Devastating Losses In Classified Wargames

a reply to: TritonTaranis

This is true, the bulk and power of China rest on its shores, take out those hubs, you cripple china

You guys realize the point of these exercises is to lose. You want to get your ass handed to you in exercises, because it teaches you where you need to improve, and how to fight with one hand tied. If you go into every exercise, realistic or not, and you win, or win handily, it doesn't do a damn thing for you.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If you lose, it shows you where you need to improve. If you win, it shows you did it right. As long as your parameters were correct a win is a good thing. Obviously it does nothing for you if you win because you underestimated your opponent. But if your estimates are correct a win is as a good a teacher as a loss. Both allow you to infer additional parameters.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Yes, winning can be a good thing, the problem is that so many of these exercises are won because they stack the deck so badly. Years ago there was an exercise against an Iranian force. The Red Force commander hammered the US forces so badly, so quickly that they started over, and basically told him he couldn't do anything the actual Iranian forces would do. They stacked the deck so badly, he told them to get bent and walked away. So many of these exercise commanders are more concerned about losing hurting their career, they don't care about what can actually be learned in them, so they do everything they can to win.

a reply to: 727Sky

I have personally always though that if, in the future, one nuclear weapon is used, it won't be long until they are ALL used.

Sucks for the civilians of the world, most of all.

a reply to: dragonridr

Yes, workarounds, like radio communications.

It isn't 'sexy', but radio still exists, and there are contingency plans for that.

There are a number of things china does that the US knows about that cause major problems.

One is china knows every US shipping port because the Chinese shipping fleet is commanded by members of the PLA.

This gives the problem that the Chinese could mine US ports by dropping mines from cargo ships with delay or command arming system, closing all major US ports to US military ships.

The US has cut the number of mine hunters/mine sweeps to almost none.

Maybe the main classified part is they went up against our Tic Tacs and got spanked.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That was exactly my point. Stacking the deck, as you call it, is what I was referring to. If the win comes from incorrect parameters what is the point? Its the wargame equivalent of a straw man argument. It does not address the real threat, just the imaginary one.

But I also see your point in learning from losing. Some of the best lessons I ever learned came from failure. The trick is not to learn them so well you can duplicate them precisely.

a reply to: 727Sky

A little more info of why things seem to be falling apart.. youtu.be...

a reply to: mamabeth

It is not compatible.

a reply to: Darkblade71

Someone who gets it

a reply to: 727Sky

This outcome doesn’t shock me.

I had a friend who was in the Navy and in a position to know a few things (though not everything).

He told me flat out that in a full-blown confrontation China would roll the US as of about a year ago.

But, that almost certainly won’t come to pass. China won’t invade the US and we won’t try it there, either - just won’t happen for various reasons including mutually assured destruction.

His take was that the more surveillance, intel and quick strike/retaliation capabilities enhance the probability of major or widespread conflict goes down.

So posts like this one saying we need more military/keep feeding the MIC to survive.