How Technology Failed in Iraq

synthespian writes "US troops in Iraq were supposed to have a clear superiority in the battlefield because of sensors and networking devices such as aircraft- and satellite-mounted motion sensors, heat detectors, as well as image and communications eavesdroppers. On April 3, 2003, the task to take over a key Euphrates River bridge about 30 kilometers southwest of Baghdad turned into a bloody hell as 'between 25 and 30 tanks, plus 70 to 80 armored personnel carriers, artillery, and between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi soldiers coming from three directions. This mass of firepower and soldiers attacked a U.S. force of 1,000 soldiers supported by just 30 tanks and 14 Bradley fighting vehicles. (...) "'We got nothing until they slammed into us"''(...). Read more about this story and the troubles and challenges the US military is experiencing in networking troops from Technology Review."

Comments

It's 11:12 PM. Do you know what your gov is doing?

[Futurepower(R)]

The Slashdot story shows a lack of appreciation of the reality. Those who presently control the U.S. government think that it doesn't matter if the weapons work. In fact, it is more profitable for them if they don't. The weapons makers and those who profit from government oil contracts want all war, all the time.

--
Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics.

Re:Seems like the need more a disconnected model

[Firethorn]

If you look at history and read medal of honor award packages, I think that you'll find that there are soldiers out there that would, given a serious enough need. But like you said, when artillery and air support is there, why do it?

I find the terrorist's ultimate goal of a worldwide muslim theocracy and the deliberate targeting of civilians over military targets abhorant. That is something we must fight.