Thanks slap!Originally Posted by slapout9
I've skimmed 'er and saved 'er - interesting the Marine doctrinal ref's. Gotta say...this looks pretty comprehensive.
Targeting
Thought I might start a thread on targeting since it is so critical. To start here is an EBO planning sheet pretty interesting and I don't know how many have this.
http://www.dtic.mil/jointvision/idea...g_template.xls
It opens as a spread sheet and are controlled from the bottom, 3 sheets total.
Last edited by slapout9; 12-07-2007 at 11:33 PM. Reason: add stuff
Thanks slap!
Hi Norfolk, IMO it works even better if you use the Army concept of CARVER for evaluating targets.
Hey Slap !
Interesting, they list Humanitarian Demining under Health and Basic Services. Under NATO and the EU, we normally fall under Security.
Thanks for the chart ! Regards, Stan
Here is another point of view with a Navy influence.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a.../freniere.html
EBO rebuttal
The following may usefully inform this discussion
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/memoranda/memo89.en.pdf
Personally I think EBO is the worst type of rubbish, so I am very predisposed to Ron Tira's thinking.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I think it was tequila that found this paper a while back and posted it for the SWC. I read it back then and thought it was an excellent paper. Particularly the name Stand Off Firepower Operations because that is what EBO has become as opposed to what it was originally trying to be. The paper is well worth the read.
William
that depends on the goal and the level of implementation. We have used effects based thinking here for the past 5 years as a way of synchronizing lethal and non-lethal means in the full spectrum fight. thet effects process is buit into the targeting cycle as part of concurrent operations and future planning. It works.
Tom
OK, I'm listening. Examples? How would the IDF have employed the techniques you describe against the Hezbollah?
...and targeting cycle? Just point me at the doctrine papers.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
If you have access you may see relevant studies at the CALL gateway. That is the best I can offer.
IDF operations against Hizballah had a host of problems, not all of which were due to fixation on effects based operations as applied through aerial means.
Many of the problems on the ground were due to poor warfighting skills--some say due to degradation brought about by fixation on operations on the West Bank and Gaza. That may be partially the case; some of the problems sounded very much like what I saw in southern Lebanon in 1987 and harken back to similar issues dating back to the 56, 67, and 73 Wars.
best
Tom
Is this the targeting cycle?
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp.../3-56_1ch4.htm
Isn't that pure EBO? How is effects based thinking different from EBO? Really, I'm here to learn.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Wilf, not at all. Targeting is just one step in the EBO process, however it is the one that people usually jump to. This leads to the targeting only mentality which is where you get the everything is a target so let's just blow it up type thinking (Your IDF Paper Example) which can be a disaster. There is a paper from Hurricane Katrina I am goinng to post (when I can find it) about how EBO was used in the Military response to Hurricane Katrina. Later Slap
With my admittedly very limited grasp of Aerial Warfare in general and Campaign design and planning in particular, I nevertheless see great merit in EBO as a whole, applied judiciously. Designing Aerial Bombardment Campaigns around Systems of directly-related targets rather than merely indirectly- or unrelated individual targets is at least as effective, and much more efficient, than the old way of doing things - where applicable. Systems Targeting - amongst other things - in EBO is definitely an improvement.
Last edited by Norfolk; 12-20-2007 at 03:15 PM.
Joint Task Force Katrina by Lt. Gen. Honore' this is largely about command and control planning (big part of EBO) but near the back of the article you will see an EBO planning sheet that was used for part of the operation. They were able to predict very accurately what the situation would be on the ground so when General Honore' finally received the authority to act his response was very good.
http://www.jfsc.ndu.edu/schools_prog...pring_2006.pdf
Here is another good article on the adaption of Warden's rings for use in Targeting in an unconventional environment.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/grubbs1.pdf
slap, at this rate practically my entire understanding of Aerial Campaigning will have come through reading Billy Mitchell, John Warden, and you and the pieces you put links up to.
Sir, I have not yet begun to fight.
Starting to get into the good stuff here. Special Forces version of Targeting CARVER.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp3_05_1.pdf
Last edited by slapout9; 12-21-2007 at 12:29 AM. Reason: fix stuff
EBO sceptic and possible opponent
Well I see EBO has yet again changed, and become something else.
All EBO documents I read, I just cross out the words "Effects based", and see if it still makes sense.
Hurricane Katrina? Who was the enemy, the will of which, had to be broken. Who had to be defeated?
I attended a UK EBO workshop three years ago, and eventually got one senior officer to admit, that the logical extension of his premise was that he could legitimately mislead allied forces, if it created the effects he wanted.
That being the case, might someone progress this by giving me the current definition of EBO, or "effects based thinking," or "effects based planning."
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
In the targeting context
I'm not sure what to point out other than those in the dome who had to be encouraged to get out the hard way after assaulting and causing pain and suffering to others.
Having been there though I can tell you that there were a lot of effects which would have helped to move things along more smoothly and successfully.
How do you get parish presidents, and above to get off their I own this mentality long enough to address areas where only limited time to try clearing (searching) had been available so that civilian and military orgs could get to addressing them.
How do you get effective cooperation between various orgs ,local,regional,state, and federal when at every level there were entities working on separate agendas rather than one common picture, goal, intent (as it were)
The quickest effects based decision I saw shortly after getting there was the people at dominoe's pizza getting generators, pizza stuff and bottled water thereby openng their doors within three to four days after getting hit.
We got tired of pizza but they made a killing financially.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks