I am not advocating death and destruction. I also agree that war should be avoided as much as possible. Notice I did not say at all costs, because sometimes war is a necessary thing. But I am saying that it is helpful for the military to fight a war from time to time. I know that sounds terrible, but I could not think of any other way to phrase it. Allow me to explain.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld caught hell when questioned about the speed and need of up-armored vehicles for his response, “…you go to war with the Army you have.” He was speaking the truth. Some may have thought he was being flippant or harsh, but he was stating the obvious.

During the 50 years following WWII, the U.S. developed strategy and tactics to fight the Soviet Union. Our force structure was modeled towards having to deploy to West Germany in the event the Soviets poured through the Folda Gap. This meant armor heavy divisions with massive main battle tanks. All the supporting vehicles were designed for speed and mobility. The types of aircraft that were deployed reflected the threat we were likely to face. Thus the A-10 tank buster and the Harrier jump jet.

Everything about the military was bent on fighting in Europe. Our uniforms were designed for European forests and our logistics were based on having deep water European ports with the ability to utilize their massive rail infrastructure.

But the Soviet Union collapsed and we found ourselves in the deserts of Saudi Arabia waiting to go into Iraq and Kuwait. Other than having to re-paint our vehicles and re-issue fatigues, the rest of the war went according to plan. We were fighting an armor heavy army, trained to use Soviet tactics that was to be fought out in the open. No wonder we won so easily. But the one thing we did not have to deal with was fighting in cities and guerrilla tactics.

So we had to adapt. That is nothing new for the American Army. Our first major engagement against Germany in WWII ended in disaster at Kasserine Pass. We found out that our tactics were not up to speed and that our tanks were outdated. It was a struggle for the rest of the war to adapt new tactics that would produce the best results with the equipment on hand. Sherman tanks sure were reliable and easy to make, but they had the terrible habit of exploding into a fire ball of death ever time they were hit. In many ways it was immoral to send Sherman tank crews to their death, but it was all we had. Until we could adapt better tactics or deploy better tanks, they were all we had. So we made the most of them. Crews added sandbags, logs and extra treads to the front and sides of the tanks. Some even added barrel extensions to their short 75mm guns in an attempt to scare the Germans. For great information on shaped charges such as the German Panzerfaust and the U.S. Bazooka and the ways that armored crews adapted to the new threat see here.

We fought with the army we had. It was not perfect and much of the equipment was found to have serious design flaws. But we did not know any of this until we entered into combat.

The same with Vietnam. We knew we were going to have to come up with a different way to fight the war. We did. Air mobility via the helicopter became the standard operating procedure. But we did have problems.

The 1st Cavalry Division was the main test bed for this new way of fighting. My father fought with A Troop, 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry regiment, 1st Cavalry Division from March 1966 to March 1967. The tactics they used were much like the old cavalry tactics of old. First, scouts and gunships (dad was a door gunner on a Huey gunship - though not the one in the photo) would go out and fly around the area where intelligence thought they enemy would be. Once they got fired upon they would call for their local platoon of infantry to be inserted. If they encountered tough opposition, they would call the division troops in. They did this day in and day out, but there were serious problems. The troop ships used to ferry the troops in were severely underpowered. I have met several pilots who flew in my dads unit and they told me about having to tell some guys to hop off as they tried to lift off. These were major oversights by the Army and by the developers. It seems that once in combat the weight of the troopers and the number crammed on board were higher than expected. It took several years before upgraded Hueys were available. Men were lost because of the underpowered Hueys. But it took a war to show the flaws in the equipment.

That brings me to the current war in Iraq. When the war started, it looked like it would be Desert Storm II. Every time the Iraqis made a stand, they were wiped out. Our run and gun offensive slashed through the country at such a rapid pace, that many of the Iraqi army units simply disbanded and filtered back into the surrounding cities. Only to reform and re-group, armed and funded by terrorists.

Now we face Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) which have caused a large percentage of our casualties. Our men are finding ways to adapt to the surroundings and are doing their best to protect themselves and their equipment. This is not always easy, as Rumsfeld said, you go to war with the army you have. But you can see how our men have adapted by paying attention to their vehicles. Here is a brand new Stryker. Notice the wire cage around it. That is not part of the design, but rather a retrofit by our troops. The wire helps break up RPG’s before they contact the actual armor of the vehicle. Our troops in WWII used similar “technology” to help defeat German Panzerfausts. Again see here.

But still we are losing men. The IED’s are getting larger. The most recent attacks have used IED’s so large that even an Abrams tank would be destroyed. But media harping is not helping our troops.

We plan and prepare for wars that we think we may have to fight. Our equipment and tactics are designed around the enemy we think we are going to fight. But sometimes we end up fighting an enemy or in a location where we never thought we would be fighting. When the equipment and tactics break down, our men improvise and the Pentagon takes notice and begins to work with developers to develop better equipment and tactics to deal with the new threat. That takes time and in some cases the fix does not come until the end of the war, i.e. the Pershing Tank at the end of WWII.

So what’s the point of this post? I hope you see that fighting a war from time to time sharpens your overall ability to fight with fewer casualties. If Army and Pentagon planners are worth their weight, they will take the lessons we have learned and are learning in Iraq and transform our military to better handle those threats next time we have to fight. That way lives can be spared and our mission will be a little easier. But there are all sorts of things that stand in the way of this progress. A lot of the defense suppliers and a lot of the brass at the Pentagon are still stuck in a Cold War mentality. The wars of the future will look surprisingly like the present war in Iraq. The only exception being a conflict with China or North Korea. We need to revise our force structure and equipment to be able to handle the new threats. That may mean scrapping pet projects that have very little use on the battlefield of the future. They may be great weapon systems against Soviet equipment in Europe, but they will do nothing against insurgent/terrorist attacks in a city. The Defense Secretary needs to come down with an iron fist and ensure the proper lessons are learned from Iraq. Now we know, but only because we are fighting a war.

On a totally unrelated note, go read The Jawa Report. He hit his 2 millionth visitor! Go Rusty, go!

Also, when is the last time you checked out Wizbang?