[hijack]
Uncle Bill, I’m curious about something. I just picked up Lance Corporal after a year and a half in, and in about two more, maybe one and a half, I should be a Corporal. By the time my eight is up I should be a decent Sergeant. Where do you usually end up after eight years as an officer, given that you’re not a shitbird? Captain? Major?
[\hijack]
You’d pretty much be a very senior Captain or a brand new Major after eight years. I picked up Major eight years after my commissioning, but I’m shit-hot. (Picked up Captain and Major in the Reserves, so that isn’t quite the same).
Hmm…
Why not just put Van Riper in charge of the invasion of Iraq?
Here is a picture of General Van Riper when he was a company commander in Vietnam.
Cledet wrote:
That’s not quite true. $250 million may have been spent during the exercise but most of the costs involved were what are called “sunk costs.” These costs would have been incurred whether or not they run the exercise. Regardless of what was being done payroll would have to be met, depreciation on equipment keeps going, etc. The true cost of the exercise to the American taxpayer are the “marginal” costs, those incurred directly because of the exercise. Things like additional fuel for the ships and planes, transport of additional people to the scene, etc.
Also I think you need to reckon the cost of not having these exercises. Regarless of one’s opinions about the military (or the situation in Iraq) most would agree that a trained military is better than an untrained one.
Well crap! I guess that’s not Van Riper in the picture after all. But, if you look at the radio, he’s on the other end listening. Not quite the same somehow.
I remember this, I wrote about it, compared Van Riper’s moves to running cops over with their own cars in GTA 3, or something like that.
I didn’t think about this at the time, but comments in the thread make me think that it was not so much that Van Riper was brilliant, but the carrier group commander was asleep at the wheel. Anyone know who that was?
Thanks a bunch, <b>UncleBill</b>.
I hear that Van Riper got the cheats off of www.gamefaq.com and just kept using Sup3rNuke.
Since there were so many parameters that did not correspond to real life, I think this tells us more about our simulations than our actual chances of winning an Iraq conflict.
That said, if I were the OpFor in this game, would I use all available tactics to win? HELL YEAH! We need realistic simuilations, hopefully, this will push the military to make a better simulated environment.
Just because you don’t sit around saying “everything is fine” about everything, it doesn’t mean you hate President Bush. I am sure that many of the people who’ve criticized the military’s response to the wargame did so because they want the military to succeed and they want as few casualties as possible while they’re at it.
What this has to do with Bush I dunno. I do think Bush is an idiot, but I didn’t think he was involved in this wargame.
well it is possible that vanripper was following all the rules but makeing it basicly worthless. lots of things that could happen in real life make a worthless simulation.
“we have 10,000 soldiers over here”
“well I use a nuclear bomb on them”
“well… next simulation… we have a fort over here thats got a bunch of tanks and err… a cannon of some sort”
“I nuclear bomb it”
“well, now i have a bunch of missles hidden in the jungle”
“I nuclear bomb it”
“now this is a simulation of assasinateing this general”
“I use a nuclear bomb on it”
if that was how simulations were going I would certainly “cheat” if I was the government. it could happen, but its just a “yeah, thats great, the simulation is worthless that way”. there are lots of things you can do to ‘ruin’ the wargame, and win, but what does that show? how does that help? wargames are no good unless they are actually showing how things could work, and you get to test ALOT more stuff out if you actually simulate some stuff, not a quick win for one side or the other.
No, he was using civilian assets and small-scale coordinated attacks. He knew the BLUE Team was thinking purely Western Tactics, not Terrorist Tactics. The Terrorist Tactics kicked butt. It was VERY realistic. Did you read the link?
That was quite a worthwhile simulation. And it is Van Riper.
owlofcreamcheese: Ok, if the military wants to assume Iraq has nukes, why wouldn’t they assume Saddam would use them? I do see your point, but you just the same can’t assume you enemy will always pull its knockout punch.
But Van Riper, as has been said numerous times before, didn’t use unconventional weapons, just unconventional tactics.
We jammed radio? He was having commands shouted from minarets, something entirely probable in an Islamic nation. (I know Saddam isn’t any more religious than Stalin was, but minarets do dot the Iraqi landscape.) We could have recognized that and launched missiles against the relatively weak towers, but we didn’t. It cost us.
We have interlocking defenses highly effective against warcraft? He used small motorboats carrying highly mobile rocket launchers operated by fanatic soldiers on suicide missions. We certainly should have eliminated all unknown craft within range, but we didn’t. It cost us.
In short, Van Riper used our own strengths against us, exactly as an intelligent enemy would. We had every chance to clean up in that simulation, but we didn’t. Should we learn from our mistakes or just sweep it all under the rug?
well right, there are a thousand ways he could win outright, and a million ways we could win outright. all of them unexpectable, learning to defend from any single one is worthless as it assumes they will use that specific tactic.
as a simulation, it only actually TEACHES us things if it goes somewhere for a while. any one specific tactic is not worth learning to defend from, it is only worthwhile to simulate things that are general enough for us to apply what we learn to any battle. a crazy clever sneak attack makes a fun and exciteing videogame, and makes vanriper a cool cat, but its not so helpful.
basicly what I am saying is that a wargame is only suitable to teach general principals and overall stradegy, a clever sneek attack makes them less educational, and ‘cheating’ is better than starting over.
Eh? I’m trying to follow your logic here Owl and I’m having a little difficulty. Van Riper showed the US commanders several rather glaring weaknesses in their defenses (namely over-reliance on technology and a lack of flexible thinking) and rather than learning from the pasting he gave them, they simply whined ‘cheater’ and re-set everything. And you’re saying this is ok.
