Digital Soldiers: The Evolution of High-Tech Weaponry and Tomorrow's Brave New Battlefeld - Softcover
In a book that is destined to become the bible of weaponry for armchair generals and military professionals alike, James Dunnigan, the state department's and CIA's expert advisor on military affairs, reveals the truth behind the high-tech weaponry mania.
"synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.:
Digital Soldiers
PART IPreliminaries1From Rocks to ElectronsYOU HEAR THEM all the time, blurbs or sound bites on how nifty modern military equipment is and how, if it is unleashed, some situation or another will be made right. This is an easy angle to fall for, as the twentieth century has been one of increasingly numerous and complex weapons. Why, they are no longer merely weapons, but "weapons systems." There is a method to all this hype, but not the one you might imagine. For high tech does not always mean high performance, or even minimal effectiveness. Remember that, because it only gets worse when you take a closer lookWhat is happening today with high-tech weapons is unique. Never before in history has there been a period where there were so many new weapons in such a short period of time. But there have, obviously, been new weapons over the centuries. For as long as there has been warfare, there have been new weapons. But until the 1800s, the new weapons were slow in coming. Really new weapons or items of military equipment were quite rare. Centuries would go by before anything particularly novel came along. And even then, the tradition-minded fighting man was usually reluctant to adopt the new technology until (and usually because) someone else used it. There were only a handful of technological breakthroughs until about eight hundred years ago, when gunpowder weapons began to appear. Then came a deluge of technology in this century.Before looking into the avalanche of twentieth-century weapons, it's important to look back at how new weapons were developed in the past. Many of the conditions that have driven, or inhibited, weapons development in the past are still with us. You will better understand the present, and the future, if you have some knowledge of the past.Weapons Development: The Stone AgeTHE FIRST WEAPONS were rocks and clubs. Rocks were chipped to create primitive knives. Then came spears, using stone (flint, usually) heads. Bows were a major advance, using flint-tipped arrows. The sling and clubs fitted with flint were other prehistoric advances in weapons technology. Eventually there was bronze, which came along about six thousand years ago. This metal was an alloy of copper (by itself too soft for effective weapons) and tin. It was a major technological advance, and was propelled into wide use as much because of bronze weapons as for the economic advantages of bronze tools. Even that long ago, warfare gave a boost to technological advances. While bronze had obvious advantages over copper for hunting, food preparation, and construction, it was the fear of "losing the bronze race" that motivated tribes to find out how to make bronze and make a lot of it before warlike neighbors paid an unfriendly visit to show them what the new bronze weapons could do to someone still using copper.Another such breakthrough didn't take place until some fifteen hundred years later, when iron was discovered. A much harder metal than bronze, its use gave soldiers a significant advantage over bronze-equipped opponents. The "iron race" went on for a century or two in the Middle East until everyone had it. Those that were slow in adopting the new metal were either wiped out or absorbed by iron-outfitted kingdoms. The new metal was not only useful for weapons, but led to the development of many new kinds of armor. Iron weapons dominated the battlefield for over three thousand years. Some seven hundred years ago, gunpowder weapons began to appear, but it wasn't until three hundred years ago that gunpowder displaced iron swords and spears as the primary weapon in most armies.Military Innovations of the AncientsJUST BECAUSE IT took so long to get from the discovery of iron to the introduction of gunpowder does not mean that three thousand years went by with little innovation in weapons. There were quite a few new ideas involving missile weapons. Then, as now, missiles were seen as the wave of the future. They were also seen, then as now, as a less dangerous way to attack an opponent. Ancient missiles were usually arrows, or large rocks thrown at fortifications by catapults and similar machines. Several new types of bows were developed during the golden age of iron weapons. Some involved the use of some iron, like the crossbow. Others used no metal at all, like the compound bow favored by the Mongols, or the longbow used by the English yeoman archers in themedieval period. While the bows often used no iron, the arrows did. Later crossbows used an iron bolt, rather than a specially designed wood arrow, and eventually the bow itself had iron parts. All arrows had an iron head, and these varied greatly in their design. One of the more interesting of these is the bodkin arrowhead used by English longbows; it was particularly effective penetrating armor.There were many other developments during the military Iron Age, but these were tactical and administrative innovations. Some of these were very important. For example, about 2,200 years ago, the Parthians (Iranians living in the Iraq-Iran area) developed full suits of armor for mounted spearmen. They also had mounted archers. The term Parthian shot refers to their technique of riding away from an approaching enemy and turning around in the saddle to let off an arrow or two. This organization was almost identical to what the Mongols used 1,500 years later, and similar to the mounted knight developed in western Europe 1,000 years later. The Parthians didn't have the stirrup yet--that came a few centuries later. But they did have the heavy (armored) cavalry that dominated the battlefield for the next 2,000 years. The stirrup helped the later knights stay in the saddle, but the lack of same did not make the Parthian knights that much less effective. Besides, the stirrup was invented by the Chinese to make it easier to get on a horse, not just to make it easier to stay in the saddle. Special saddles had long been used to aid in staying astride the horse.Another example of innovation during this period was the use of heavy infantry. Originally, infantry tactics had been nothing more than a mass (or mob, depending on the quality of leadership) of stout fellows armed with spears and swords. Most carried shields of metal, wood, hide, or woven material (or combinations thereof) and armor of similar construction to the shield. At various times, armies really got their act together and equipped all the troops with excellent armor and trained them thoroughly. This was more difficult than it sounds, as professional armies were, until a few centuries ago, rather rare. They were too expensive, and enthusiastic amateurs were a lot cheaper and nearly as good as most pros. In such situations, if the amateurs outnumbered the pros by, say, two to one, the amateurs usually won.But when someone came along and managed to finance a well-trained and -equipped professional army, this was unique and the result was usually a long string of conquests followed by the establishment of yet another empire. Most commonly, these conquering armies were primarily infantry. Horses were expensive to maintain, and their quality was poor, so most professional troops walked. The mounted soldiers were usually nobles who only turned out for an emergency or when the prospects of loot were particularly good. The Assyrians,Greeks, and Romans (to mention the more successful ones) all established large empires with professional infantry armies using unique organization, tactics, and lots of training.Ancient InhibitionsYOU WOULD THINK that people would have picked up on the importance of training and attention to tactics. But such was not, and still is not, the case. The reasons for this lapse are rather easy to understand. First, there is the innate conservatism of military men everywhere and for all time. Warfare is a deadly business, and most of those who engage in it want to minimize their risk, rather than maximize their chances of success. In other words, the soldier will avoid combat, or anything else, that might get him killed. No one is going to readily adopt untried new weapons or tactics when he knows that the traditional arms and techniques have worked in the past. Second, there is the problem of experience. Most soldiers fight very little, if at all. Throughout human history there have always been wars or organized armed conflicts ("skirmishes") going on somewhere. But for the individual soldier, on average, there has been very little action. There have always been plenty of armies around, but very few wars for them to participate in. Thus an army, or tribal levy, might go years, or decades, without having a chance to actually get into a battle. Thus there is little opportunity to test new weapons or techniques. Few people, especially soldiers, want to bet their lives on some untried technology or technique. It took a rare, and unique, leader to get new weapons and techniques accepted and tested in combat. Once these new items are seen to work in battle, people are much more willing to accept them. But getting past that first trial has always been a nearly insurmountable task.Human nature has shown itself to be even more perverse. Even in the face of successful new weapons, many tend to attribute such achievements to "luck," or the result of some grievous error by the loser. In times past, many believed that it was because the gods were mad at the loser and caused the defeat as a form of divine punishment. On the losing side, the people in charge often find it politically expedient to give the enemy credit for successful new ideas. After all, a general, even one who has just lost a battle, would rather blame the gods than his own lack of foresight in properly equipping and training his troops. Often it was simply pride. The losers could not bring themselves to admit that those bums on the other side were better soldiers.Until a few hundred years ago, new weapons commonly came into military use after having first been tried out while hunting game. Thus there were many other weapons available, and there always had been. While the earliest civilizations came about because of the use of large-scale farming, hunting stillbrought in a significant proportion of the calories. Along rivers and oceans, fishing was usually the principal form of "hunting." But there was usually land game available. While the poorest people used slings or snares to kill small animals, the nobility were more ambitious. It was common for the rich folks to hunt from horseback. They would use spears or bows. The hunt was considered largely sport by the aristocrats, and also training for war. But even with that, there was enough difference between hunting animals and confronting humans on the battlefield to make the crossover a slow process. Some weapons, of course, were primarily used for warfare. Swords are the best example. Except for finishing off large wounded animals, swords played little part in hunting. Spears were the most common hunting/warfare weapon, and the largest number of troops in an ancient army were spearmen, but these were generally the poorest members of the society and had little practice using spears on large game. The nobles, who could afford to spend days or weeks riding off to unpopulated areas where large game lived, eventually developed the technique of spearing deer, bears, buffalo, or lions from horseback. This was useful practice for doing the same thing to enemy soldiers. This extensive practice made the aristocratic cavalry rather more deadly than the peasant spearman filling the ranks. It wasn't until innovative peoples like the Greeks or Romans developed specialized spears for combat, and diligently trained the troops in their use, that cavalry again had to fear infantry.Archery, Technology, and CultureARCHERY WAS ANOTHER matter. The bow was an ancient weapon, and was favored by peasants for hunting birds and animals that could not be run down on foot. Unfortunately, the average hunting bow was of only marginal use in warfare. Combat troops usually had shields, and often armor. Massed archers had some effect against horsemen, or at least the horses. But many armies, when constantly faced with such archers, would armor their horses too, or see to it that battles began with an archery duel to kill off the enemy archers, or drive them from the battlefield, before sending their cavalry in.Historically, there have been four types of bows. These are (in order of appearance), the short bow, the longbow, the composite bow, and the crossbow. The short bow is shorter than the longbow, and requires less muscle to pull. We know it was in use at least fifty thousand years ago, and it is still used by many primitive cultures today. The longbow, which is usually at least five feet long and requires a lot more muscle and skill to use, is probably nearly as old as the short bow. Longbows have been found that are over six feet long and require nearly two hundred pounds of pull. Cultures that had a lot of large people, and free time to practice with this larger bow, used the longbow. Thelongbow had a longer range than the short bow, usually two hundred to four hundred yards, compared to somewhat less than half that for the short bow. The longbow had more penetrating power. With the right kind of metal arrowhead, a longbow could penetrate most kinds of armor and shields at short ranges. In Europe, the Vikings, Germans, and Celts all used the longbow at one time or another. A major disadvantage of the longbow was that in cold weather the bow had a tendency to snap. Short bows would do this too, but not as often because not as much stress was being applied to the wood of the bow.The longbow required a lot of constant practice to maintain the needed skills. Only those cultures that tolerated, or could afford, a lot of the manpower spending much of their time at war or preparing for it used the longbow on a large scale. Today, there are still tribes in Africa that use the longbow for hunting large game, including elephants. To bring down an elephant you need a powerful longbow and a skilled hunter to operate it.The composite bow is, unlike the short bow and longbow, more than just a carefully selected and shaped length of wood. Often the same size as the short bow, the composite bow uses pieces of bone and sinew glued to wood to produce a bow that produces the same striking power and range as the longbow, but without requiring nearly as much pull. The composite bow has long been favored by those who hunt, or make war, from horseback. As a hunter's weapon, the composite bow is superb. The composite bow is known to have existed at least five thousand years ago, and probably earlier. The ancient Egyptians made composite bows that were as long as longbows and fired light arrows made of reeds. These Egyptian arrows apparently could be fired over three hundred yards and would land with great force. The composite bow was also less likely to break if used in freezing weather.Short bows and longbows, although carved out of single logs of wood, often had the characteristics of composite bows if they were carved out of the center of a tree log. The sap-soaked wood at the center of a tree has different characteristics than the wood closer to the bark. Different types of trees have different properties, some species being more suitable for bows than others. While none of these "organic" longbows were as effective as the top-line composite bows, they were much cheaper to make and maintain. The English medieval longbow is an excellent example of the "organic" composite bow. While made fr...
PART IPreliminaries1From Rocks to ElectronsYOU HEAR THEM all the time, blurbs or sound bites on how nifty modern military equipment is and how, if it is unleashed, some situation or another will be made right. This is an easy angle to fall for, as the twentieth century has been one of increasingly numerous and complex weapons. Why, they are no longer merely weapons, but "weapons systems." There is a method to all this hype, but not the one you might imagine. For high tech does not always mean high performance, or even minimal effectiveness. Remember that, because it only gets worse when you take a closer lookWhat is happening today with high-tech weapons is unique. Never before in history has there been a period where there were so many new weapons in such a short period of time. But there have, obviously, been new weapons over the centuries. For as long as there has been warfare, there have been new weapons. But until the 1800s, the new weapons were slow in coming. Really new weapons or items of military equipment were quite rare. Centuries would go by before anything particularly novel came along. And even then, the tradition-minded fighting man was usually reluctant to adopt the new technology until (and usually because) someone else used it. There were only a handful of technological breakthroughs until about eight hundred years ago, when gunpowder weapons began to appear. Then came a deluge of technology in this century.Before looking into the avalanche of twentieth-century weapons, it's important to look back at how new weapons were developed in the past. Many of the conditions that have driven, or inhibited, weapons development in the past are still with us. You will better understand the present, and the future, if you have some knowledge of the past.Weapons Development: The Stone AgeTHE FIRST WEAPONS were rocks and clubs. Rocks were chipped to create primitive knives. Then came spears, using stone (flint, usually) heads. Bows were a major advance, using flint-tipped arrows. The sling and clubs fitted with flint were other prehistoric advances in weapons technology. Eventually there was bronze, which came along about six thousand years ago. This metal was an alloy of copper (by itself too soft for effective weapons) and tin. It was a major technological advance, and was propelled into wide use as much because of bronze weapons as for the economic advantages of bronze tools. Even that long ago, warfare gave a boost to technological advances. While bronze had obvious advantages over copper for hunting, food preparation, and construction, it was the fear of "losing the bronze race" that motivated tribes to find out how to make bronze and make a lot of it before warlike neighbors paid an unfriendly visit to show them what the new bronze weapons could do to someone still using copper.Another such breakthrough didn't take place until some fifteen hundred years later, when iron was discovered. A much harder metal than bronze, its use gave soldiers a significant advantage over bronze-equipped opponents. The "iron race" went on for a century or two in the Middle East until everyone had it. Those that were slow in adopting the new metal were either wiped out or absorbed by iron-outfitted kingdoms. The new metal was not only useful for weapons, but led to the development of many new kinds of armor. Iron weapons dominated the battlefield for over three thousand years. Some seven hundred years ago, gunpowder weapons began to appear, but it wasn't until three hundred years ago that gunpowder displaced iron swords and spears as the primary weapon in most armies.Military Innovations of the AncientsJUST BECAUSE IT took so long to get from the discovery of iron to the introduction of gunpowder does not mean that three thousand years went by with little innovation in weapons. There were quite a few new ideas involving missile weapons. Then, as now, missiles were seen as the wave of the future. They were also seen, then as now, as a less dangerous way to attack an opponent. Ancient missiles were usually arrows, or large rocks thrown at fortifications by catapults and similar machines. Several new types of bows were developed during the golden age of iron weapons. Some involved the use of some iron, like the crossbow. Others used no metal at all, like the compound bow favored by the Mongols, or the longbow used by the English yeoman archers in themedieval period. While the bows often used no iron, the arrows did. Later crossbows used an iron bolt, rather than a specially designed wood arrow, and eventually the bow itself had iron parts. All arrows had an iron head, and these varied greatly in their design. One of the more interesting of these is the bodkin arrowhead used by English longbows; it was particularly effective penetrating armor.There were many other developments during the military Iron Age, but these were tactical and administrative innovations. Some of these were very important. For example, about 2,200 years ago, the Parthians (Iranians living in the Iraq-Iran area) developed full suits of armor for mounted spearmen. They also had mounted archers. The term Parthian shot refers to their technique of riding away from an approaching enemy and turning around in the saddle to let off an arrow or two. This organization was almost identical to what the Mongols used 1,500 years later, and similar to the mounted knight developed in western Europe 1,000 years later. The Parthians didn't have the stirrup yet--that came a few centuries later. But they did have the heavy (armored) cavalry that dominated the battlefield