Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Generals' Crystal Ball?

What if there was a piece of software that could predict -- really, accurately predict -- how a war was going to go?

The Economist reports on a "collaboration between computer programmers, mathematicians, weapons experts, military historians, retired generals and combat veterans" that's been surprisingly prescient about conflicts' length and casualty counts. The catch: it doesn't work on counterinsurgencies and guerilla wars, like the one we now have in Iraq.

Iraq_War_Map.gif

The Tactical Numerical Deterministic Model's predictive power is due in large part to the mountain of data on which it draws, thought to be the largest historical combat database in the world. The Dupuy Institute's researchers comb military archives worldwide, painstakingly assembling statistics which reveal cause-and-effect relationships, such as the influence of rainfall on the rate of rifle breakdowns during the Battle of the Ardennes, or the percentage of Iraqi soldiers killed in a unit before the survivors in that unit surrendered during the Gulf war.

Analysts then take a real battle or campaign and write equations linking causes (say, appropriateness of uniform camouflage) to effects (sniper kill ratios). These equations are then tested against the historical figures in the database, making it possible to identify relationships between the circumstances of an engagement and its outcome, says Chris Lawrence, the Dupuy Institute's director since its founder's death in 1995.

The TNDM's reliance on real combat data, rather than results from war games or exercises, also gives it an edge. Another forecasting system, TACWAR, was used by America's Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Like many models, it was largely developed with data from war games. As a result, says Richard Anderson, a tank specialist at the Dupuy Institute, TACWAR and other programs based on “laser tag” exercises tend to “run hot”, or overestimate casualties. Real-bullet data is more reliable, because fear of death makes soldiers more conservative in actual combat than they are in exercises, resulting in fewer losses. The discipline is only just beginning to recognise the “tremendous value of real-world verification”, says Andreas Tolk, an eminent modelling scientist at Virginia's Old Dominion University.

The next challenge will be to expand the TNDM's ability to forecast the outcomes of “asymmetric” conflicts, such as the Iraqi insurgency. To this end, the Dupuy Institute is hoping to get its hands on the Vietcong archives, as Vietnam opens up. Insurgencies rarely leave much of a paper trail, but the Vietnamese kept detailed records of their struggle against the French and Americans. The resulting papers provide the world's most extensive documentation of guerrilla fighting.

(Big ups: JVD)

Comments

新奇特批发 http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产品 http://www.xqt007.cn
成人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪板机  http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
卷板机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩    http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩   http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
剪板机  http://www.ntjixie.com
三面翻  http://www.gr-door.com
混合机 http://www.85399888.cn
搅拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼吸阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻火器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html

Posted by: 弓弩 at September 22, 2008 05:32 PM


The truth of our moment is that a non-reality has been an excuse for death and atrocity. This is not what we are capable of. Yes, Rodney, we can just get along and we'd be somewhat stupid to not give that our best attention.

Posted by: 網絡書簽 at April 1, 2008 11:46 PM


"What a load of nonsense. Even if you had a program you would need perfect inteligence of your own capabilities and then you would need perfect intelligence of the enemies capabilities. This would have to be an almost instantanious update as each side reacted to the others changing strategies"

Judging by these comments, I do believe none of you really understand TNDM or the work of the Dupuy Institute. I have worked for the Dupuy Institute in the past, and they do not exclusively use the software but also really on expert analysis from military historians. Trevor Dupuy's estimates on the first Gulf War were spot on, estimating less then 1,000 total casualties (killed, wounded, missing, etc.) for the entire coalition, and estimating the ground war would last less then two weeks (100 hours is what it lasted). His was the only public estimate that was so accurate, while everyone else predicted tens of thousands killed.

The TNDM is used by the South African, Swedish, Japanese and US militaries to game out war scenarios. No it isn't perfect, nothing is. But while all you armchair generals are lamenting thousands of people killed and wondering when the violence will end the people of the Dupuy Institute are doing something about ending war by studying it.

