World Affairs Board - View Single Post

-{SpoonmaN}- · 09-09-2007, 02:32 AM

I saw an interesting show on the History channel a fair while ago that discussed the effect new technologies would have on battlefield dynamics.
I would love to hear what the pros have to say on the ideas they proposed. The central premise is that it was all about two modern, well-equipped forces facing eachother, rather than asymmetrical warfare. Some of the key points that I remember were:

1. End of the "empty battlefield"; new sensor and tracking technologies, such as IR, are making it harder and harder to hide from the enemy. ECM and all that would become ever more important. Another key point was the advance of communications technology and the increase in networking (FCS is all about networking as I understand it) gives commanders a real time view of the battlefield, and gives junior leaders and ordinary soldiers far more situational awareness upon which to base on the spot decisions.

2. Increasing firepower and effective use thereof; more firepower concentrated at lower and lower unit levels, coupled with technologies that enhance the accuracy of such weapons will make the future battlefield more deadly.

3. Intensity; if the previous concepts prove to be true then battles could move away from the long, drawn out slugfests of the past to short, super-hot engagements that leave both sides burnt out quickly. This could lead to higher rates of PTSD and other negative effects upon combatants, as well as high casualty rates.

I would imagine that for every measure there is or will be a counter-measure, however I found the notions discussed to be rather interesting. I do wonder how accurate they would prove in an environment with a massive amount of cover, such as a major city or canopy jungle.

09-09-2007, 02:32 AM	#2 (permalink)
-{SpoonmaN}- Death, the Destroyer of Worlds... *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-08-04 Location: The badlands of West London. Posts: 1,455 Country:	I saw an interesting show on the History channel a fair while ago that discussed the effect new technologies would have on battlefield dynamics. I would love to hear what the pros have to say on the ideas they proposed. The central premise is that it was all about two modern, well-equipped forces facing eachother, rather than asymmetrical warfare. Some of the key points that I remember were: 1. End of the "empty battlefield"; new sensor and tracking technologies, such as IR, are making it harder and harder to hide from the enemy. ECM and all that would become ever more important. Another key point was the advance of communications technology and the increase in networking (FCS is all about networking as I understand it) gives commanders a real time view of the battlefield, and gives junior leaders and ordinary soldiers far more situational awareness upon which to base on the spot decisions. 2. Increasing firepower and effective use thereof; more firepower concentrated at lower and lower unit levels, coupled with technologies that enhance the accuracy of such weapons will make the future battlefield more deadly. 3. Intensity; if the previous concepts prove to be true then battles could move away from the long, drawn out slugfests of the past to short, super-hot engagements that leave both sides burnt out quickly. This could lead to higher rates of PTSD and other negative effects upon combatants, as well as high casualty rates. I would imagine that for every measure there is or will be a counter-measure, however I found the notions discussed to be rather interesting. I do wonder how accurate they would prove in an environment with a massive amount of cover, such as a major city or canopy jungle. __________________ "I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."