You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Tech
Cherished Myths
2005-09-02
September 2, 2005: It’s difficult to determine who is winning the war on terror, partly because we still don’t agree who won wars and battles in the past. Take Vietnam. The U.S. didn’t lose the war. When American forces withdrew in 1972, the South Vietnamese government was still in power. The north eventually won, not via a guerilla war (American and South Vietnamese efforts had destroyed the guerilla force in the south) but via an invasion with conventional forces (including lots of tanks), right across the border. The north tried it first in 1972, right after U.S. troops were just about gone, and failed. So they built up their forces for three years, tried again, and succeeded.

There are plenty of other myths in military history. How about the one depicting the Germans as the super soldiers during World War II, while Americans were considered a bunch of losers who needed superior numbers to prevail. While the Germans had a lot of good ideas, and were pretty lethal, their big advantage was better training, for both troops and leaders (officers and NCOs). But when combat experienced American units encountered German troops at the end of the war, if was often the G.I.’s giving the Germans a beating, and lessons on how it’s done.

Even World War I, long dismissed as a thoughtless head-butting contest, has been revealed as anything but as historians go take a closer look at what really went on. Seems everyone was coming up with many startling new ideas throughout 1914-18. The problem was that both sides were doing it, which maintained the stalemate until the very end, when both sides developed the weapons and tactics (for infantry, tanks and aircraft) that would define warfare for the next century. But if you just believed the “conventional wisdom,” you’d miss what was really going on. And you’d miss the real lessons of those wars, the lessons that can save your ass in future conflicts.

We can see this struggle between reality and “conventional wisdom” being played out in Iraq right now. The media needs excitement, and a touch of scandal, to attract eyeballs, and stay in business. As a result, many dramatic events are being buried by what passes for “exciting news” from the combat zone. Examples abound. Casualty rates are at an all time low for this kind of war. While the news spotlights casualties as another sign of failure, the many casualties that should occur, but don’t, get little or no coverage.

Another spectacular change that gets little notice is the extent to which robots and networking are becoming commonplace on the battlefield. This is as dramatic as any of the major innovations developed during World War I. But all this probably won’t get the attention it’s due, by civilians anyway, for another decade or more.

An even less noticed innovation is the application of modern policing and investigation methods to Iraq operations. The troops involved often refer to “CSI: Baghdad,” in recognition of the thorough investigations of enemy attacks and battle scenes. What gets even less attention (and the “geeks with guns” prefer it that way), is the many types of analyses that information is subjected to, and the insights that produces for American commanders. While the terrorists in Iraq are making a mighty effort, they are losing. You wouldn’t know that from reading the news. But someday you will, after you read about it in a history book.
Posted by:Steve

#3  American artillery has had no equal since the Mexican-American War.
Posted by: Mona Gorilla   2005-09-02 15:38  

#2  Its often said (too damn much IMO) that history is written by the winners. But the study of history is too often defined by the prejudices and preconceptions of the student. The example of WWI is a good one. The British deployment of early tanks was an attempt to break the stalemate but the unreliability of the early models was self defeating. But they did succeed in staging a breekthrough the first time out. The BEF just couldn't exploit it (this is one of few occasions where the calvary units being held in the rear could of been effective in being used to exploit a breakthrough and get into the German rear areas). In contrast the Germans developed infantry tactics to an art form. The first Storm Toopers were not Nazis but highly trained German soldiers on the Western Front engaging in raids across the lines. Also the conventional wisdom is that the Machine Gun was the major killer in WWI. Wrong. It was artillery just as it was in WWII. At least on the battlefield that is. The depiction of the American Army using overwhelming force to beat the Germans is in some ways true. Americans have an aversion to un-nessecary casualties and prefer to expend firepower rather than explosives. But there were of course glaring examples of American deficentcies. Perhaps the glaring example is in armor. Equipping armored units with the Sherman proved to be a disastar. But newer models were entering combat in Europe by the winter of '44/45. Plus the Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank. But in artillery the US Army had no equal in the war. True the German 88MM was probably the most versitle weapon of the war but the US Army's artillery tactics involving massed time on target fires was unsupassed. Plus the 155MM was IMO the best artillery piece of the time when employed as such.
Posted by: Cheaderhead   2005-09-02 14:02  

#1  What gets even less attention (and the “geeks with guns” prefer it that way), is the many types of analyses that information is subjected to, and the insights that produces for American commanders. Data Mining the battlefield.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-09-02 09:39  

00:00