types of scenarios...
Right after the ships were lost, the Blue Forces generals hit the ESCAPE key and loaded a previously saved game in wich their ships hadnt been sunked.
I say thats the way losers train.
You dont stop a football game and roll back to the beginning because the home team is losing, let alone military exercises.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Heh, so "thats the way we train" huh Kieran? To find those types of scenarios...
Right after the ships were lost, the Blue Forces generals hit the ESCAPE key and loaded a previously saved game in wich their ships hadnt been sunked.
I say thats the way losers train.
You dont stop a football game and roll back to the beginning because the home team is losing, let alone military exercises.
I think that it's pleanty important for the US army to get beat down in training excercized. In theory, that's how we learn. I mean, how did they manage to wipe out the good guy naval assets? How can we defened against that in the future should be the next question.
But in a case like that one, we also need to understand the impact on the excercize as a whole. Would other aspects of the Excercize be adiquately tested if this first phase was a complete wash? Probably not. They would have been completely ineffective because the plan was botched from the begining. The discription in the paper sounds so bad, that had it happened in real life, I would guess that the US forces would have withdrawn had it really happened.
But, we have everything set up, and this costs money, so lets move on to the next phase. I agree that it is a pain in the bellybutton from a spectators point of view that there are rules that prohibit the best counter measures by the "enemy" comander. You can look at this in one of two ways IMO.
The first way you can look at it (and the way I believe that Animal is looking at it) is that this is how the Navy trained in gunnery prior to WWII. Only on a clear day, only on calm seas, only when everything was perfect. They created a scenario so artificial that when war broke out they were completely unprepared.
The second way you can look at this (and they was that I think we should all at least consider) is to think of the Anti-missile system tests we have run. They are nowhere near an accurate representation of shooting down an incoming ballistic missile. They are, however the first step in proving the concept. It is my understanding that what is being tested here is new doctrine. I'm willing to accept that the planners wanted to test certain parts within specific parameters. As these concepts are adopted or disgarded, new concepts will come into play, and testing will gain added reality.
We really need to worry about this in my opinion, because just like the intel comunity has had a hard time converting from the cold war, so is the military. We need to make sure that when the military must do its duty, it is fully capable. These types of tests are only the first step towards that objective.
-Sikboy
-
I say thats the way losers train.
You dont stop a football game and roll back to the beginning because the home team is losing, let alone military exercises.
And you base your opinion on what Animal that vast wealth of combat experience you attained living home with momma? Oh no wait the training you received at the War College, maybe you are in the army and studying squad level tactics and applying it to this instance. Academy Grad maybe? A bathtub battleship commander perhaps?
The home team rolling back the clock during the big game is not possible, but it is and thankfully so during practice. Just like our military does when they practice.
"The Lacedaemonians, both in their warsongs and in the words which a man spoke to his comrade, did but remind one another of what their brave spirits knew already. For they had learned that true safety was to be found in long previous training, not in eloquent exhortations uttered when going into action."
-
The way I see it, the armed forces should always train at disadvantage. And if they got those ships sunk during the exercise, they should have stayed sunk, so that the officers in training could figure out how to win after that mess.
We train like we fight, right? isnt that the motto of the armed forces?
and when we fight, there is no going back after we make mistakes.
The way I see it, the armed forces should fight the way Red Team fought. At a disadvantage, yet snatching victory from the jaws of defeat with ingenius strategy. That way, when real war breaks out and the dogs of war are unleashed, they will be prepared for anything that is thrown at them.
Oh, and the officer who planned Blue Team's attack, is he a descendant of General Sideburn of the Union?
-
Originally posted by Creto
I say thats the way losers train.
You dont stop a football game and roll back to the beginning because the home team is losing, let alone military exercises.
And you base your opinion on what Animal that vast wealth of combat experience you attained living home with momma? Oh no wait the training you received at the War College, maybe you are in the army and studying squad level tactics and applying it to this instance. Academy Grad maybe? A bathtub battleship commander perhaps?
The home team rolling back the clock during the big game is not possible, but it is and thankfully so during practice. Just like our military does when they practice.
"The Lacedaemonians, both in their warsongs and in the words which a man spoke to his comrade, did but remind one another of what their brave spirits knew already. For they had learned that true safety was to be found in long previous training, not in eloquent exhortations uttered when going into action."
hehe, here we go.
All you need for strategy is an analitical mind and a wide background in military history. Combat experience matters, but then again, anyone who had some serious combat experience would agree with me.
By the way, 4 years in a military academy. Military history and tactics were required class. Straight A student. We discussed this training subject extensively, some of the students would have agreed with your soft thinking, I dont, and Patton would surely not if he were alive.
