Liveblogging Connections

FIRST SESSION...
Anticipating Military Tech Needs & Opportunities

MICHAEL MARKOWITZ

Serendipity: The happy accident of discovery
Many military technological advances were the result of serendipity

Cultural constraints and biases currently shape the development of technology for military

Reference to TS Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
- paradigm shifting changes in known science, like Copernicus

Antikethera Device
And yet, 1 century BC there was a Greek analog hand-crank computer (gears found by Greek divers) that could calculate sunrise, sunset, etc,
Used computer for calculation of seasons, Olympics, etc and not for any military purposes
3d century BC there was a design for a repeating, chain-driven, auto-fed crossbow; recreated by Prussians in in 19th century and it worked
Greeks never used it because it didn't fit into their paradigm of manly, virtuous 1-on-1 combat


Sha Sho Jian - Chinese phrase "Assassin's Mace" - usually referred to as a "game changer" or "trump card"
German equivalent is "Wunderwaffen" - literally the "wonder weapon"
Flag officers are gaga for Wunderwaffen
Vast amounts of time/research spent to develop long-distance microwave weapon
"Look, we can burn them at a distance!"
(somehow things that happen at a distance are always miracle weapons)
Laser developments have yet to yield a direct weapon, but have instead given us laser designators, laser rangefinders, and laser pointers to enhance the effectiveness of PowerPoint

Persian development of projectable petroleum-based pitch on wooden warships - early flamethrower
How do you build a fire-based weapon to employ on a wooden ship?
How do you specify the appropriate temperatures for burning pitch, but not the ship, without a temperature?

Middle Ages attempts by Church to ban the crossbow as disruptive to the social order, where a lowly peasant could kill his socially-superior knight
Japanese muskets (based on Dutch designs) in the 1600s, developed extensive doctrine and craftsmanship
Tokugawa Shogunate banned firearms for same reason Church wanted to ban crossbow

Naval War College wanted a wargame to play out the development of technology
Card-based game that looks into tech. Many names you don't know throughout the years, but some you don't.
German warships had smaller guns b/c they had better fire control and hit more frequently (ie, no need for the "big hit")

AL NOFI
Looking Forward: Predicting Advances in Military Technology

Making predictions is very hard, especially about the future.

German general used a device to practice the movement of soldiers in difficult terrain (like the woods). Based on size of force, and area being moved, device calculated numbers of sergeants, lieutenants, wagons, etc, to move x-size unit.
(As one audience member noted, it sounded like a circular slide rule)

French artist in 1900 predicted the state of warfare in 2000.
Everyone knew that aerial weapons would come to prominence, but everyone thought they would be airships (ie, blimps). Even today, everyone is fascinated with the airship, and the Navy especially, won't let it go. As another audience member noted, claims of their performance are routinely inflated.
Other slides showed gun-jeep mounting a machine gun (circa 1944 or so); an autogyro (not a true helicopter, but close), and an "airplane" - really an ornithopter - with wings, but wings flapped

Signature example of a "premature concept" - first submarine.
Signature example of "misuse" of technology - F-111 fighter/bomber.
- supposed to be a joint USAF/USN project, but too many bells and whistles for USN to use
- first 6 sent to Vietnam to 'prove' the technology, but no one knew how to use it, and 2 shot down, 2 others down for mechanical problems that no one knew how to fix
Another example - introduction of the tank
- Brits have a few dozen at the Somme, but too few to make a difference
- At Cambrai they had enough to turn the battle, but no idea how to exploit it
Signature example of "paying attention" - photo on-screen of HG Wells
- 1903 HG Wells makes a story about tanks, based loosely on another short story about development of MGs that promises a stalemate to war b/c no one can break thru the MG hail
- HG Wells posits a way around it by using tanks
- Austrians developed a prototype tank in 1913, but failed to adopt it, b/c it scared the horses.
Signature example of "solving the wrong problem"
- USAF C-fighter(?), a jet-powered sea-plane fighter
- had no real problem it was solving
Signature example of "technomania"
- "Dynamite gun" to use pneumatics to launch dynamite at enemy ships to explode/sink
- USS Vesuvius with 3 dynamite guns on front; huge investment in ship construction just for the dynamite gun
- no way to 'aim' the guns other than aiming the ship and changing the pneumatic load
- USS Vesuvius later converted into a ram; another unsuccessful technological trial
Other examples of "technomania"
- "Most badly design battleship in history" the French Magenta, two 11in guns, two 9in guns, lots of little guns, still has a ram, but also a torpedo tube facing forward (don't fire torpedo at the guy you're about to ram), the product of a design problem based on conflict in French Navy
- Late 1860s the torpedo is invented and everyone wants torpedos. First torpedo not fired in anger for another 20 years, and it missed.
- Illustration of a picklehaube with a pistol in the helmet, triggered by a mouth-strap. Lets officers continue fighting with their hands free.
- Photoshopped illustration of an aircraft carrier with front end of a battleship as a 'hybrid'

