A few random thoughts from reading through the thread....
2Bravo said:
I was also wondering about the Revolution in Military Affairs aspect to this thread. In my belief the last two majors ones were the introduction of the machinegun and aircraft. The machinegun had the largest impact on land operations. Alexander the Great's army would have probably done quite well at Waterloo but they would have lasted 2 minutes at the Somme. I would argue that RMAs do have an impact on soldiers as they make qualities and techniques that used to successful either become irrelevant or even harmful.
Steadiness in ranks, deep columns, unflinching bravery and finishing the charge were recipes for success from Marathon to Waterloo and could get you through the American Civil War. By 1914 they were recipes for a massacre.
I'm not sure that we are in an RMA in the order of magnitude of the machinegun. Patton or Manstein would have done quite well in Iraq in 2003.
Although I tend not to get excited and short of breath when "RMA" is mentioned, you've brought up some compelling points. It seems to me that the RMA's that you brought up, along with other RMA's that come to mind, seem to be intimately linked to the principle of
diffusion. Now, I will contend that that their are two forms of diffusion that interact with the way people fight.
1. Spatial diffusion - This is quite literally the physical space that human beings fight in. Since the way technology is wedged onto the battlefield has differing effects on the physical, mental, and moral levels of conflict, soldiers must adapt to the effects of these technologies in a manner which enables one to survive and win (essentially, Darwinism on the Battlefield).
2. Directive Diffusion - This is the diffusion involved in Command and Control relationships. Warfare is an inherently organized form of human (or primate!) activity - thus any act of warfare involves conditions that are intrinsic parts of human behaviour - hierarchy, competing and cooperative interests, leader/follower, etc, etc.
These two forms of diffusion are usually symbiotic and when you have dramatic alteration in one or the other, you usually have a rapid shift in the way we organize and fight. For example, 2Bravo has pointed to the Machinegun and the Airplane as RMA's - essentially transformation in the way we fight. How are these transformations? They are both clear examples of an alteration to the spatial diffusion of the battlefield.
The machinegun rendered close order tactics (which were essential for effective musketry) obsolete. The introduction of the rifle to the common soldier put the writing on the wall during the American Civil War; when this was essentially mechanized (The Grip of Hiram Maxim), the paradigmatic shift was complete and Transformation in spatial diffusion took place in the trenches of WWI.
Same with the Aircraft - it initiated a paradigm shift by turning the battlefield from a two-dimensional area to a three-dimensional one. The battlefield move
over us as well as
around us.
However, other RMA's may not affect transformation in the area of spatial diffusion, but rather in that of directive diffusion. Take for example Napoleon and the
leve en masse of the French Revolution - which many regard as one of the first "RMAs" (contendable, I guess). Was the transformational effect spatial in nature? Not really, when you consider the same tactical approaches were used. Clearly, the
leve en masse presented society with such a new way to approach fighting that transformation took place - the result, directive diffusion. You simply had so many soldiers that you could diffuse their combat power over a large area and bring it back together in a manner which gave you an advantage. The military genius of Napoleon was able to grasp and execute it through sheer personal willpower - the other genius, Scharnhorst, was able to observe it (as his Prussian Army was being severely whipped by it) and institutionalize it in the form of the General Staff system. Is it no coincidence that Napoleon's two tactical defeats at Leipzig and Waterloo were at the hands of coalition Armies that were extensively served by members of Scharnhorst's gang of military reformers?
Ok, before I start babbling about dead Germans, this is going somewhere (hold you breath)....
I think that the transformation that we may be seeing today is one not so much influenced by spatial diffusion but rather by directive diffusion. Like the
leve en masse, you are seeing a shift in the way that society organizes itself to fight. Gone are the days of the citizen soldier, the conscript, and draft. The level of professionalization by Information Age military forces demands a smarter and more capable individual (Want proof, look at the USMC - they only accept high-school graduates now). Your average recruit will be literate, will easily adapt to any information age technology, will be quite healthy and capable of quickly adapting and learning new things. Look at the leaders that the new transformation will produce - look to soldiers in the Special Operations world or coming out of Staff Schools - they are fluent in more then one language, they are inculcated with iniative and a wide array of skill sets, they have access to a tremendous resource and knowledge base.
All these will act as "force multipliers" in a sense. Technology that leads to spatial diffusion contributes to "force multipliers" by sheer destructive power (Mostly at the Physical and Mental levels of conflict). Bigger, faster, and more boom means that the average unit is X times more destructive (again, physically and mentally) then its predecessor. The effects of a directive diffusion are "force multipliers" in a different sense; they will act on the Mental level of war and move into the Moral level. Quite simply, the abilities of a soldier affected by this transformation will be X times greater then G.I Joe sitting in a trench at Bastogne. Look at a Special Forces team and what it is capable of accomplishing as compared to a similar group of soldiers 50 years ago; this is the individual or group of soldiers that may not see pounding Fallujah to dust with M-1's as the best way to approach the battle. There is your directive diffusion - it is, I guess, the heart of the transformation that we're surfing through right now. The shape of the pyramid discussed will begin to shift as we begin to realize the potential of soldier at the low-to-middle portion of the structure.
Anyways, enough on that for a while....
2Bravo said:
Being a bit of a skeptic, I would say that we are still waiting for the next real RMA (since the machinegun and aircraft). I do not know what the next RMA will be, but it may have something to do with either personalized stealth technology or somekind of light bodyarmour that can withstand machineguns. Until then I believe that we will just adapt with each new piece of kit (as you suggest) but retain the organizations and tactics that arose out of WW I and came to fruition during WW II.
Power armour of course. I can only see an increasing confluence of protection, firepower, mobility, and information technology merging to the point where the individual soldier will wield the capabilities of a modern-day combat team. We're seeing it right now - look at some of the FCS stuff; multi-capable vehicles with fewer operators.
Perhaps Heinlein's ideas weren't that far-out after all....
Kirkhill said:
That is why I am a fan of, for want of a better phrase, stepped elitism. As an infantry example, rifle company, rifle to support, support to recce, recce to para, para to JTF2. "Elites" give something for the youngsters to aspire to, serve as role models, supply homes for experienced soldiers that are happier or more capable as operators than leaders, and also bring capabilities that the youngsters don't. In particular they are capable of independent action. They can also be a place where leaders can mature prior to returning to bolster the 19 year olds.
LOL, you better grab that William Slim book off you shelf, Mr Kirkhill - he'd be rolling in his grave if he heard that....
(As an aside - stepped elitism makes me ponder on the enduring aspects of the way people fight. For some reason I am thinking about the Warrior Societies of the Aztecs, with its Eagle and Jaguar clans, etc, etc, that are for those who have proven themselves as the most capable warriors in their society (in the Aztec case, prisoners for sacrifice).)
