The Illogic Abounds!

By now, we’re all familiar with the nonsensical fantasy of small units, deep in enemy territory, wreaking havoc, and winning wars.  Of course, the key to this (well, one of the keys, at any rate) is the ability to resupply these units deep inside enemy territory.  No one has yet explained how this would occur.  Defense News website, however, has an article describing the general concept and the article perfectly illustrates the degree of wishful thinking and hand-waving away of problems that has to occur to even begin to contemplate this kind of resupply.

… delivery of logistical payloads to Marines on a beachhead can be done completely with unmanned platforms. For example, small to medium robotic ground vehicles loaded with supplies could be carried by one of these unmanned logistical craft. Rather than Marines exposing themselves to hostile fire while unloading supplies on the beach, robotic ground vehicles or aerial drones disembark from the vessels and deliver cargo directly to the Marines in a more secure location. (1)

Let’s break those sentences down and analyze them.

‘delivery … can be done completely with unmanned platforms’  -  This assumes the ability of a small, non-stealthy, unarmed vessel to self-navigate hundreds or a thousands of miles through enemy controlled waters and skies without being detected and attacked – and to do so on a regular, recurring basis.  Does this seem even remotely realistic?

Wait, it gets better!

‘Rather than Marines exposing themselves to hostile fire while unloading supplies on the beach, robotic ground vehicles or aerial drones disembark from the vessels and deliver cargo directly to the Marines’  -  So, if Marines were to try to unload supplies they’d be exposed to hostile fire and killed but robotic ground vehicles will, somehow, be immune to destruction by that same hostile fire?  Does this seem like anything but pure fantasy?

Still better … !

Further, if Marines trying to unload supplies would be exposed to hostile fire, wouldn’t the supply vessel, itself, beached on the shore for unloading, also be exposed to hostile fire and, being small and having no defensive armament or armor, be quickly destroyed along with its entire cargo?  Are you beginning to grasp the degree of fantasy and delusion that goes into this concept?

Finally, we note from the article that the authors are described thusly,

Wayne Prender and David Phillips are senior vice presidents at Textron Systems.

Hmm …  Just out of curiosity, I wonder what Textron Systems makes?  A quick check shows that, among other things, it makes …     military robotic vehicles.  That’s right, they make the very robotic vehicles that are at the core of this idiotic concept!  Who’d have guessed?!  This sounds like Textron executives contriving a poorly thought out marketing pitch to try to sell their product regardless of the degree of insanity associated with the entire concept.  If they can make sales, who cares whether it works or not, right?  The really unfortunate part of all this is that the Marines seem to have bought into this nonsensical scheme hook, line, and sinker.

I’m also disappointed in Defense News for even printing such an idiotic article.

_________________________________

(1)Defense News website, “Use existing and planned craft for unmanned logistical resupply”, Wayne Prender and David Phillips, 9-Jun-2020,

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/09/use-existing-and-planned-craft-for-unmanned-logistical-resupply/

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/