land warrior an expensive dud???

[Collo]

Nicely put Elfie.

Technology is an advantage not the basis. I would rather spend $100K building a model Iraqi district than spend millions on updating systems only to have them fail under combat situations.

The Infantry for example needs knowledge drills and tactics, fitness and environmental awareness. I would prefer a front line soldier who could carry out the basic movements of a section under fire, be fit enough to get to, complete and return from a mission and speak the local lingo than have a rifleman with a computer strapped to his head.

As CD wrote in another thread, KISS.

[Crusty]

Straying from the thread a tad. Elfy, m'dear. "That's how we drove the British nuts". Right, quick history lesson. We weren't driven "nuts". We were mildly suprised at this dashed unsportsmanlike and ungentlemanly form of warfare practiced by the rebels. After recovering from our initial suprise at being subjected to this caddish treatment, we thought the best way to counter it was to fight fire with fire.

Consequently, in 1755 the 62nd (Royal American) Regiment of Foot was raised, recruited from the sensible German settlers of Pennsylvania, Virginia and Maryland. As with the rebel forces, they were armed with rifles, as opposed to muskets, wore green uniforms, so they could sneakily hide in the woods like the rebels and were trained to think and act independantly as individuals, unlike the rest of the British Infantry.

In 1757, the Regiment was re-numbered to 60th (Royal American) Regiment of Foot. This was the forerunner to the British skirmishers and Light Infantry. The 60th of Foot became the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, later the Royal Green Jackets and now, after the latest round of amalgamations, the Rifles. (Currently serving in Afganistan.)

In all the rest of your post I agree with you. We defeated the IRA, militarily, by turning their tactics on themselves, except that our training was better, and our tactics were better planned at all levels. In the closing part of the 80's, the IRA were very reluctant to take on British units, and chose to attack 'soft' targets such as civilians, off duty policemen and unguarded establishments.

OK, sorry about this thread stray everyone. Please return to topic!

[Collo]

Exactly Crusty.

Now I am no Erwin Rommel, George Patton or Horatio Nelson but war is more tactics than technology. Technology only advances our existing capabilities, take away that advantage we are back to square one. You rely solely on technology you are up s#@t creek if the technology fails.

Crusty used British tactics in NI as an example. An IRA plod straight out of a pub (note that I am of Irish heritage) was second rate to a highly trained British regular, let alone up against the Para's or 22 Reg.

I know I might sound like a broken record but training has been, is and always will be the key. Have a look at the Germans at the end of W2, they where pumping out some great new military technology but they didn't have the same highly trained troops behind them and thus they were wasted (good for us though).

Have a look at Iwo Jima, the USN used every modern bit of weaponry they could to chuck at the island, yet it was still the boots on the ground that inflicted the damage.

War is won by men not machines.

[Elwingflys]

Yup! Like I said. We drove them nuts and they had to go get someone to fight for them who weren't trained to stand in neat little lines like gallery targets. LOL

I was just yanking your chain, as I knew that would get you to show up Crusty! Tactics are always changing. You can have the best tactics and the finest army in the world but if you can't adapt rapidly to a sudden change of tactics by the enemy then your ass is grass. That is why training in flexibility can be so important. You probably call it something different but that is what it amounts to.

[Collo]

Simple:

Training first, technology second!

All agree?

[Elwingflys]

Aye, aye Captain!

[101st Airborne]

Wrong!
Of course I would go along with training being important, but in all wars in the history of mankind, superior weapons technology has triumphed. I will mention a few.
This started with the iron age. Roman legions armed with steel swords decimated all opposition from the tribes armed with inferior bronze or stone weapons.
The Conquistadors in south America overcame 250000 of the original inhabitants with 300 men in iron breast plates and swords.
In the Zulu wars, the rifle  and maxim machine gun mowed down the Zulus armed with short stabbing spears, by the thousands.
In modern times the Battle of Britain and later the battle of the Atlantic were won by radar technology.
The Second World War was bought to an abrupt close by the Manhatton project.
Today your trained airforce personnel are being largely replaced by UAVs, whilst the bomber fleets are replaced by the cruise missile.
The US has just announced the world's first 5th genetation fighter. The F22.
This is technology.
Technological advancement in all theatres of warfare is still the most important for us to stay ahead of the enemy. Training is important too, but we must have superior technology to win.
Nothing has changed since the Romans.

