No. 87 MARCH 2012 Historical Lessons Applied to the Current Technical Revolution in Military Affairs Benjamin Huebschman Historical Lessons Applied to the Current Technical Revolution in Military Affairs by Benjamin Huebschman The Institute of Land Warfare ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AN INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE PAPER The purpose of the Institute of Land Warfare is to extend the educational work of AUSA by sponsoring scholarly publications, to include books, monographs and essays on key defense issues, as well as workshops and symposia. A work selected for publication as a Land Warfare Paper represents research by the author which, in the opinion of ILW’s editorial board, will contribute to a better understanding of a particular defense or national security issue. Publication as an Institute of Land Warfare Paper does not indicate that the Association of the United States Army agrees with everything in the paper but does suggest that the Association believes the paper will stimulate the thinking of AUSA members and others concerned about important defense issues. LAND WARFARE PAPER NO. 87, March 2012 Historical Lessons Applied to the Current Technical Revolution in Military Affairs by Benjamin Huebschman Major Benjamin D. Huebschman, U.S. Army Reserve, is a research engineer with an exten- sive military background in Field Artillery, Military Intelligence and Psychological Operations. He is currently serving on active duty at the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command as the Chief of Operations for the Futures Directorate. Prior to this assignment, he was an electronics engineer at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, where he authored several peer- reviewed scientific and engineering articles. His military career has seen deployments in the Balkan Peninsula, where he served in a peacekeeping role. He also deployed to the Middle East where he served as the chief psychological operations officer to the U.S. Central Command Air Forces during the invasion of Iraq. MAJ Huebschman received a Bachelor’s Degree in electri- cal engineering from Purdue University and a Master’s Degree and Ph.D., also in electrical engineering, from the University of Maryland. This paper represents the opinions of the author and should not be taken to represent the views of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, the United States government, the Institute of Land Warfare, or the Association of the United States Army or its members. © Copyright 2012 by The Association of the United States Army All rights reserved. Inquiries regarding this and future Land Warfare Papers should be directed to: AUSA’s Institute of Land Warfare, Attn: Director, ILW Programs, 2425 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington VA 22201, e-mail [email protected] or telephone (direct dial) 703-907- 2627 or (toll free) 1-800-336-4570, ext. 2627. ii Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................. v Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Case study 1: Fires .................................................................................................................. 4 Case study 2: Maneuver ........................................................................................................ 12 Case study 3: Weapons of Mass Destruction ......................................................................... 15 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 21 Endnotes ................................................................................................................................ 23 iii iv Foreword American battlefield supremacy has forced the adversary to adopt an asymmetric ap- proach to warfare. Capital-intensive warfare has focused on the larger weapon systems, but the weapons used to equip the dismounted ground Soldier have remained largely static— despite ten years of war against insurgents who have relied on the asymmetric fight. To combat this threat, the Army is in need of technology that can transfer battlefield supremacy down to the level of the individual ground Soldier. In this paper, the author explains that hastening the integration of automation technologies with military equipment provides un- precedented degrees of freedom in system development. The development of future weapon systems, including those used by the dismounted Soldier, benefits from a review of the evolution of weapons. With that in mind, the author presents the key stages in the development of weapon systems as case studies, examining each stage with sufficient detail and in its historical context. Each case study provides lessons that can then be applied to modern weapon development. The author’s analysis of these case studies leads him to propose an instantiation of a modern system with regard to Battlefield Operating Systems. Gordon R. Sullivan General, U.S. Army Retired President, Association of the United States Army 14 March 2012 v vi Historical Lessons Applied to the Current Technical Revolution in Military Affairs Introduction Army and Marine Corps platoons and squads have borne the wars’ burdens in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sandra I. Erwin1 Despite the persistent counterinsurgency that the United States has been waging for the past decade, the technology available to American ground Soldiers is remarkably similar to the technology that was available to them at the beginning of the conflict. The military stands on the edge of the next revolution in military affairs. Advances in automation and information technol- ogies have dramatically transformed many aspects of civilian society in the past 20 years. When compared to this frenzy of technological development, especially in consumer electronics, these advances have entered military technology at a deliberate and gradual pace. Western warfare in general and American warfare specifically have always been capital- intensive endeavors. Major capital systems such as air-superiority fighter aircraft and main battle tanks have established a degree of supremacy in technological improvement. This su- premacy in weapons traditionally has been considered to be of strategic significance to U.S. interests. However, given the strategic nature of American casualties in recent conflicts, a major upgrade in the military capabilities of dismounted Soldiers is critical to U.S. strategy in the protracted counterinsurgency fight. While the United States may want its adversaries to attempt to counter U.S. asymmetric superiority in technology and training with a symmetric response, once American superiority becomes manifestly and painfully obvious to the enemy, it is reasonable to assume that he will resort to asymmetric tactics and technology to accom- plish his objectives. Part of the response to an asymmetric threat is to oppose violently the asymmetric warrior. Denying insurgents the ability to act directly erodes their resource base and credibility as an ef- fective fighting force. The enemy may not be as sensitive as the American populace to its number of casualties, but after a certain level of enemy casualties is reached, support for direct attacks against U.S. Soldiers begins to collapse, prompting the adoption of other tactics or a waning of the insurgency. While a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy has been discussed at length in other documents,2 it is beyond the scope of this paper. Here, counterinsurgency 1 strategy will be confined to the assertion that one of the requirements to defeat an insurgency is to do so on the battlefield, taking advantage of every opportunity. To seize and maintain the initiative in an asymmetric conflict is difficult and sometimes impossible. Without the initia- tive, it is necessary—at least on occasion—to let the enemy set the operational tempo. Mass can be achieved through the use of increased numbers of dismounted Soldiers. However, it is often prohibitively expensive for a sustained effort, and a concentration of Soldiers is vulner- able to area-effect weapons such as mortar fire and prepositioned explosives. A concerted effort is required to provide battlefield dominance to the infantry Soldier through the same quality of technical superiority that has led to dominance in air and armored combat. To improve technologies available to Soldiers, it is first necessary to understand the current state of the art. As a testament to the maturity of firearms, the weapons with which the United States equips its Soldiers are only marginally superior to those used 100 years earlier. Among some Afghan tribes, the Enfield .303 enjoys a reputation superior to that of the AK-47;3 Soldiers who stormed up San Juan Hill in 1898 carried rifles whose range and muzzle velocity were comparable to those of weapons carried by Soldiers today. That said, U.S. Soldiers have the advantage over their predecessors in training, communications and the ability to bring the fires of more sophisticated weapon systems down on their adversaries. Direct capital expenditure on the improvement of dismounted infantry Soldier performance and capabilities has relied until very recent times on increased training. While superior training can dramatically increase the battlefield effectiveness of a Soldier, it does not bring the same decisive psychological advantage as a heavy weapon system. The will and ability to consistently hit