Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (9786)	11/11/2001 1:40:21 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi chooseanother; War is an extreme thing. It's not at all like the thing that playing military oriented war games would have you think. This latest "Revolution in Military Affairs" has given people an unrealistic view of war, in that the munitions always seem to hit. But it's more than that, if you play "Red Baron II", a wonderful game based on WW1 aircraft, (for example) you get the impression that when two aircraft met in combat in that war, one is always shot down. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Even Baron von Richtoffen shot down aircraft at a rate far less than one per week, while flying twice per day. And the popular game "Doom" gives the same impression for urban warfare. If real war were fought like that they wouldn't last more than a few days because one or both sides would run out of soldiers. In real combat, *people take far better care of their skins than would be indicated by the simulations*. Air combat usually consists of one party making one (surprise) firing run at the other, and then heading off for the horizon as fast as he can. The "dogfight" where everybody hangs around shooting is a rarity, and when it happens makes such an impression that it is written about. Because close encounters are so rare, most rounds get spent at long distances (or near impossible angles) hoping to get lucky. Infantry combat consists of a bunch of people far enough apart and with their butts sufficiently pressed into the ground that they hardly ever see each other. You can train troops to hit targets at the rifle range all day, but when they get sent into combat they may never see an enemy who's visible for more than a few seconds. (This is taken into account in US rifle training doctrine, I can look it up if you're interested. But I'm about to head off to a party, so not tonight.) Another great example is mine fields. If you watch WW2 movies you get the impression that mine fields consist of one mine for every square yard or so. In actual practice, modern mine fields are laid at rates never more than one mine per 500 square meters: wood.army.mil (Of course these mines are considerably better than ones from previous wars and have much better triggers.) Anyway, as a consequence of all these things, war is extremely expensive. Back in the heyday of edged weapons, the suits of armor and swords were the most expensive things made. Raising and training elephants for battle must have been horribly expensive. During WW1, the engine of an SE-5A cost $12,000.00 (if I remember correctly) which seems cheap now, but to put it in perspective, a whole car only cost $300 new. War has always been the most expensive thing that humans do, in terms of treasure, but the human costs are worse. Since we have such a huge advantage in terms of armaments we forget this. But if we ever have to go up against a nation as tough as ourselves, God forbid, it will be a horrible bloodbath for all involved, and if it lasts, they'll have to convert the US manufacturing industry over to munitions just like they did during WW2. -- Carl P.S. Thinking of air combat, mines and infantry, Hollywood makes everything the military does more suitable for their requirements. My favorite is the films that are supposedly taken inside of submarines. It looks like you could play basketball in one of them.