Digitisation - Panacea or Disaster?

[Royal]

Ghostwolf made a statement that made me think in another thread...


Battelfield situation awareness and digitization are the keys to future battlefield success.

There are certain dinosours (me included) who are increasingly worried about the (in our opinion) unnessesary increase in the size of operational HeadQuarters.

A WWII Whermacht Regimental HQ (roughly equivalent to a modern BG HQ in terms of combat troops controlled) was run for the CO by three staff officers (on the G2/G3 side of things). Nowadays it runs into double figures.

This vastly increases the ammount of 'planning' done and thus the time taken to plan - leaving less and less time for the commanders on the ground to make their own plans.

As we become more and more digitised, this staff work will only increase as the inward flow of raw information increases.

UK studies on TEWT's are now showing that experienced commanders consistantly make as good, if not better decisions based on limited information and a 'Combat Estimate' based on a few minutes thought and input from a couple of key 'personalities' than their BG HQ staff make after 20 or so hours of deliberation.

I'm not a luddite (honest) and am very much in favour of new technology that makes our lives easier (think TI, II, battlefield radar or laser ranging)but I am not in favour of vast armies of staff officers stiffling the palnning process and subsequently depriving hard pressed commanders on the ground of the time to make their own plans properly and thus;

a. acheive true Mission Command

and

b. minimise own casualties...

Just some thoughts,

anyone else?

[shrek]

In PATRIOT we're trying to address this very problem. Too much information, so much that a commander cannot see through it all to the real data. We created a laptop that the commander has access to that has the "bare-bones" data of what he needs to know to run the battlefield on it. If he wants more he can access it with ever increasing size and complexity being an earmark, but that's only if he wants to. And, yes, our command centers are getting smaller, less people, less arguments, less stress, better-quicker decisions!!

[Flagg]

A WWII Whermacht Regimental HQ (roughly equivalent to a modern BG HQ in terms of combat troops controlled) was run for the CO by three staff officers (on the G2/G3 side of things). Nowadays it runs into double figures.

Due to more capable weapons/sensing capabilites isn't the AO per soldier significantly greater now as opposed to 60 years ago?

Would that be a factor in the increased staffing size?

I can best relate in commercial "warfare" ;)

Information overload and "analysis paralysis" are huge problems I've witnessed.

Too much emphasis and resources are often placed on information collection and analysis, often confusing and lengthening the decision making process.

Also, the people most able to capitalise on relevant information are often the last to learn of it.

And most importantly....I've seen in commerce, and read stories of the military, where upper "management" is reaching down and micromanaging individual situations, this can be partially attributed to IT advances.

I would guess possibly part of the problem may lie with officers(as well as folks in commerce) who've begun their careers LACKING in information, and are now DROWNING in it.

Talk about "be careful what you ask for"

I would guess the situation is similiar to tactical pilots up until the late 1970's.....aircraft with tremendous combat potential.......but the aircrews were dangerously overloaded spending more time managing the aircraft and less time fighting from it.

Along came design and engineering work that developed such useful concepts as HOTAS (Hands On Throttle And Stick) and HUD (Heads Up Display), placing all major combat and sensing capabilities right under your fingers.......resulting in much improved efficiency, allowing pilots to keep their eyes outside the cockpit hunting the enemy, rather than inside the cockpit, spending more time fighting from the aircraft, less time managing it.

It may or may not be an effective or relevant analogy, but I think it makes my point. I suspect the same design, engineering, and ergonomic efforts are needed to allow HQs(and businesses) to operate with maximum efficiency with the least number of personnel....more time fighting, less time managing

[WARPIG]

I hear you Royal. I have seen TOC operations get more and more complicated as technology designed to improve the system seem to bog it down. I think this is also the trend that pushes more data to the soldiers on the ground. As combat networking becomes more viable and matures I think you will see a great deal more responsibility for leadership and individual soldiers on the ground to make decisions with support from the TOC. Information will likely be cascaded down or funneled up in real time. US forces are undergoing transformation in an effort to make them more "commando" like. This not only refers to the combat readiness of the common unit but the ability and responsibility of the individual soldiers. Leadership will not have to do as much micro-managing as individual soldiers become more capable and empowered.

Take the LandWarrior projects for example. The program has many technologies that have spun off during it's progression. Much of which is in command and control and information management. Aside from the gee wiz optics and weapon advancements.. the real time data comm between ground pounders and leadership can help minimize that data overload at the TOC. Intel can be directly implimented at the ground level because of the speed, accuracy, and directness of info. (the disconnect of a SALT or SALUTE report that comes from Scouts, up to their leadership, out to the TOC, then having that info transferred to the Unit that takes action is usually dilluted and quickly becoming stale.) Real time data in the form of Visual images, GPS co-ord, and laser "painting", can transfer in real time from the "eyes on" to the TOC and then to fire support in one data packet. No conference by the staff in the TOC as to whether they should act, how good the intel is, who should respond, confirming the intel.. etc.

[Royal]

Shrek and WarPig, I hear you, but have to say that in my experience (less so so far in conventional Ops, but more so with Int and SF) this leads to more, not less micro management as the General watches the Op in real time and ends up on the net (it's happened) disrupting the way a team operates. Throw a few politicians or their lap dogs into the mix and you've got the makings of a major f**k up.

Flagg the size of AOs continues to vary as to the terrain and the type of unit involved - In an urban area such as Fallujah units will have very small AO's. SF and Int generally have very large ones, as would (generally) infantry in mountainous terrain or armour in a desert.

[Herrmannek]

Guys you are real dinosaurs :).. What is happening now is cuting down central commanding...Future military systems will work like very secured p2p programs or honey bee swarms, with have virtually flat command chains . Why because most of decissions made by "generals" now could be made by field comanders, squad leaders if they would be supervised with full real time info about "battlefield". there will be no need to use central drving in most of the cases and most of the info will be gathered and processed automaticaly...Just look at darpa page. How many projects of autonomus systems there is? Many...Generals are Endangered Spiecies

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9088/command1.png