CDZ Outdated military thinking and an internal resistance to change

[Onyx]

I was reading about the 2002 Millennium Challenge war game, which was designed to test a much larger US force (BLUFOR) against was believed to be a representation of the Iranian military (OPFOR).

Why is this particular war game noteworthy? The US commander in charge of the OPFOR forces dropped out and accused the games of being rigged. Critics of the game allege it as being completely scripted and its organizers of being corrupt.

BLUFOR was given technological advantages and military capabilities that did not exist present day or were speculated to exist during the scenario year (2007). After OPFOR naval forces obliterated the entire BLUFOR carrier group in a move that completely shocked the exercise coordinators, the control cell allowed BLUFOR to magically restore its lost carrier group and re-simulate the battle.

Fast forward and the OPFOR forces were preparing for an amphibious assault from the magically restored BLUFOR carrier group, when they received a mid-game rule change that they were not allowed to fire on equipment and troop transports (after it was revealed that the V-22 prototype had large radar signatures). This allowed BLUFOR to launch a full airborne assault completely unopposed.

The final straw was when the independent control cell prohibited OPFOR from using its chemical weapons against the invaders, which would of decimated the organizing invasion force. The commander of the OPFOR forces, Paul Von Riper, resigned from his position in the game and wrote a heated protest to the pentagon. Eventually BLUFOR defeated the OPFOR forces ,even though they STILL achieved a partial victory by protecting their regime.

Why does all this matter? It confirms a lot of my thoughts (which have been rather unpopular here) on how US military thinking is outdated, and that there is an overwhelming arrogance in the pentagon that US forces are invincible. The entire game was rigged to give the US military good PR, and shelter the incompetent generals in the pentagon from humiliation. No lessons were learned, and if the US were to ever go with Iran (which is far more powerful now than the pentagon ever projected it would be), it will face the same embarrassing defeats that they did in the 2002 Millenium Challenge, and they wont be able to cheat their way to victory.

 

[Onyx]

Oh, and get this! The commander of the BLUFOR forces was given a promotion immediately after the games ended.

 

[task0778]

Where did you get this information? I have to question it's accuracy, the US military does not conduct any kind of training just to 'look good'. That is nonsense, we train our forces to win any and every engagement with maximum efficiency and minimal loss of life, at least on our side. So I'll ask again, what is your source?

 

[williepete]

People that know don't talk.
People that talk don't know.

What branch of the military did you serve in Onyx?

 

[Onyx]

Where did you get this information? I have to question it's accuracy, the US military does not conduct any kind of training just to 'look good'. That is nonsense, we train our forces to win any and every engagement with maximum efficiency and minimal loss of life, at least on our side. So I'll ask again, what is your source?

There are hundreds of sources, including Paul von Riper himself. This is a detailed description.

Millennium Challenge: The Real Story of a Corrupted Military Exercise and its Legacy

And yeah, the pentagon runs military exercises all the time for publicity. It helps them secure financing from congress and boost the careers of pentagon officials. In this particular case, the results of the simulation were humiliating, which is why they rigged it mid-game in favor of BLUFOR.

 

[Onyx]

People that know don't talk.
People that talk don't know.

What branch of the military did you serve in Onyx?

I just had a flashback to the Bush administration.

That was a regular retort the dipshits made to protect their militaries incompetency.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Exactly what did IRan use to sink an entire fleet....?

 

[williepete]

Ha, I just had a flashback to the Bush administration.

That was a regular retort the dipshits made to protect their militaries incompetency.

As I thought. You don't know what your talking about. Dismissed.

I believe the flashback part. I hear abusing drugs will cause that.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I've heard of Wargames being rigged but the possibility of Iran sinking A fleet is beyond ridiculous unless they nuked it. I know games were rigged to show LCS had phantom capabilities added and then treated as real

 

[Onyx]

Exactly what did IRan use to sink an entire fleet....?

The OPFOR fleet used asymmetric tactics which the BLUFOR navy was completely unprepared for.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Exactly what did IRan use to sink an entire fleet....?