[Collo]

You?re right to a point 101, only to appoint. Technology is as I have stated before an advantage, this advantage can be lost as easily as it is gained. Technology is an easy fix, sure 75% of the time but is that good enough.

Again let?s use the Rifleman as an example. When under fire soldier shouldn?t be worrying about is his CPU working, is their enough battery power in his pack or where the enemy on my HUD are. What happens if the CPU in the pack gets shot up, what use is it then? They will only carry dead weight in a critical point in time.

Technology is great and gives us the advantage and has done so for thousands of years but in a modern day fire fight, we need soldiers who can rely on their abilities as soldiers rather than a technology. That?s why I say, Training first, technology second.

[101st Airborne]

Collo, I included the UAVs and Cruise missiles to show that people are obsolete.

[Crusty]

If the men don't have the training and discipline, all the technology in the world won't help them. The Romans suffered quite a few defeats at the hands of the Gallic tribes, which is why the boundary of the Roman Empire stopped along the Rhine, and not as far as the Elbe, as planned. The British suffered a resounding defeat by the Zulu's at Isandlwana, just before the defence of Rorke's Drift. Radar technology played a part in the Battle of Britain, but it did not win it. The RAF pilots and personnel did.

I can't argue about the atomic bomb, but it has to be delivered by someone.

UAV's are piloted by some one on the end of a joy stick.

Cruise missiles have to be programmed and delivered.

All technology has to be operated. The effectiveness of that operation is entirely down to the quality of training delivered to the operator, and the operators competence.

[101st Airborne]

Yes, Crusty you can take that argument to the limit. No humans, no technology.
But the point that I am making is that the training you are all talking about that saw the First World War open in 1914 with no other training necessary than military drill instruction and rifle shooting has far advanced now to include soldiers, sailors and airmen having to do degrees in engineering to cope with modern developments.

[Elwingflys]

It also has to be built by someone like me. (Now there ~is~ a scary thought!) If I screw up, if the quality control is bored, distracted or pissed at the boss, if any one of a hundred things happen, you can start out with a faulty item that might be so close to OK that it won't show up until under stress. Have you even a clue as to how delicate fiberopitcs and other tiny components are?

Then you have the guys that are assembling the whole thing. Is someone having a bad day?

Have you ever bought something as common as an electric coffee pot or microwave and had to take it back because it wasn't working right? And what about all the things that break the day after the warranty runs out?

Government specs are the tightest there are. They have top techs building things...but they are human.

I am not arguing against tech. I don't think the others are either, really. It is just that tech can and will fail and whoever is using it had better know the old fashioned way to deal with it or they are screwed!

One minor little example. Hurricane Katrina wiped out most of the communications except for the few satellite phones, most of which were owned by the reporters. That happens in major hurricanes. (I'm from Florida) It used to be no sweat because all the ham operators in the state would be on it like a swarm of flies. Most of them don't use real radio any more and are as stuck as everyone else. A lot of the problems were caused by no communications. Sometimes older is better for a backup cause as we get more advanced, the tech depends on too many other things. Simple can be necessary in some cases. Usually the bad cases.
Posted on: May 01, 2007, 01:21:32 AMThe day the human soldier is taken completely out of the battle is the day war becomes so dehumanized that anything will be OK, including wiping us all out.

[101st Airborne]

Take it easy Elf. No need to get angry over posts like this.

[Collo]

To all civilians who have had no real military training I do apologise in advanced.

If you go back and read the posts, you will see that those who are ardent supporters of training have served. I am not trying to start anything or show disrespect to the civilian population of whom we serve/d but I get a very strong feeling that personal experience is playing a major factor in the views expressed which has to count  especially when it comes from seasoned soldiers like Crusty and Gun Bunny.

Back on track.
The Infantry relies on young, fit men to fill their ranks. We can not have troops going through 18-20 week courses to learn how to fight on the ground using next generation systems then to spend another 13-14 weeks learning how to be riflemen. We need troops who as I have said so many times before that are fit, know their tactics and are capable of fighting in the harshest of situations.