I have not been in combat, but then again, how many confirmed kills do you have? have you led a unit into battle? from the way you talk it seems you are a hardened war hero.
But then again, your whole post was an ad hom.
The home team rolling back the clock during the big game is not possible, but it is and thankfully so during practice. Just like our military does when they practice.
Yeah, again: WE TRAIN LIKE WE FIGHT
:rolleyes:
Oh, and if you are gonna quote Tucydides, at least do so in context, I love that quote, and I strongly believe it adheres more to my arguement.
-
Originally posted by Animal
The way I see it, the armed forces should always train at disadvantage. And if they got those ships sunk during the exercise, they should have stayed sunk, so that the officers in training could figure out how to win after that mess.
I dissagree. When you are spending $253 million to test new methods, I think you should be able to test them.
If the goal of the excercize was simply to see how the US Navy dealt with unconventional threats, then I would agree with you. However, that wasn't the point. Do you have any other links? I don't really understand how this was pulled off. It sounds like a table top exercize with the ships.
We train like we fight, right? isnt that the motto of the armed forces?
and when we fight, there is no going back after we make mistakes.
I honestly don't know. But we do go back, and for the reason I've mentioned.
The way I see it, the armed forces should fight the way Red Team fought. At a disadvantage, yet snatching victory from the jaws of defeat with ingenius strategy. That way, when real war breaks out and the dogs of war are unleashed, they will be prepared for anything that is thrown at them.
I can't dissagree enough with this. We need to train to integrate our equiptment and our tactics with our men. Here's another story that might even be the same excersize (I'm not really sure). It goes into detail about what the Army was trying to accomplish, and what some of the lessons were.
Oh, and the officer who planned Blue Team's attack, is he a descendant of General Sideburn of the Union?
Are you refering to Ambrose Burnside? and drawing a similarity because of his failure? Or are you just reminding some people that you spent 4 years in military school :)
-Sikboy
-
Never even mentioned until it was brought up by Creto.
And I meant that as a joke "History will redeem me" he said, so I name him by the only good thing (for some?) he is rememberd for, the Sideburn. Get it? I quote him out of the defeat, because the blue commander seems to have had superior forces yet got outwitted.
Truth is, in all seriousness, I dont know about the blue commander or what tactics he used. But that is not the issue. I dont know exactly how the battle went, would love to have that info.
-
Do any of you guys have any experience with real life military wargames?
The fact that a 'scenario ending' situation arose early and was 'worked around' means absolutely nothing. No secret ego coverup, etc.
There's alot of people who are going to learn things from that wargame. If it's scheduled to last for 3 days, and prep time has been 3 months, are you going to end the whole thing because someone does great and 'wins' in the first 45 minutes?
So the airborne assault was crushed. Well gee, lets deny all the CAS planners a shot at some practice because no need for CAS is going to arise for most of the scenario now.
In real life - the things being talked about here are noted and re-examined thru smaller simulations.
Do you want to know what this was? It was a media creature making full use of a retired military guy who wanted to get some press time.
Anyone that thinks the 'norm' for *any* modern professional military is for combat commanders to 'not be allowed to lose in training' does not have clue #1, relevant experience, etc.
The retired ME expert did a great job. He showed the guys who may be in command the next time the relevant forces are in combat what can go wrong and what should be planned for. But that's no reason to stop the whole exercise. He's an OPFOR guy - his job isn't to 'win' as in end the whole thing because 'he won and it's over'. His job is to point out weaknesses and previously unplanned for enemy actions. I will also comment that he was full of 'insider knolwedge' with regards to cutting edge U.S. combat doctrine...which probably helped, and which was why he had the job in the first place.
You don't ever scrub a major simulation/exercise/wargame/etc. because the OPFOR guys do a good job. What would the point be? 1/50 of your leaders screw up so the other 98% never get any practice?
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Animal
Never even mentioned until it was brought up by Creto.
I was just teasing :) But read the link I provided. It has some very good info on a detailed Wargame oun in California.
-Sikboy
-
That pretty much sums up my contention Wulfie.
-Sikboy
-
Anyone that thinks the 'norm' for *any* modern professional military is for combat commanders to 'not be allowed to lose in training' does not have clue #1, relevant experience, etc.
Not my point, but I get your drift.
Anyways, cool, let the military types choose how to train their troops, though I still see faults with it; they seem to have the experience, and they never, ever screw up.
-
Originally posted by Animal
they never, ever screw up.
Speaking of missing the point :D
-Sikboy
-
Sikboy, Wulf-
Exactly the way I see it. These guys aren't putting on a play for their moms and dads, they are conducting exercises to learn. It's the outsiders that read the results out of context that don't seem to see the big picture.