for the next 2,000 years. The stirrup helped the later knights stay in the saddle, but the lack of same did not make the Parthian knights that much less effective. Besides, the stirrup was invented by the Chinese to make it easier to get on a horse, not just to make it easier to stay in the saddle. Special saddles had long been used to aid in staying astride the horse.Another example of innovation during this period was the use of heavy infantry. Originally, infantry tactics had been nothing more than a mass (or mob, depending on the quality of leadership) of stout fellows armed with spears and swords. Most carried shields of metal, wood, hide, or woven material (or combinations thereof) and armor of similar construction to the shield. At various times, armies really got their act together and equipped all the troops with excellent armor and trained them thoroughly. This was more difficult than it sounds, as professional armies were, until a few centuries ago, rather rare. They were too expensive, and enthusiastic amateurs were a lot cheaper and nearly as good as most pros. In such situations, if the amateurs outnumbered the pros by, say, two to one, the amateurs usually won.But when someone came along and managed to finance a well-trained and -equipped professional army, this was unique and the result was usually a long string of conquests followed by the establishment of yet another empire. Most commonly, these conquering armies were primarily infantry. Horses were expensive to maintain, and their quality was poor, so most professional troops walked. The mounted soldiers were usually nobles who only turned out for an emergency or when the prospects of loot were particularly good. The Assyrians,Greeks, and Romans (to mention the more successful ones) all established large empires with professional infantry armies using unique organization, tactics, and lots of training.Ancient InhibitionsYOU WOULD THINK that people would have picked up on the importance of training and attention to tactics. But such was not, and still is not, the case. The reasons for this lapse are rather easy to understand. First, there is the innate conservatism of military men everywhere and for all time. Warfare is a deadly business, and most of those who engage in it want to minimize their risk, rather than maximize their chances of success. In other words, the soldier will avoid combat, or anything else, that might get him killed. No one is going to readily adopt untried new weapons or tactics when he knows that the traditional arms and techniques have worked in the past. Second, there is the problem of experience. Most soldiers fight very little, if at all. Throughout human history there have always been wars or organized armed conflicts ("skirmishes") going on somewhere. But for the individual soldier, on average, there has been very little action. There have always been plenty of armies around, but very few wars for them to participate in. Thus an army, or tribal levy, might go years, or decades, without having a chance to actually get into a battle. Thus there is little opportunity to test new weapons or techniques. Few people, especially soldiers, want to bet their lives on some untried technology or technique. It took a rare, and unique, leader to get new weapons and techniques accepted and tested in combat. Once these new items are seen to work in battle, people are much more willing to accept them. But getting past that first trial has always been a nearly insurmountable task.Human nature has shown itself to be even more perverse. Even in the face of successful new weapons, many tend to attribute such achievements to "luck," or the result of some grievous error by the loser. In times past, many believed that it was because the gods were mad at the loser and caused the defeat as a form of divine punishment. On the losing side, the people in charge often find it politically expedient to give the enemy credit for successful new ideas. After all, a general, even one who has just lost a battle, would rather blame the gods than his own lack of foresight in properly equipping and training his troops. Often it was simply pride. The losers could not bring themselves to admit that those bums on the other side were better soldiers.Until a few hundred years ago, new weapons commonly came into military use after having first been tried out while hunting game. Thus there were many other weapons available, and there always had been. While the earliest civilizations came about because of the use of large-scale farming, hunting stillbrought in a significant proportion of the calories. Along rivers and oceans, fishing was usually the principal form of "hunting." But there was usually land game available. While the poorest people used slings or snares to kill small animals, the nobility were more ambitious. It was common for the rich folks to hunt from horseback. They would use spears or bows. The hunt was considered largely sport by the aristocrats, and also training for war. But even with that, there was enough difference between hunting animals and confronting humans on the battlefield to make the crossover a slow process. Some weapons, of course, were primarily used for warfare. Swords are the best example. Except for finishing off large wounded animals, swords played little part in hunting. Spears were the most common hunting/warfare weapon, and the largest number of troops in an ancient army were spearmen, but these were generally the poorest members of the society and had little practice using spears on large game. The nobles, who