(started to run out of time, so slides got flipped quickly...)
Other slides:
Davy Crocket, LAW, Millatreuse



JOE SAUR, GaTech
How to model attrition and adjudication

Last year, they refought the Vietnam War (2028) in the FLTC.
Basic premise: typhoon wipes out Mekong Delta, aid ends up getting shipped to Hanoi instead of to the people
Next election, a Southerner wins and moves capital to middle of country, which everyone except the Chinese recognize
Hanoi gov't claims they are legit gov't (supported by Chinese), and country starts to fragment w/ military splitting and choosing sides
US forces around Vietnam with carrier group and USAF airship
COL(R) Matt Caffrey says "doesn't look like you're going to go kinetic", so...
US P8s in the area and Chinese provocation creates condition for war
Now USAF sends 30 or so planes from CONUS, Chinese push down 100 or so from mainland.

Now asked "who won"?
How do you adjudicate when the capabilities of the aircraft aren't known / don't exist, except in capabilities briefings?

So, how do you figure attrition in wargaming?
HG Wells and Robert Louis Stevenson did some wargaming back in 1905-ish.
Would fire wooden sticks at each other, but how to resolve melee?
Take 1/side off until 2-1 ratio reached, then other side surrenders.
Totally not applicable to air combat.

2 kinds of models
1. Deterministic (always get same result every time)
2. Monte Carlo (probabilities and spreads)
Senior leaders don't like Monte Carlo models because they don't like the answer "it depends"

Intricate slides of calculated tables based on force rations and effectiveness ratios.

Are attrition models always accurate?
Some real-life counterintuitive results
- Rorke's Drift
- The Alamo
- Gaius Suetonius Paulinus vs Boudica
- Chancellorsville
- Leyte Gulf

Attempts to fit to the model?
- Battle of Iwo Jima not accurate b/c Japanese refused to surrender

Dupuy's historical-based model of possible future conflicts
73 separate variables
Areas included: weapons effects; terrain factors; posture factors; mobility effects; vulnerability effects; etc
Tried to use the model to project Gulf I and came out with approx 3000 casualties
Dean Hartley's group used a similar model, predicted 300 or so
Actual casualties were around 150

Example of Monte Carlo based results with 2-1 odds and random resolution


With percentage ratio between forces, number of types of outcomes is roughly the same regardless of the method of calculating
However, the spread is not the same between the different methods.

Example of real-world use of resolution based on historical results.
Karbala Gap, 2003
2 Iraqi Brigades attack 2/3 ID, but do it at night, where US can see farther
Re-run the Monte Carlo example above, but instead of all units adjacent for combat resolution, allows US to see 1 more hex than Iraqis, and overwhelming victory for US


Return to initial scenario - refighting the Vietnam War.
How to assess casualties? How to employ the forces? (send everyone out there results in Chinese shooting each other)
In the end, the final resolution made nobody happy, and white cell was probably right in the end...


Q&A Session - sorry... my fingers are tired and balancing the laptop on one knee is causing a loss of blood flow to the foot.

By: Brant