THE WAY THINGS REALLY WORK: Technical Revolutions That Weren't

StrategyPage.com ^ | October 11, 2003

[John Jorsett]

The ongoing Revolution in Military Affairs and the arrival of Information War and Netcentric War are touted as major changes in the way combat is conducted. But this is all largely marketing hype. Revolutions in Military Affairs have occurred frequently in the past. But all of them were the result of remarkably more effective troops, not as the result of technology. These "revolutionary" armies were composed of troops who are better selected, trained and led. Remember that until the 19th century, military technology changed very slowly, yet there were still numerous "Revolutions in Military Affairs." Technology is more attractive and easier to report on than the more mundane and troublesome topics like training and recruiting. Technology is sexy, personnel matters are, well, boring.

Information War goes way back. Ancient commanders like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar recognized the need to control the news, and both produced written and oral news for the folks back home in such quantity and quality that much of it survived to this day. But at the time, Alexander and Caesar were intent on controlling public opinion. They did, and that was a large measure of their power. There have been many other examples since then (including Edward III of England and Napoleon Bonaparte). Netcentric Warfare? There have already been three communications revolutions in the past century. First came the widespread use of telephone networks in combat during World War I. Two decades later, radio technology had become cheap, reliable and portable enough to equip entire armies. World War II was the first "wireless war." Oddly enough, in all the books written about World War I and II, there is little talk of revolutionary communications developments changing the way wars were fought. And for good reason, as anyone who studied the campaigns of the Mongols seven centuries earlier knew that the Mongols conducted the most impressive mobile warfare operations in history without the use of radios. Telephones and radios changed the way armies and fleets operated, but not to the extent that anyone considered it a revolution. It was just another new bit of new technology to use.

The current hype about Netcentric Warfare and Information War is more marketing hype than anything else. The military wants to buy expensive new, satellite based, communications equipment, and the companies that manufacture the new radios and satellites want to sell. So everyone markets. But the new equipment and networking software do little more than make it possible to send more of the same data more reliably. There's no revolution, it's evolution. Those who keep looking for a revolution risk losing the lessons of the past, and repeating the errors.

[irv]

Revolutions in Military Affairs have occurred frequently in the past. But all of them were the result of remarkably more effective troops, not as the result of technology

Right! The conquest of the British Empire had to do with carefully selecting only the best volunteers withe the highest standards of deportment, education and training. It had nothing to do with the Brown Bess. </extreme sarcasm>

[Support Free Republic]

 

	Keep Our Republic Free Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER and say THANKS to Jim Robinson! IT'S IN THE BREAKING NEWS SIDEBAR THANKS!

[Cannoneer No. 4]

RMA Debate page

[inPhase]

re: RMA Debate page

Well I do believe that satcom is inevitable as is internet style integration of all communication while bandwidth will continue to be the issue.

But do not believe the US will be there first. Too much time and all the money spent on gov. and bureaucrat's ideas of what is high tech (or network centric etc.) Much aversion to testing and allowing questions to be asked.

[Dajjal]

RMA bump

[donmeaker]

The author of this article wrote "Two decades later, radio technology had become cheap, reliable and portable enough to equip entire armies. World War II was the first "wireless war." Oddly enough, in all the books written about World War I and II, there is little talk of revolutionary communications developments changing the way wars were fought."

The author should have read Guderian's "Panzer Leader". Guederian makes much of his background in signals. One of the considerations in the initial penetration of the Frency-British lines in 1940 was the certainty that they would be able to cut Allied telephone lines, so counter attacks would be uncoordinated.

"The ULTRA Secret" and "MAGIC" were both books specifically about using wireless communication for the Germans and Japanese, respectively, from the point of view of US and Allied ability to decipher enemy communicaions. A recent movie came out on the Navajo code talkers, which was a very effective anti-code breaking technology.

I, for one, have been impressed with the discipline shown by the Iraqi army in both conflicts. The buggers die with their boots on. In the first gulf war they rolled out of their bunkers right in back of the US tanks, attempting to shoot the Abrams M1A1 in the rear, where they are most vulnerable. Fortunately for us, the Bradley's were right where they should have been, and were able to engage the Iraqi soldiers before their fire was effective.

So the answer is our attacks are better coordinated, and the technology-tactics combine to provide overmatching force. The Iraqis have very little ability to coordinate attacks, so US forces can concentrate our maneuver against exposed elements, concentrate fire against the most dangerous elements, and always find a better way of playing rock scissors paper. It is like we get 3 chances to choose for every one of theirs. No wonder they cant win a stand up fight.