could afford to spend days or weeks riding off to unpopulated areas where large game lived, eventually developed the technique of spearing deer, bears, buffalo, or lions from horseback. This was useful practice for doing the same thing to enemy soldiers. This extensive practice made the aristocratic cavalry rather more deadly than the peasant spearman filling the ranks. It wasn't until innovative peoples like the Greeks or Romans developed specialized spears for combat, and diligently trained the troops in their use, that cavalry again had to fear infantry.Archery, Technology, and CultureARCHERY WAS ANOTHER matter. The bow was an ancient weapon, and was favored by peasants for hunting birds and animals that could not be run down on foot. Unfortunately, the average hunting bow was of only marginal use in warfare. Combat troops usually had shields, and often armor. Massed archers had some effect against horsemen, or at least the horses. But many armies, when constantly faced with such archers, would armor their horses too, or see to it that battles began with an archery duel to kill off the enemy archers, or drive them from the battlefield, before sending their cavalry in.Historically, there have been four types of bows. These are (in order of appearance), the short bow, the longbow, the composite bow, and the crossbow. The short bow is shorter than the longbow, and requires less muscle to pull. We know it was in use at least fifty thousand years ago, and it is still used by many primitive cultures today. The longbow, which is usually at least five feet long and requires a lot more muscle and skill to use, is probably nearly as old as the short bow. Longbows have been found that are over six feet long and require nearly two hundred pounds of pull. Cultures that had a lot of large people, and free time to practice with this larger bow, used the longbow. Thelongbow had a longer range than the short bow, usually two hundred to four hundred yards, compared to somewhat less than half that for the short bow. The longbow had more penetrating power. With the right kind of metal arrowhead, a longbow could penetrate most kinds of armor and shields at short ranges. In Europe, the Vikings, Germans, and Celts all used the longbow at one time or another. A major disadvantage of the longbow was that in cold weather the bow had a tendency to snap. Short bows would do this too, but not as often because not as much stress was being applied to the wood of the bow.The longbow required a lot of constant practice to maintain the needed skills. Only those cultures that tolerated, or could afford, a lot of the manpower spending much of their time at war or preparing for it used the longbow on a large scale. Today, there are still tribes in Africa that use the longbow for hunting large game, including elephants. To bring down an elephant you need a powerful longbow and a skilled hunter to operate it.The composite bow is, unlike the short bow and longbow, more than just a carefully selected and shaped length of wood. Often the same size as the short bow, the composite bow uses pieces of bone and sinew glued to wood to produce a bow that produces the same striking power and range as the longbow, but without requiring nearly as much pull. The composite bow has long been favored by those who hunt, or make war, from horseback. As a hunter's weapon, the composite bow is superb. The composite bow is known to have existed at least five thousand years ago, and probably earlier. The ancient Egyptians made composite bows that were as long as longbows and fired light arrows made of reeds. These Egyptian arrows apparently could be fired over three hundred yards and would land with great force. The composite bow was also less likely to break if used in freezing weather.Short bows and longbows, although carved out of single logs of wood, often had the characteristics of composite bows if they were carved out of the center of a tree log. The sap-soaked wood at the center of a tree has different characteristics than the wood closer to the bark. Different types of trees have different properties, some species being more suitable for bows than others. While none of these "organic" longbows were as effective as the top-line composite bows, they were much cheaper to make and maintain. The English medieval longbow is an excellent example of the "organic" composite bow. While made fr...
"About this title" may belong to another edition of this title.
- PublisherSt. Martin's Griffin
- Publication date1998
- ISBN 10 0312182392
- ISBN 13 9780312182397
- BindingPaperback
- Number of pages309
- Rating
Buy New
Learn more about this copy
US$ 43.98
Shipping:
FREE
Within U.S.A.
Top Search Results from the AbeBooks Marketplace
Stock Image
Digital Soldiers: The Evolution of High-Tech Weaponry and Tomorrow's Brave New Battlefeld
Published by
St. Martin's Griffin
(1996)
ISBN 10: 0312182392
ISBN 13: 9780312182397
New
Paperback
Quantity: 2
Seller:
Rating
Book Description Paperback. Condition: New. New paperback from bookstore stock. An unread copy. May have May contain a price sticker.; 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed! Ships same or next business day!. Seller Inventory # 111701300084
Buy New
US$ 43.98
Convert currency
Stock Image
DIGITAL SOLDIERS: THE EVOLUTION
Published by
St. Martin's Griffin
(1998)
ISBN 10: 0312182392
ISBN 13: 9780312182397
New
Softcover
Quantity: 1
Seller:
Rating
Book Description Condition: New. New. In shrink wrap. Looks like an interesting title! 0.98. Seller Inventory # Q-0312182392
Buy New
US$ 62.24
Convert currency