Experience counts for everything in the military. Lieutenants refer to the experience and advice given by the NCOs? to which they make snap decisions on what tactics and field manoeuvres to utilise. Not being a combat veteran myself I can only assume the following; in battle one has a split second to react, you can not afford to spend that split second fiddling around with a computer or waiting for a battery to charge and the like.

Yes 101, technology helps but as we all have said, technology is only a quarter of the fight, the rest falls down to the ingenuity and experience from training that a sailor, soldier and airman gains.

[101st Airborne]

This seems to be aimed at me..LOL. All this flak building over a non issue. Who cares!

[Collo]

I am not suggesting that, what I am suggesting is that as a result of military training and deployments etc like Gun Bunny and Crusty for example, the views are made on practical experience.

I am not trying to start anything or is anything directed at you. All I was saying is that practical experience is a major factor in the views expressed in this thread.

[Elwingflys]

101 I was definitely not upset at you or anyone. Please don't take it as such. I love discussions such as this. I'm having fun.

You won't find anyone who is much more in love with tech than I am. I just know it has its limitations. As things get more complex there are more things that can glitch. All I was saying is when it glitches, you better have a good back up. Machines are wonderful but humans are more wonderful in their abilities to deal with the unknown and unexpected. The better trained for it the better that they can deal.......................After all, who dreamed up the machines in the first place......humans using their insatiable desire to conquer what they don't know.

[Collo]

What I am against the most and cements my belief is there is a high chance of production standards dropping in the case of mass production which will result in our boys coming home covered in flags.

[the gunny]

There's a downside to each piece of new tech that gets sent to the field. Generally as Collo states, it is the extra training curve that is hardly ever factored in, and secondly if its not a manual operated device or whatever, the external power source is and always will be the weak link in the system. One trooper can only carry so many batteries and remain effective force to be reckoned with. Geez, its bad enough when a trooper has to carry NBC gear, personal body armor, water, food, weapons and now several pounds worth of batteries to power up all this new tech whiz bang junk.

None of this new equipment helps to specifically identify friend from foe. It might if we were fighting a military opponent with a distinct uniform, but that's not the case in todays war on terror. The enemy looks exactly like the cab driver in New York City that gave you a ride to the frigging airport three weeks ago.

Sometimes, I think we all get too wrapped up in hollywood productions and spend ungodly amounts of money and resources trying to emulate what we see on the big screen.

Collo makes many excellent points when it comes right down to it.  As a general rule, troops don't need to be burdened with all that extra gear in order to fight this particular fight. Time, resources and money are better spent on honing individual combat related skills verses having to master all this neto whiz-bang tech they are having to utilize and still take the fight to the enemy. Troops need to have a minimum of basic equipment to remain combat effective for long periods of time.

One other crucial point I'd like to mention and this is a that we cannot afford or continue to conduct troop live fire training while in the combat theater. This is a setup for more friendly fire incidents. For every live fire exercise in the combat area, there will always be some group or organization that never got the word that these guy's are out there shooting off all this ammo, whether it be a passing armored column, or a coalition or even US fighter on routine patrol armed to the teeth. Tracer fire, and explosions will always attract everyone with a weapon in thier hands or at thier control in the area right to it, regardless of what thier current mission happens to be with predicable and deadly results.


Our troops are in a knife fight with a shadow. We haven't yet developed the means to fight these shadows without first killing everyone in a geographic location.

[kiwi]

interesting Aussie designed scope that allows you to take a shot from around corners

best thing is no batteries required just put the lens over the end of you scope

God I like that very handy.

[kiwi]

Simple:

Training first, technology second!

All agree?

100 % agree, due to when the time comes and the equipment fails you need all the training to kick in to save yourself.

[101st Airborne]

If I surrender and admit that training is the most important, will this thread then end?

[kiwi]

Huh? nope 

[Elwingflys]

NOOOOOOOOOO. It is about time for everyone to change sides of the argument and insist that is what they meant in the first place. LMAO

[Collo]

Blimey.

As Kiwi posted earlier the Aussie scope (on page 1) is the type of technology that we need. Ones that gives us the advantage but doesn't become the core equipment used by our front line troops. It also requires bugger all traing which allows our troops to focus on the core areas of field operations.