The OPFOR fleet used asymmetric tactics which the BLUFOR navy was completely unprepared for. They did manage to adapt after the control cell magically restored their sunken carrier group.

nonsense

 

[Onyx]

I've heard of Wargames being rigged but the possibility of Iran sinking A fleet is beyond ridiculous unless they nuked it.

This isn't a conspiracy. The BLUFOR carrier group was destroyed in the simulation. And yeah, everyone was surprised when it happened.

After actually studying the Iranian military though, I do believe they have the potentia and firepower to take down a US carrier group through the combined usage of surface anti-ship missiles, aerial swarming, among other unconventional tactics. Obviously they do not have anything close to an advantage though..

 

[defcon4]

The exercise was a success. Even if we take the article face value it taught military planners about the shortcomings of certain tactical decisions. That's what exercises are for.

Before the U.S. was dragged into WWII there was a readiness exercise. Gen. Patton against the good old boys club. Patton was commanding his tank units and beside Patton the "enemy" also calculated the supply lines the needs for all the logistics for the tank units. They calculated that Patton would arrive after 3 days of "march" ("marching" here is not in the literary sense of the word you imagining the tank crews were marching on foot carrying their tanks on their shoulders. Just to make sure you understand) Anyhow, Patton hauled ass in his vehicle (the iconic Jeep was not characteristic of the US Army at that time yet) ahead of his column, bought all the gas at every gas station on his route and instructed the owners that tanks would come through and the gas is for them. His tank detachment arrived a day ahead of the calculated time and "occupied the "enemy CP." The "enemy" was whining that it wasn't fair what Patton did. Patton replied: "Gentlemen, war is not fair" So it was a successful exercise also teaching the lesson of expect the unexpected.

 

[Onyx]

nonsense

Like I said, this isn't a conspiracy. It really happened.

Here is an excerpt from the article I submitted, citing the words of the BLUFOR commander himself...

Blue team leader Bell admitted that the OPFOR had “sunk my damn navy,” and had inflicted “an extremely high rate of attrition, and a disaster, from which we all learned a great lesson.”

 

[Manonthestreet]

I've heard of Wargames being rigged but the possibility of Iran sinking A fleet is beyond ridiculous unless they nuked it.

This isn't a conspiracy. The BLUFOR carrier group was destroyed in the simulation. And yeah, everyone was surprised when it happened.

After actually studying the Iranian military though, I do believe they have the potentia and firepower to take down a US carrier group through the combined usage of surface anti-ship missiles, aerial swarming, among other unconventional tactics. Obviously they do not have anything close to an advantage though..

They might score some hits......sink a carrier would require several......their subs are old.....their AF unmaintained....pilots ??/ who knows....Smart munitions probably in short supply......still think someone is feeding you a line

 

[Onyx]

The exercise was a success. Even if we take the article face value it taught military planners about the shortcomings of certain tactical decisions. That's what exercises are for.

Von Riper claimed elsewhere the that sponsoring generals learned nothing from the exercise, and had scripted it with the intention of protecting their outdated military thinking.

If the control cell didn't cheat, the BLUFOR forces would of faced actual challenges, like chemical warfare and actually being fired at during an aerial assault.

 

[Onyx]

They might score some hits......sink a carrier would require several......their subs are old.....their AF unmaintained....pilots ??/ who knows....Smart munitions probably in short supply......still think someone is feeding you a line

So you are in denial about what happened. Can't fix denial.

I'll debate you on those points though. Iran has hundreds of missiles which have pinpoint accuracy (a central focus over the past decade). Their airforce has been heavily modernized, and their models are more practical. They are faster and more maneuverable at the expense of the excessive weapons in armor found in western models, and a swarm of them can drop a major payload of bombs with minimum casualties. I agree about their subs, but they don't need to resort to submarine warfare when they have packs of small ships equipped with heavy weapons.

 

[Onyx]

As I thought. You don't know what your talking about. Dismissed.

Yeah, because spending four years sitting on my ass on taxpayer dime would give me an advanced understanding of military science.

Or that a lack thereof would make the reality of this humiliating exercise any less credible.

