StrategyPage has a very interesting article on 'The Precision Revolution'. Here's an excerpt.
... one of the less noticed revolutions in warfare recently has been the American development of small scale, precision firepower on a large scale, which has rapidly replaced the massive firepower tactics that dominated the 20th century. For most people, American smart bombs, like JDAM and laser guided bombs, represent "precision firepower." But the concept goes much farther than that. American infantry carry automatic weapons, but most of the time they fire one precise shot at a time ... Better training, and high tech sights, made the U.S. troops very accurate. This led to wider use of snipers, with up to ten percent of American troops qualified and equipped for this kind of shooting. Snipers alone have greatly changed American infantry tactics. Using night vision scopes, small UAVs and personal radios for every soldier, American units can deploy a dozen or more two man sniper teams that will turns a large area into deathtrap for enemy forces.
. . .
... massed artillery fire is now a thing of the past. Many artillery battalions have been disbanded. U.S. artillery units now use a lot fewer precision shells and rockets.
. . .
This produces another unique battlefield sound portrait. You know American troops are at work when one shell goes off, followed by a few shots. No shouting, American troops use individual radios, hand signals and night vision equipment. They move fast, using minimal firepower, which means less risk of friendly fire, or collateral damage (civilian casualties or property damage.) Battlefields have never sounded like this.
Less fire power also means a quieter battlefield. That enables better trained troops, who know what to listen for, more opportunities to use their ears to sort out what is going on. Silence can be a weapon. Precision weapons also reduce supply problems, especially closer to the battle zone. Less wear and tear on the weapons as well.
There's more at the link.
I've had some exposure to this new military paradigm. During the 1980's I was involved in certain aspects of the development of South Africa's first generation of 'smart weapons'. During the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, that country's first air-launched 'smart weapon' was used in combat for the first time to take out an enemy bridge. It succeeded where years of conventional air strikes and artillery bombardments had failed. In the same extended engagement, South Africa's first laser-guided anti-tank missile was employed against Soviet tanks in Angolan service, and (after a few initial glitches) proved extremely effective. It was clear that a new age in warfare was dawning. However, I left that behind as I moved into a new phase of my life, which would lead to ordained ministry.
The problem with such precision instruments, of course, is that they're high-quality but (usually) low-quantity. As a well-known saying (sometimes attributed to Stalin) tells us, "Quantity has a quality all its own". Another commentator has pointed out: "Our modern warfighting technology may be able to make one soldier as effective as ten, but one soldier cannot be in two places at once." If US forces ever have to face an opponent with a considerable numerical advantage, even if those troops are not as well equipped or trained as our own, their sheer mass may be able to absorb high casualties and nevertheless overwhelm our technologically superior forces. (That's what happened when China intervened in the Korean War, remember?)
I wish we'd had more of today's precision weapons during my military service. They might have helped to avoid or prevent the death of more than one friend. Nevertheless, I can't help but worry that we may have become too reliant on technology, at the expense of the tried and true fundamentals that have been painstakingly (and painfully) learned over many centuries of conflict.
What do my military readers think - particularly those who've applied these new technologies in combat? Have they, indeed, so changed the battlefield that older military paradigms no longer apply? Let's hear from you in Comments.
Peter
12 comments:
I think the use of more accurate weapons has improved the efficiency of our armed forces, but you're right. If faced with something on the scale of the Chinese attacks in the Korean war, the use of mass-effect weapons like artillery battalions will be essential. Dropping a capability because we don't think we will ever need it again is asking for someone to force you to need it.
I work providing training devices and training to Forward Observers and FAC/JTAC's whose job it is to call in artillery and CAS/CCA air strikes. The doctrine is definitely "less is more" where precision engagement is practiced with both traditional artillery fires but also with air strikes. And yes this makes our troops more lethal and efficient but (yes there is always a “but”) there is so much more of a tail in the rear that was not there before. I am talking about ROE’s and second guessing by the “Battle Staff” in the rear. There are additional layers of approval and even in some cases review and advice from legal beagles assigned to review high value or “sensitive” engagements. Every time there is Contact with the enemy the influence from those in the rear becomes completely engaged with the trigger pullers to the point of affecting the fighting.
So yes, engagement with precision fires is a game changer but their use comes with strings attached. Time will tell if that is really a good thing. In my experience, not so much.
BT: Jimmy T sends.
What JimmyT says underscores a concern of mine. We use precision firepower to reduce collateral damage, but we use collateral damage as blanket to hide under. If you have precision, you have to accept responsibility for the decapitation strike, where individuals are leaders.
Somehow the more-or-less random collateral damage of high altitude bombing or artillery is considered more moral than a sniper killing a Qaddafi or Saddam Hussein. It's somehow more moral to kill dozens (or more) of innocent bystanders as collateral damage than to just kill the leader that was the point of that bombing. That frankly seems wrong.
SiliconGraybeard @ work.
Son was telling me about one of the GPS-guided 155mm shells; the degree of course-correction it can do is friggin' amazing, and makes counter-battery fire faster and more effective.
But, as you say, they're expensive and used less. And serve as an excuse for those who say "We don't need all these big guns anymore." Like those who wanted to get rid of most of our tanks after the Soviet Empire collapsed, because 'We won't need them.' Until we did.
There is something to be said for comprehensive leveling of enemy cities. When they finally do give up the populations seem to be good and tired of war and don't seem to go in for insurgencies.
Admittedly, my experience was almost thirty years ago, with first- and second-generation smart weapons. But, FWIW, when I was a tanker, we practiced "degraded-mode gunnery" one HELLUVA lot more than we practiced with the high-speed, low-drag stuff (shut down the computer, disable the rangefinder, remember your ballistics and your range estimation, and lay your gun manually).
But, your point is well-taken. I also spent time in Ordnance, and met a squadron commander who, when told his bombing system was malfunctioning, shrugged, then took a grease pencil and drew a bombsight pipper on his non-functional HUD combiner glass. At Bombing Derby, the CO was beat out only by the Weapons and Tactics Instructor. I admit some concern that this sort of knowledge, experience, and unflappable savvy might be getting lost with the introduction of all the newer techmology
The comments posted already hit the main points, and I agree. The first thing that came to mind, however was a bit more simple. It's a quote most of us may have heard before.
"Youth and agility is no match for old age and treachery."
The sum total of my military experience was 7 weeks on light duty while waiting for the echocardiogram that MEPS should have done, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway.
Precision is a good thing, and a miss doesn't do you much good. However, when there's enough of the bad guys that missing isn't really an issue, volume of fire is very much your friend. Ideally, applying precision fires in operational depth (Blowing up fuel depots, bridges, and command & control nodes, etc) *can* keep the bad guys' Zerg Rush from ever happening, so long as those enemy assets aren't on the wrong side of a line on a map that your guys are obeying and they're ignoring. If they're on the other side of a blue squiggle labeled "Yalu R." and the powers that be won't let you hit them, or even admit that military operations are coming from there, then you may be wishing you still had that 8 pound sledge to back up your tack hammer.
Also, some of those precision weapons are able to act as mass area weapons against certain targets. The CBU-97 cluster bomb with guided submunitions comes to mind. Reports from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 have it that at least against armor, they make tactical nukes obsolete.
http://youtu.be/oSxQXs9m9Wk
"Nevertheless, I can't help but worry that we may have become too reliant on technology..."
People who become over-enamored of technology are confusing the hammer with carpentry. It is always to their eventual detriment.
Yet all rifles still have bayonet lugs. Deep down there is still the understanding when things get really, Really, REALLY bad it all comes down to cold steel and guts.
Post a Comment