Do you Think some nations are too dependant on their High-tech equipment?

[Britishhawk]

In todays world more and more nations are being equipped with the latest Gucci gear and equipment, Do you think some nations are becoming too dependant on these technological advances and forgetting the core Military tactics and the art of survival in a hostile environment?

I know this is somewhat of a vague question but ill be interested in knowing your views and opinions. I apologise if this is in the wrong section.

[jaybe]

If shortly
yes

[Leaper]

Yeah I think so too. Many countrys seems to forget all about map reading and learning how to use an compass. And survival training? That's some special forces ****, right?

[Red_Rage]

By "some nations" you mean one nation in particular? :) We've cross trained with Germans, Brits, and Americans - only Americans sported high tech Gucci kit like personal GPSs, NVGs and etc. Of course the situation is different on deployments, but on day-to-day basis most "high-tech" armies are not so high tech in reality.

We still use compasses and we are still taught how to trap rabbits during winter exercises - and this is in Canada, which is considered one of the leaders in the tech field.

[gafkiwi]

All that Gucci kit is just an aide to a soldier, and can only be used to there full capability if the soldier has his Basic skills sorted.

I suppose Its one of those things that comes down to commanders and ensuring their soldiers are initally trained to a good level in their basic core skills and then once up to par add the gucci kit to produce an even more effective soldier.

Our Army (well some of it anyway) will periodically test soldiers core skill level throughout there careers, i.e. during courses or exercises developing junior soldiers by having them plan and execute tasks, and by removing technical "Aides" from commanders and then having them complete tasks un aided.

Worst of all I think is to have the kit and not use it at all,
"Hey sgt why don't you check Nav with the GPS"
"Don't need it boy, Didn't have that stuff back in my day"

[Hutz]

Yes to a certain extent. It's amazing how the GPS has degraded map and compass skills (in my humble experience anyway).

[Mackie]

Checklist for war:

- ammo: check
- food: check
.........
- batteries .........ahm.......
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk143/xMackiexl/homer_simpson.gif

Soldier reports about LandWarrior should warning enough.

[NeoConPatriot]

Checklist for war:

- ammo: check
- food: check
.........
- batteries .........ahm.......
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk143/xMackiexl/homer_simpson.gif

Soldier reports about LandWarrior should warning enough.

A buddy of mine in Afghanistan told me that his unit has all the cool toys but 90% of the time they have to rely on old-tech field craft due to a lack of batteries. He said one of the most coveted items in his unit are batteries for the NVG's.

[James]

I think there has been a trend to replace training with technology in the United States.

[Currahee 1SG]

I think there has been a trend to replace training with technology in the United States.

I disagree as the technology increases so does the need for training on that particular piece of equipment. The fundamentals of training do not change, the way we train does. Outcome based training is something that a great many folks do not understand and resist. Humans do not like change and that is why there is resistance to bring the new onto the battlefield. The battlefield is getting harder and will continue to do so, we will adapt to whatever we are facing. As a whole the individual that is fighting the ground battle is still doing it the same way it has been done for centuries.

[Currahee 1SG]

A buddy of mine in Afghanistan told me that his unit has all the cool toys but 90% of the time they have to rely on old-tech field craft due to a lack of batteries. He said one of the most coveted items in his unit are batteries for the NVG's.

Considering the fact that NVDs use AAs I find this hard to believe.

[gafkiwi]

Considering the fact that NVDs use AAs I find this hard to believe.
Yeah, the whole idea of AAs running most kit is you can find them anywhere. I think that at anyone time I have atleast 14 AAs in kit at anyone time on me or in my rig and about 2 x that as spares, thats not including AAAs for my Headset and gps.

When I was in afgan in my sections M-1114s, AAs would be found tucked, jammed and stuff into any stowage areas left after ammo, med stuff and water.


As a whole the individual that is fighting the ground battle is still doing it the same way it has been done for centuries.

I definately agree. As an Infanteer the basics of my job and how it is conducted have remained pretty much unchanged for a "LONG" time. I do how ever at times see people become a little lazy and not so much dependant in relation to technology, like navigating purely by gps insted of using it as an aide to support the basic skills and tools they have i.e. map and compass and relating the map to the ground

[James]

I disagree as the technology increases so does the need for training on that particular piece of equipment. The fundamentals of training do not change, the way we train does. Outcome based training is something that a great many folks do not understand and resist. Humans do not like change and that is why there is resistance to bring the new onto the battlefield. The battlefield is getting harder and will continue to do so, we will adapt to whatever we are facing. As a whole the individual that is fighting the ground battle is still doing it the same way it has been done for centuries.

