Drones are ... Awesome!

A new Breaking Defense article describes the stunning results achieved by a combination of human soldiers and drones working together to attack and defeat enemy defenders in a wargame. (1)    In the exercise scenario, a company of 40 soldiers plus ‘dozens’ of drones managed to defeat a defending force of 120 soldiers.  This is stunning!  As the article points out, conventional military wisdom dictates that the attacker needs a 3:1 numerical advantage to defeat the defender.  That would mean that the attacking force should have required 360 soldiers (the article actually suggested needing 600) instead of 40.  That the smaller attacking force of 40 was able to defeat a numerically superior defender is nothing short of miraculous!  Apparently, the presence of drones conveys nearly superhuman combat capabilities to the force that has them.

I know I’ve been extremely lukewarm about drones and, in fact, often quite critical but this is just a demonstration of capability that’s beyond belief.  Who would not be impressed and ‘converted’ into a drone supporter given this kind of demonstrated result?

Of course, as with any combat exercise, there were a few very minor nitpicks that a nitpicking nitpicker might nitpick about.  What kind of minor nitpicks, you ask?  Well, I hesitate to even mention them because I’m sure they don’t alter the results one iota but, since you asked, here they are:

The defenders, while they could see the drones, were apparently unable to shoot or destroy them.  I guess this is to simulate the fact that the Russians and Chinese don’t have guns or missiles.  That seems reasonable and accurate.

The technologies that were used in the game don’t exist but are all considered feasible in the near future.  Of course, if I could use made up technology, I could probably develop some pretty kick-ass capabilities, too!  And, just to add some perspective, the Zumwalt’s gun was considered feasible and the F-35’s ALIS logistics program was considered feasible and those turned out to be complete failures.  However, I’m sure that any envisioned technology in this wargame would turn out to be a complete success so the fact that the result is based on non-existent technology is almost irrelevant. 

The defenders did not, apparently, have access to any drones themselves.  This is the typical US military tendency to assume that everything we have works and the enemy has nothing and whatever they have doesn’t work.  If the game called for the attackers to possess advanced drone technology wouldn’t the enemy also have advanced drones, ground combat robots, radar, anti-drone electronic warfare capability (the Russians already do and, presumably, so do the Chinese), anti-drone kinetic weapons (isn’t that what a ZSU-23 is, even if you have nothing else?), advanced sensors, adaptive camouflage capability, etc.?  But, no, the simulated enemy apparently only had Revolutionary War muskets to work with.

As I said, these are incredibly minor, insignificant nits that, I’m sure, have no bearing on the result or interpretation of the results.  The key takeaway is that if you encounter a defending force with no apparent capabilities and you, yourself, have near Star Wars capabilities, you can defeat them with ridiculous ease.

Seems like it was a worthwhile wargame, don’t you think?

Seriously, this is the epitome of tilting the scenario to achieve the results you want.  The US military is desperate to justify unmanned vehicle technology (reduces personnel costs, they think) so they create wargames that so artificially constrain the opposing force that the outcome is a foregone conclusion and  *surprise*  they get the result they want.  With proof like that, who wouldn't jump on board the unmanned train?

___________________________________

(1)Breaking Defense website, “AI & Robots Crush Foes In Army Wargame ”, Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., 19-Dec-2019,

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/12/ai-robots-crush-foes-in-army-wargame/