Question regarding fighting wars
Why is it that when we go to war, we use it as an excuse to test things?
Isn't that a little like waiting until a murdering rapist breaks into your house to see if the new handloads you bought off of a friend of a friend actually work?
I read about things they test in the field; drones, firearms, armor, and what not, and the first thing I think is, of course, how neat - a remote-controlled robot with a shotgun on it or oh cool, brand new armor that is flexible and defeats 7.62x39 AP rounds...
And then it sinks in - they probably had no real idea whether this crap would perform as advertised. Oh sure, they probably threw some dirt on it at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds or tossed it into a bucket of water for two hours in some lab, but when they say "it works without the need for lubrication or cleaning", just how sure are they of that when they say it? I can't even imagine what real combat is like and trust me, I've got a pretty vivid imagination. So what are the chances that these corporate types can recreate in the lab or on the range what our military experiences in the field?
Especially when they're trying to sell something?
And how much of this is ad copy?
For example, the Army recently cancelled its Land Warrior program despite being into it for $2 billion and the fact that developers said the system was "performing above expectations" in Iraq.
"Above expectations" doesn't necessarily mean it's doing well... they might have expected all units to fail within ten seconds of being exposed to sunlight... if they lasted eleven, that's technically "above expectations."
Now obviously we don't go in blind and completely ignorant. Many tried and true weapons are employed and obviously our men and women enjoy a level of training that makes them gods to 90% of the rest of the world.
But it strikes me as just a tad careless to entrust the welfare and lives of our men and women in uniform by having them play guinea pig for corporate development. If a soldier or marine dies testing something in the field, all the defense contractors have lost is money and time in development.
Doesn't seem like a fair trade, does it?
Isn't that a little like waiting until a murdering rapist breaks into your house to see if the new handloads you bought off of a friend of a friend actually work?
I read about things they test in the field; drones, firearms, armor, and what not, and the first thing I think is, of course, how neat - a remote-controlled robot with a shotgun on it or oh cool, brand new armor that is flexible and defeats 7.62x39 AP rounds...
And then it sinks in - they probably had no real idea whether this crap would perform as advertised. Oh sure, they probably threw some dirt on it at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds or tossed it into a bucket of water for two hours in some lab, but when they say "it works without the need for lubrication or cleaning", just how sure are they of that when they say it? I can't even imagine what real combat is like and trust me, I've got a pretty vivid imagination. So what are the chances that these corporate types can recreate in the lab or on the range what our military experiences in the field?
Especially when they're trying to sell something?
And how much of this is ad copy?
For example, the Army recently cancelled its Land Warrior program despite being into it for $2 billion and the fact that developers said the system was "performing above expectations" in Iraq.
"Above expectations" doesn't necessarily mean it's doing well... they might have expected all units to fail within ten seconds of being exposed to sunlight... if they lasted eleven, that's technically "above expectations."
Now obviously we don't go in blind and completely ignorant. Many tried and true weapons are employed and obviously our men and women enjoy a level of training that makes them gods to 90% of the rest of the world.
But it strikes me as just a tad careless to entrust the welfare and lives of our men and women in uniform by having them play guinea pig for corporate development. If a soldier or marine dies testing something in the field, all the defense contractors have lost is money and time in development.
Doesn't seem like a fair trade, does it?
0
-
The things are tested before ever going into war!
But they have not been "BATTLE testED"!
The only way to truely "battle test" an item is to use it in REAL battle ground action! Untill this happen nobody knows 100% how that item will truely hold up.
I hope this explains what you want to know.
The M1 Abrams was a great example. Desert Storm was the first true battle test for this tank. After Desert Storm they made improvements that they found it needed and therefore came out with the M1A2 Abrams which included the new updates that they had found that it needed.0 -
Our enemies are constantly "learning" because they are constantly in wars. To not war is to forget how to war, which is not smart since it is a fact our existence.
My ex-navy BIL told me that they are always building new submarines, even when not needed because if they stop, it takes too long to "learn" how to do it again.0 -
Yeah...we should just continue to build up the military and cut welfare, I would rather pay for that than freeloading commies 0 -
Hitler tested a lot of weapons in the Spanish civil war, so it's nothing new. 0 -
plus, when this is all said and done, well have some battle tested soldiers. and that cant hurt. 0 -
neccesity is the mother of invention.
like if you needed something in the field, you would want them to wait till peacetime to figure it out0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Why is it that when we go to war, we use it as an excuse to test things?
Isn't that a little like waiting until a murdering rapist breaks into your house to see if the new handloads you bought off of a friend of a friend actually work?
I read about things they test in the field; drones, firearms, armor, and what not, and the first thing I think is, of course, how neat - a remote-controlled robot with a shotgun on it or oh cool, brand new armor that is flexible and defeats 7.62x39 AP rounds...
And then it sinks in - they probably had no real idea whether this crap would perform as advertised. Oh sure, they probably threw some dirt on it at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds or tossed it into a bucket of water for two hours in some lab, but when they say "it works without the need for lubrication or cleaning", just how sure are they of that when they say it? I can't even imagine what real combat is like and trust me, I've got a pretty vivid imagination. So what are the chances that these corporate types can recreate in the lab or on the range what our military experiences in the field?
Especially when they're trying to sell something?
And how much of this is ad copy?
For example, the Army recently cancelled its Land Warrior program despite being into it for $2 billion and the fact that developers said the system was "performing above expectations" in Iraq.
"Above expectations" doesn't necessarily mean it's doing well... they might have expected all units to fail within ten seconds of being exposed to sunlight... if they lasted eleven, that's technically "above expectations."
Now obviously we don't go in blind and completely ignorant. Many tried and true weapons are employed and obviously our men and women enjoy a level of training that makes them gods to 90% of the rest of the world.
But it strikes me as just a tad careless to entrust the welfare and lives of our men and women in uniform by having them play guinea pig for corporate development. If a soldier or marine dies testing something in the field, all the defense contractors have lost is money and time in development.
Doesn't seem like a fair trade, does it?
Well, being in the ILS office at Aberdeen Proving Ground, I can sort of answer the question......
My job deals with the acquisition of new equipment in the Ordnance Corp. Mainly armament, ground support and vehicle systems. By the time it reaches us, it has already gone through a formal process that most every new piece of equipment the Army aquires has to go through. It has been thoroughly tested, believe me.
I usually see the equipment in the final stage of fielding. I'm one of the guys that go through the technical manuals (in their draft stage) and make corrections. I also go through them to make sure the tasks read correctly and that the steps are correct.
Pretty neat job actually. I get to see the new weapons systems and try them out before they are fielded[8D]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments