Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
I wouldn't go that far. Combat computation is certainly not the norm at the infantry company scale...
Having spent most of my time from 1966 on above Company level and all after 1970 above Brigade, I'm well aware of that. I'm also aware that most are of marginal utility. I would say useless but there are Commanders who like numbers so they're handy to placate those guys.
And there's always time. You don't suffer from not pushing a model into service before it matures, you just don't gain any benefit from it. No need crying over what you simply don't have.
no one is crying but the time for the people that will use your model in combat to give it scrutiny before application to insure they understand what it shows is often not available. No amount of peacetime or rear area modeling can be reliably used in combat without thorough understanding of what is to be done -- time to get that knowledge embedded often will not exist.
Finally, models aren't alone or even particularly special in their vulnerability to garbage input. A case has been made, in this forum no doubt, that collection, dissemination, and acceptance by the stakeholders based on no modeling whatsoever contributed to what many view as a misadventure in Iraq.
Knowing the penchant of many in high places, I'm dubious but honestly don't know. I would characterize Iraq not as a misadventure but a as a necessary but regrettably flawed operation, a flawed effort that was predicated on several iterations of a computer modeled war game...[quote]Ah, but that data is sampled{/quote]Of course it is -- as is most all data.
1949 to 1995? Jesus. Do they throw in frequent flier miles for the second time around?
Sure but Federal employees have to turn 'em in...