I agree that the need for training increases, as does the total amount necessary. TO clarify my statement, take marksmanship for example. Say the alotted time for a range is one week (I have no idea what it really is these days). In my time, that would have all been iron sights. Now, the alloted time is still a week, but you are doing Iron sights and some sort of optic, and probably a PEQ2 or something and night stuff as well. More training is being squeezed into the same amount of time, so something is going to lose out. It has to.

I made my statement (and stand by it) based on my experiences in the USMC in the 1990s compared with a variety of U.S. Military units I've encountered in Afghanistan since 2004. The first example that pops into my head is when some colleagues of mine (civilians) had to instruct some ANG folks how to zero their rifles and set up Aimpoints. They'd gone through all of their supposed pre-deployment training, gotten signed off, and found themselves at an FOB in SE A'Stan without having zeroed their rifles... :| This same unit had young soldiers who were able to use a GPS, but didn't know how to shoot an azimuth with a compass. One night there was some tracer fire outside of the perimeter, and a tower manned my a young soldier called it in. I asked him for an azimuth and he said "12 o'clock". Well, no sh*t 12 o'clock, you're facing it aren't you? :cantbeli:

At that same base, on that same trip, some SF guys were using our range one day, and a MSGT was having repeated failures to extract and double feeds. A colleague who happened to be an armorer offered to check out his M4. The problem was simply a chamber that hadn't been cleaned for quite a while. Wow. Considering who that rifle belonged to, my jaw nearly hit the ground.

I was an instructor for the USN for a while, and they wanted sailors to qualify with M16s and M14s in one of the courses I taught. I know all about zeroing a rifle at 25 yards, but they found it expedient to also shoot the qualification at 25 yards. Even so, plenty of people didn't qualify, but the USN decided that simply having been through a course was enough to gradate and get a certificate (this is for a real, vetted Navy course, not some made up feel good stuff). When we held students to the original standards the Navy had provided, not enough of them were passing. So, instead of spending more time on certain things, the Navy changed the standards so everyone could graduate.

I'm sure most units aren't like that, it's just the snapshot I've seen.

[Eventine]

There are indications that warfare is moving in the direction of "point and click." There are only so many drones that you can deploy before you start relying on them, and suffice to say any war fought between major powers in this day and age will depend on missiles & missile defense. So in that sense, an age may be coming when war will no longer be fought between soldiers, but between machines. In that case, production capability and technology will play an even larger role. Any country that gets left behind on the R&D stage, or which fails to develop a robust production base (both resources + infrastructure), may be left unable to defend itself, at least symmetrically.

[Nzhou]

Military technology can only defeat a force, it cannot conquer a nation. Only a foot soldier on the ground can do that.

[Mordoror]

in short :

given the fact that all the fancy hypertechnology gives a false feeling of superiority in any kind of situation,

given the fact that hypertechnology is a clear lure, unbalancing the balance of forces (in such style "why having 10 tanks when only one with GPS, NVG, battle managment system, hyper addon armor and killers shells can do the stuff of 10 ..... however 1 tank cannot occupy the surface area of ten and given the price it is difficult to maintain and if damaged or destroyed you have now 0 tank available instead of 9)

given the fact that technology is over expensive cutting the amount of funds for every corps of an army (instead of 700 APC you can buy only 150 because they have the last engine that give a better weight/power ratio but costs 3 time the price)

given the fact that now the brass are self intoxicated with their own propaganda over technology (all airforce/smart bombs/GPS guided air ordnance and so on ...) that they have forgotten to think and analyse where and when such technology could be or not usefull

given the fact that like any technology those tools make you lazy , especially about brainstorming the operationnals mofo you can encounter

given the fact that like any technology , they are more fragile and succeptible to break than old school mechanics (for any civilian example look at your car, for example i have a friend that just buy a car and 2 days after the electronic keys refused to recognize the datas of the in car computer, forbidding then to start the engine .... it is extrem but you can image if such kind of think occurs on military equipment ... look at all the software and hardware problems the F22 had ...)

YES our military is thinking, breathing and pissing technology !!!
and thus if the situation is not perfectly suited for that techno (instead of high intensity warfare in central europe in cool climate and not far of supply line you have, just for example, have to go in a **** hole country 8000 km far away of your main factories with freezing temperatues at night, hell hot in day, with dust, sun and mud) then all your last top of the dead hypertechno equipment would be only death weight to bear for only several weeks

Moreover, i would say, when you can't rely on fancy equipment, you are more intended to rely on your brain and then be inventive (like the serbs in Kosovo where plastic and wood dummies of 1 000 $ cost lured the eyes of several millions worth satellites and cost 1 million $ tomahawks to be destroyed, or were in Irak 3 previous war rusted 155 mm shells with 2 metal wire and a 5 $ cell phone were sufficient to blow up a 7 million $ battle tank)

[Eventine]

Military technology can only defeat a force, it cannot conquer a nation. Only a foot soldier on the ground can do that.

What about robot soldiers?