 

[Manonthestreet]

They might score some hits......sink a carrier would require several......their subs are old.....their AF unmaintained....pilots ??/ who knows....Smart munitions probably in short supply......still think someone is feeding you a line

So you are in denial about what happened. Can't fix denial.

I'll debate you on those points though. Iran has hundreds of missiles which have pinpoint accuracy (a central focus over the past decade). Their airforce has been heavily modernized, and their models are more practical. They are faster and more maneuverable at the expense of the excessive weapons in armor found in western models, and a swarm of them can drop a major payload of bombs with minimum casualties. I agree about their subs, but they don't need to resort to submarine warfare when they have packs of small ships equipped with heavy weapons.

Having equipment and using it effectively are different things. Dont think their antiship missiles have the range to hit a carrier.....any surface ship wouldnt last long enough to get close which leaves you with their old and dated subs.......What you said about their AF sorta outs ya as having bought a line.....maybe in some gamers basement this happened...thats about it

 

[fncceo]

There is a simple reason that America hasn't won a decisive strategic military victory since the 2nd World War. It's because warfare has fundamentally changed and our strategy to making war hasn't changed fundamentally in 70 years. We entered the Second World War with a specific and achievable exit strategy, the unconditional surrender of the military forces of Japan and Germany. When that was achieved, we declared victory, ended the military phase of the conflict and began the diplomatic phase.

Since then, we've found ourselves engaged in questionable conflicts against forces that make little or no distinction between combatants and non-combatants, without centralised command and control (ever notice everyone we kill in ISIS and Al-Qaeda is the 'number two man'?) and we do so without an achievable exit strategy if the enemy simply refuses to surrender. Also, we begin the diplomatic phase of the conflict during the military phase, giving the enemy a very mixed message as to our intentions.

Additionally, as Americans, we are not a society organised to be on an all out war footing for very long. Americans are easily persuaded to abandon support for any conflict that drags on too long. The Revolutionary War lasted just over eight years (most of that in limited engagements). The US Civil War lasted only four years. The American involvement in the Second World War less than four years. In contrast, we couldn't subdue Vietnam with the full strength of the US military in 20 years. We failed to subdue Iraqi resistance in nearly nine years. We failed to end conflict in Afghanistan in 15 years. Americans will not support warfare that doesn't achieve a victory in a relatively short period of time.

Big planes, big tanks, big ships, were all designed to fight the 'big war' a type of warfare we haven't seen for 70 years. But, we're still spending trillions on producing them. It's understandable why this system perpetuates. National prestige, a fully entrenched high-tech (and expensive) arms industry, and a Pentagon organised around weapons programs rather than developing meaningful military doctrine. Military (and political) careers are built on the backs of expensive programs and military pork. Many more medals are awarded for the successful (and frequently unsuccessful) completion of a big-money arms program than were ever awarded for military successes.

Modern warfare calls for a completely change in strategic thinking away from ground acquisition and pacification. We have demonstrated over and over that we don't have the ability to occupy a country and inflict policy in any lasting way. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the same pattern repeats. We pacify a central area, temporarily pacify adjacent areas while the enemy re-asserts itself in areas we previously claimed to have pacified. All the while, the enemy continues it's propaganda war and waits for inevitable surrender/withdrawal.

I suggest an alternative strategic doctrine. Away from ground acquisition to containment. This has been tried very unsuccessfully in extremely limited ways in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia in the form of no-fly zones. What I'm suggesting is complete isolation and containment of belligerent groups or nations. When I say complete, I mean identify a zone of containment (a country or region) and nothing gets in or out until the conflict is resolved. No food, no arms, no refugees, no electricity, no medical aid, no internet, no mail, nothing. This type of warfare is potentially more brutal and devastating than our current military tactics. It certainly doesn't distinguish between enemy forces and civilian populations. There are advantages to this type of warfare. It reduces casualties on the blue forces. If followed to an conclusion it will decisively end any conflict and it's cheaper than what we currently do. It will require naval and air forces and significant surveillance assets to assure the containment and the political will to stand up to other nations who don't wish to support that containment.

Thoughts?