Posted by: John at December 6, 2005 03:10 AM


Looking at the amount of warfare ever conducted and the time passed, I'd submit that any algorithm would naturally predict a 90% chance of peace for 90% of humanity 90% of the time.

The rest are fighting for religious or survival reasons [yes, I consider Capitalism as a religion] that are easily moderated or assuaged. Yes easily, when the priorities / expectations are set correctly and the fawning audience is reactive instead.

The truth of our moment is that a non-reality has been an excuse for death and atrocity. This is not what we are capable of. Yes, Rodney, we can just get along and we'd be somewhat stupid to not give that our best attention.

What is not ridiculous about any industry complaining that peace will 'hurt revenues' ?

We've lived off of the myth long enough. Some people do NOT just have to be sacrificed in the name of victory. Especially one based upon blatant fraud.

Researchers love discovery any way it comes! Their paycheck shouldn't be laundered through the killing mill.

Posted by: Neutr at October 15, 2005 02:07 PM


Good Day,
I do think that we should take a critical look at any model that tries to "predict". Just look at what we have been doing with natural disasters and certainly with much less data. Why would anyone reject the notion that we need to "do a better job" at planning for the future?

I have been in the business of educating K to Gray and am amazed at how very little has changed from the time that I was in school. Perhaps those of us who think and do want to do a better job should begin to find a way to apply some of the simulation modeling to our education systems. I have been doing this task for 20 years, with lots of success but find little support from people who want to do things the same old way.

I applaud the effort to improve our understanding of warfare. Perhaps educated policy makers will be able to make decisions and implement them with more accurate informaion. Perhaps we will not go to" war" in the future without planning and understanding the potential consequences.

Dr. Arlene A. O'Leary

Posted by: Dr. Arlene A. O'Leary at September 29, 2005 02:13 PM


I say Combine the above with even Movie scenarios for Homeland Security & local PD forces & have those nearest the Combat acess this data aside those in the E Ring.
Id like to ask TACWAR when is WW3
When will Israel be assulted by enemy forces.
When will Megiddo be the Final battlesite???

Now make software flexible for Disasters or Riots.

Id examine all wars from WW1- Today & maybe Crimea War, Franco Prussian War, 100 Years War.

Below sample movies to use:
The Seige
THX 1138
Blade Runner
Die Hard 2.
6th Day
Terminator 1-3.

Posted by: stephen russell at September 27, 2005 09:48 PM


This software can be useful for planning - but paradoxically, only if it isn't taken totally seriously.

The notion that any software could even begin to offer predictions of a situation as fluid and with as many unknowns as war is ridiculous. As we say in other contexts, there's a reason sports teams need to play the damn games. On a more macro level, you can't fully plan a war any more than you can fully plan an economy - just ask Kim Jong-Il, Fidel Castro, and their fabulously wealthy nations about that one.

Having said that, a system that draws on real world data to model the results of plans etc. can sharpen the thinking behind that plan by forcing new "what-ifs". That's evaluable.

Even if that plan will largely be thrown away or modified in a hundred places once the enemy is actually engaged in earnest.

Posted by: Joe Katzman at September 27, 2005 05:00 PM


Good Morning Folfs,

Just a wild a** suggestion here is, insteading of asking the Generals and Admirals who warm chairs in the Pentagon, why not ask the Lieutenants, Sergants and EM's who are in it everyday.

A point here has anybody else noticed that with each war since the Civil War American flag officers have moved farther and farther away from the battlespace?

In every war the Generals discount this point of view but when the history books are writen it is always what the dogs on the ground or on deck saw that turned out to be what was happening.

All that this sofware scheme will do is keep the General and Admirals delusional longer and get more people killed.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at September 27, 2005 02:13 PM


What a load of nonsense. Even if you had a program you would need perfect inteligence of your own capabilities and then you would need perfect intelligence of the enemies capabilities. This would have to be an almost instantanious update as each side reacted to the others changing strategies.

Computer geeks have thier uses but this is not one of them.

Posted by: RA at September 27, 2005 02:01 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.