Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!gatech!amdcad!military
From: chenj@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (James Chen)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Learning in War
Message-ID: <27299@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 17 Sep 89 10:05:00 GMT
Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM
Lines: 27
Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com



From: chenj@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (James Chen)
	[Substantive answers only, please; lets keep the
	rampant speculation down to a dull roar.  Doctrine and
	learning seem safely part of Military Science.  --CDR]


A common feature of war is the need for a nation to relearn
the old lessons of previous wars or of the mistakes of
other nations.  For example, the US relearned the importance
of visual sighting in air-to-air combat.  That's why the smoky
engines of the F-4 Phantom had to be replaced with smoke-free
engines.  It was too easy for the enemy to see the incoming
planes.  That's why modern fighter have so much glass for
the pilot and electronics officier to see through.  Unfortunately,
it seems this lesson is about to be unlearned in the new steath
fighter with its resessed cockpit.  Now, I understand the importance
of moving the pilot back to reduce radar cross section.  And I'm
not really interested in arguing the merits or demerits of
steath.  That's not my point.  My question is:  Why do nations keep
forgetting past lessons?  Especially, since most of these lessons were
paid for in blood.  What compels people to formulate nice
sounding but totally useless theories that the next war just blows
away?

			-Jimmy Chen (chenj@cmcl2.nyu.edu)