“These simulation numbers and stats showing spectacular Iraqi results were just that, simulations.”
I appreciate your response. I remember reading the (public) simulation reports on Iraq 1. I suspect that Saddam had frightened his generals into hunkering down and just trying to personally survive. I understand that Saddam, a man with no military experience, took personal control. I suspect that if the Iraqi’s had a single Rommel in command of significant forces the results might have been the same but the body and machine count would most likely have been higher. If I recall, the team who played the Iraqi’s used far better tactics than Saddam.
I’ve run military equipment tests in private industry and had a manager put his thumb so heavily on the scales for a particular result that I suspect all simulations and tests. One boss said, “Failure is just not an option. Make it pass.” I listen to the navy guys complain about their admiral and I suspect the same sort of thing.
Indeed. Sometimes the results are already written. Not the usual practice but does happen.
The hardest part of any simulation is the question: How do you simulate being a camel jockey while flying a modern jet or driving a modern tank? Or, how do you replicate the rigid mind-set of following orders to a ‘T’ of the average Soviet (russian).
Reference Gulf simulations, they are the hardest to do accurately because muslime influences simply can’t be replicated — nothing they do is rational.