Am I right or am I misreading you?
Gee, we’re going to lose to Saddam. A simulation said so. Gosh, I seem to remember hearing this before, about 10+ years ago. I recall loads of folks, many of whom should have known better, saying things like how the Republican Guards was going to totally kick ass. How the 2nd tier Soviet tanks were the equivelant of the Allies MBTs, etc. etc.
This was a wargame folks. And any set of rules is going to have quirks that can be exploited by any rules lawyer. Van Riper, by all I’ve readm made a massive series of suicide attacks with civilian craft loaded with explosives.
This, while physically possible, is damn unlikely, Saddam doesn’t have such a suicide contingent. Japan would be lucky to have had so many in WW2. The rulkes also apparently ignore one of the biggest problems facing the would-be Kamakize: Where is the enemy fleet. Van Riper can say all these civilian planes with barely trained pilots are going to fid the US fleet easily, and the rules of the wargame may assume that one pilot is as good as another. But the reality of the situation is going to be much harder on the pilots. See lots of them splashing into the sea.
The suicide boats is hardly an imporvement. After a few incidents with Iran in the 80’s in the PErsian Gulf. Most fleets in that area work with the assumption that any appraoching boat is hostile, again I do not know how the rules cover this.
Also, wargames may have limitations in the scenarios that may limit the actions of one side. This is life. The military may be touchy about shooting down civilians and might have limited how many civilian craft could be shot at.
Furthermore, according to Gen. Pace, who was in charge of this, this is not a wargame done for tactical victory. The was an exercise done to work out lessons and the like. Wargames are not designed for the US to win, and in fact the US sometimes does not win in these things. However, the implication is that the US somehow cheated by raising the navy again. Sorry, but no, this was done becuase the first game was over. Start again. Playing a second game of chess does not not mean you are cheating in the first one.
Van Riper compains about cheating, or rather the article seems to complain for him. But the best example given is his desire to use couriers and prayer towers for communication instead of cell phones. If he thinks going to WW1 comminiction level is going to help him, then , whatever. Good luck getting the bike courier to your suicide pilot.
This is a tempest in a teapot.
Again, I’m not saying that we’re going to lose to Saddam. What I am saying is that any military leader that can’t think flexibly has no business commanding troops in battle, simulated or otherwise. I have no faith that anyone who relies on the Magical Fleet Resurrection Device to win a simulation is worthy of leading our soldiers in combat. They might still win, but they’ll win at the cost of more casualties that they should have taken.
Some points:
Boats weren’t all suicide attacks if memory serves, but small craft armed with Silkworm cruise missiles.
Suicide pilots don’t need to be highly trained (minimal training was supplied to the kamikazes in WWII)
Courier-based communications may be slow, but they are communications nonetheless and need to be addressed.
I think we should stop taking our lessons from the last war we won (the Gulf) and maybe take a look at the last one we lost (Somalia) when planning for this one.
Suicide attacks with civilian craft. Where the hell have we heard that before? Naahh… no Islamic terrorist group would possibly do that.
Beirut was bombed to hell with mortars and Palestinian B-52s. Every Israeli who rides the bus knows that.
Yeah. He’s right near Saudi Arabia, where all of the young men really, really love us and would never join Al-Quaeda.
How stupid of me for thinking so.
Yep. Kamikaze raiders were most certainly not worth preparing for.
Eh, all around ours?
Hm… barely-trained pilots in substandard planes on suicide missions will not work. Quick, go back in time and notify the Japanese.
Yeah. We really kicked their asses.
But, ya see, we didn’t. We lost. Get the picture?
And those civilians would be happy to play by our rules and throw down their Molotov cocktails and unhook the C4 wrapped around them. After all, civilian warriors just isn’t cricket. Every young Saudi man knows that.
Heh. Gotta love CMA.
But, ya see, he did. It worked. We lost.
Oh, and good luck getting those 777s to the WTC and the Pentagon. Silly terrorists, airliners are for Americans.
I’m sure the US Army will agree when Iraq plays by all the rules and Saddam’s a graceful, polite loser.
Wabbit, I’m just saying that van ripper isn’t REALLY saddam, hes an american, the american’s won, they beat the americans. and he did so useing magic ships with cloaking technology basicly.
see, most of the boats were real, 13,000 soldiers were really playing. the ships he used were computer generated. the ships knew that there were random ships going around. fishing boats and all, but they didn’t expect that the COMPUTER GENERATED invisible fishing boats that probobly didn’t even show up on radar (they probobly had just some lists printed out saying "fishingboat#q14114 is at loc X:2141 Y:1244) they wouldn’t expect fictional fishing boats to sink them.
sure they shoulda expected anything, but they were probobly unaware that the computer fishing boats were even POSSIBLE to be rallyed useing invisible motercycles (which probobly were not modeled at all!) to call people to war under the guise of prayer.
sure that made them learn something, but less than could be learned by resurecting the fighters and trying some more stuff. it teaches the people the rules of the VIDEO GAME part of the wargames better, that yes computer generated fishingboats can be used to attack. (not exactly odvious, really, as a general I would assume randomly generated fishing boats were just filler.)
so yeah, war games are learning exercises, reseting the war does not mean they forget what they learn, it just means they don’t want the imaginary war to go that way, and they already learned what they need from that course of war.
Oh, ok–gotcha owl. I misread what you posted; not the first time that has happened and most likely won’t be the last! 
It is my understanding that the US commanders continued the exercise without taking into account Van Riper’s tactics which means (to me) they basically refused to learn from their mistakes.
Not the qualities we want in our military commanders, in other words.