Hello!

Thank you davidbfpo, Cavguy and Shek for your quick replies.

@Cavguy

Thank you for welcoming me and pointing out that I didn't phrase my problem precisely enough.

I would like to find a spreadsheet/electronic database of technical specification data on US and international weapon systems. Ideally, it would also cover items such as camouflage uniforms, backpacks, etc, and relevant data such as their size, weight, replacement cost and so on.

Basically, I am looking for a collection of data very similar to what you can find on this website: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ems/index.html

When you click on Ground Systems, for example, you arrive at another page with a large number of links to materiel ranging from the M1 Abrams to an M16, each with further links to technical specifications.

My problem is that the technical specification data is not as complete as I would like and in the wrong format. By not complete enough I mean, for example, that dates of manufacture or delivery are often missing (and they would be important for my statistical analysis). By wrong format I mean that specs are often just html-text or, if I'm lucky, in html-table but in either case significant work would be required before it could become a dataset I could import into a pre-existing spreadsheet or database for further processing.

What I'm trying to find is a database or giant spreadsheet that is as comprehensive as it gets and the data of which I can immediately stick into mathematical formulae, for example to calculate a mean year of introduction for a selection of modern sniper rifles.

@davidbfpo:

Thank you for your suggestions. I had looked at the IISS and SIPRI before but unfortunately their resources cannot help me with what I need.

IISS:

1) The Armed Conflict Database has reams of data on conflicts but it is a little short on military equipment. So, for example, it can tell me that in a given conflicts one side used artillery but it doesn't go into any greater depth than that (e.g. what exact make, size, weight...).

2) The Military Balance is about the distribution of technology rather than the technology itself. So, for example, it can tell me how many Leopard 2 tanks Germany and a few other countries have but not how heavy such a tank is in various armour configurations.

3) Since I am looking for a collection of raw data, Strategic Survey unfortunately cannot help me either.

SIPRI:

The SIPRI website gives me access to six databases that are also not very helpful to me right now:

1) Country profiles (e.g. security trends)
2) Peace Operations (UN and non-UN)
3) Military expenditure (e.g. as % of GDP)
4) Arms transfers (volume, value, etc.)
5) Data on arms-producing companies (financial/employment data, sales figures but not specifications of their products)
6) Export control systems

@Shek

Thank you for the link to the paper and the Correlates of War. It's a bit difficult to describe what exactly I'm doing in a few words. It's not what these guys did. I want to get at the relationship between force employment and materiel.

Stephen Biddle was the first one I know of who combined (!) an analysis of military technology with an analysis of the way in which forces are actually employed. He did that in order to better quantify the relative importance of both to success.

"The key to battlefield success, he suggests, lies in the adoption of the modern method that emerged out of the desire to break the deadlock of World War I: avoiding the full impact of the enemy's firepower while on the defensive and exploiting it while on the offensive. Biddle develops his analysis through the detailed consideration of three case studies from World War I, World War II, and the Persian Gulf War, as well as some elaborate statistical analysis." (Lawrence Freedman, reviewing Biddle in Foreign Affairs, 2005 - http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200501...rn-battle.html)

There is much in Biddle's study on conventional war that could be used to understand the relationship between technology and force employment in unconventional war as well. I don't know if you'd like me to go into greater detail, so I'll stop here but feel free to PM me if you're interested.

It's good to be here. I hadn't seen the "Tell us about you" thread, so I'll trundle off over there now.

Sam