Information on the Battlefield (ST 20061031 Report)

Beware of possible psychological minefield

By David Boey (dboey@sph.com.sg)
The Straits Times Defence Correspondent
Oct 31, 2006

Battle information is a double-edged sword.
Just as ignorance of an unfolding battle is dangerous, swamping troops with too much information could also be deadly as it may overwhelm soldiers’ decision-making capacity.
Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) soldiers are now able to harness battlefield information as a weapon – using rugged computers that instantly display the locations of friendly and hostile forces.
The SAF’s Battlefield Management System, newly deployed with the 42nd Battalion Singapore Armoured Regiment, underscores the army’s determination to use technology to give its forces information superiority in battle.
On screens inside their vehicles, soldiers are given secure updates of the battle situation. Soldiers can send text messages to one another, avoiding the use of radios which the enemy can eavesdrop on or even jam.
This homegrown system, unveiled recently, displays enemy threats as red icons and friendly forces as blue icons, creating an electronic picture of the unfolding battle in near-real time.
But there is the danger that soldiers may become too engrossed with updates and e-mail to look out for what might be clear and present danger around their vehicles.
We have all seen how, in an office situation, colleagues routinely e-mail one another even when they are seated in neighbouring cubicles. This might be acceptable in civilian life but a battlefield situation would be different.
Sending orders by SMS can be a plus in combat, when one’s forces are scattered over a wide terrain and one needs to preserve radio silence. But technology will never be able to match a commander communicating his intent and determination in a personal meeting.
Witness how the legendary German field marshal Erwin Rommel chose to roam the battlefield in his armoured vehicle during World War II, rousing his Afrika Korps troops to battle during the desert duels with Allied forces in North Africa. Field Marshal Rommel’s armoured vehicle was distinctive. It had the moniker “Greif” (German for gryphon) pained in large white lettering on its side – one glance was all it took to know he was around.
Another psychological aspect worth mulling over is how a bird’s eye view of the firefights could affect morale.
The sight of blue icons triumphing over red icons may bring much cheer when things are going well. But suppose the tide of battle were to turn against you. It may look like a computer game, but the sight of friendly blue icons disappearing off the screen could startle troops unnecessarily.
Soldiers may see more than they are prepared to accept – especially when a battle stalls.
The plethora of information zapped through the air also puts a premium on information security. A savvy enemy will be able to harness such information to advantage.
During World War II, the German Navy used encoded radio signals to mass their U-boat submarines into Wolf Packs to make coordinated attacks on Allied shipping convoys. Their gun and torpedo attacks were devastating until Allied scientists cracked their supposedly unbreakable naval codes. Yet, the full story of how the Allies cracked the Germans’ Enigma machine code remains classified today.
The lesson is never to presume that any technological system is so superior that it cannot be exploited by wily, tech-savvy enemy.
The good news is that the SAF enjoys some first-mover advantage – few armies have succeeded in producing a similar system for operational use and few regional countries can match the size or expertise in the Republic’s defence science community.
Armoured forces from countries such as Israel and the United States have fielded their own versions of the battle computers in combat.
The fact that battle-tested armies have not abandoned their quest for information supremacy, despite technical hurdles in tracking hundreds of moving vehicles by satellite and enabling them to communicate via wireless network, is tacit acknowledgement of the value of such systems in war.
The know-how behind such systems is very much a black art which countries guard jealously.
As potential adversaries race to close the gap in informational superiority, the SAF must fight to keep the technological edge it has secured in partnership with the local defence industry and defence scientists.
But it must remember to also pay attention to psychological aspects when deploying that technology.


Links:
ST Engineering

Mindef


*******
Comments by William Aw:
The above article by David Boey articulates a fine balance that most modern and forward looking military organizations must tread.
How does one enhance the organizational capability, reduce "fog-of-war" errors, increase communications, WHILE not detracting the soldiers from being able to concentrate on winning the war.
Soldiers on the ground often complain about how everything looks good on paper but until the generals who sit in their war rooms put leather to the jungle grounds, they are the ones who suffer. It is easy to say: "Move that division to that mountain!" but logistical and actual ground situation may not be easily implemented.
Therefore, tactical commanders who now feel that the new BMS will help to alleviate situation may realize that there is a lot more work to be done than just putting the technological pieces in place.
Will we become too reliant on techonology and forget basic military tactics? Will we feel that our new weapons - with their optic sights and round the bend video capability - give us better chances of survival? NOT if the soldier does not have the discipline to clean his/her weapon, ensure there is sufficient battery power or heaven forbid - personal hygiene taken care of.
It makes us proud to be part of an organization that has "black magic" and able to produce such breakthroughs in the defence industries. I look forward to the day our "magic" can help us win against an enemy practising guerilla warfare as it is not the technological prowess but the will to win that influences the outcome. Vietnam was a very potent example - with the Green Berets taking the true "hearts and minds" doctrine while the statisticians and experts expound on the use of carpet bombing, agent Orange, massive firepower. We see the "desire" to win eroded over the years, causing more and more unnecessary casualties of war - for many many years after the withdrawal.
Will technology desensitize us to the horrors of war?
The movie "Stealth" promised Unmanned Fighter Jets with intelligence, an episode from Stargate SG-1 (Season 4 Episode 2) also highlight fighter jets that are remotely controlled from an underground bunker - thus keeping important human resources available to fight another day.
Political willpower often cannot bear the shock and grief that death brings to the masses when there is a war. Let's hope being technologically advanced does not give governments the reason to fight a war claiming little loss of life.
Most importantly - that while we need to remain vigilant and ever ready to fight a war, let us never forget that no one wins in a war.