The Future of War is Now

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 11/02/2015 at 17:07 • Filed to: planelopnik

5

9

In 1948, just three years after the greatest conflict this world has known, noted British general and military historian !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! wrote about the German vengeance weapons, the gyroscopically-controlled V-1 flying bomb and the V-2 ballistic missile, in his compelling history of WWII. Quoting his own observations from as early as 1931, Fuller’s analysis is particularly prescient, and foresees our current tactical and strategic military thinking with startling accuracy.

...this novel weapon [the V-1] ... initiated a tactical revolution as important as those following the invention of the aeroplane and the tank. Writing on this type of projectile in 1931, I pointed out that “The central problem in future warfare is not even electrification. Instead it is elimination, the elimination of the human element....The whole history of weapon development is one in which the aim has been to reduce to a minimum the human element, and its goal would appear to be the Robot obedient to a distant mind.” Picturing these Robots, I wrote: “They will be wirelessly directed....Only direct hits will bring them to earth. Otherwise, soulless, nerveless and without fear, they will move swiftly onwards, and, as their target is reached, without a tremor they will dip and rush upon it. To be attacked by such monsters will be fearful in the extreme. Monsters blind, deaf and dumb. Monsters of steel and high explosives, who can neither curse nor cheer and who, nevertheless, are the incarnation of destruction.

Inexplicably, the Allies chose to focus their efforts at stopping the vengeance weapons by bombing their launch sites and production facilities, with little effect. Had they instead focused on the vulnerable factories that produced the hydrogen peroxide fuels, the vengeance weapons would likely have been stopped before the end of the war and many innocent lives saved. But even had the V-1 and V-2 been stopped in their infancy, the genie was out of the bottle. Fuller goes on to say,

Though these two weapons [the V-1 and V-2] were nothing more than explosive projectiles, their introduction constitutes a revolution in the art of war; for in their employment the human element is virtually reduced to its irreducible minimum. Further, the fighting man is replaced by the technician, who, in complete safety, can operate these weapons hundreds of miles behind the battle front or from the target aimed at. Such a man is neither soldier, sailor nor aviator any more than a far-away broadcaster.

Further still, once a more economical fuel than any of those experimented with or used is discovered, the revolution of the V-2 will effect is to be sought not so much in its forms of a projectile, as in that of a reaction propulsion engine, which acting purely by recoil does not require air to “push against” or to sustain it. Therefore, it adds a new sphere of movement to those existing: movement in a vacuum. This possiblility is as great if not a greater revolution than that introduced by the aeroplane, because it raises war into pure space.

So, even as early as 1931, Fuller was predicting the unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV), the autonomous drone, the cruise missile, and even more importantly, the ICBM. And here we are. The revolution in unmanned warfare that was started by the Germans in WWII has come to its inevitable technological fruition. I don’t think that it is even that far-fetched to imagine a time in the not-too-distant future when the manned warplane is deemed obsolete, replaced by hordes of autonomous—and expendable—aircraft. In 1932, British MP Stanley Baldwin famously said, “The bomber always gets through.” To a certain extent, he was proven wrong in WWII. But in the future, he will likely be right.

Fuller, J.F.C. The Second World War. Da Capo Press: 1993. First published in 1948.

Dunnik > ttyymmnn 11/02/2015 at 17:23

3

What’s most interesting about this to me is how Fuller was largely ignored in the 30’s when he was talking about armoured warfare. Obviously the Blitzkrieg showed everybody how right he was.

But when it comes to the V-series weapons, he was not only believed this time but others saw the obvious potential, most particularly the US. Before Fuller put pen to paper on his doorstopper of a history the Americans were, after all, rounding up every Nazi scientist they could get their hands on so that they too, one day, could have their own pilotless engines of destruction.

Fuller wasn’t just a visionary strategist, like many Brits of his time and place he was a good writer too. I mean this is really scary shit, and its our reality today:

Otherwise, soulless, nerveless and without fear, they will move swiftly onwards, and, as their target is reached, without a tremor they will dip and rush upon it. To be attacked by such monsters will be fearful in the extreme. Monsters blind, deaf and dumb. Monsters of steel and high explosives, who can neither curse nor cheer and who, nevertheless, are the incarnation of destruction.

ttyymmnn > Dunnik 11/02/2015 at 17:34

5

You are absolutely right. And the fact that he was ignored could have been largely political, as Fuller was an avowed Socialist. But as an airplane guy, I particularly appreciate his views on the use of the airplane in war, and how it absolutely revolutionized warfare. He scoffs at the ineffectual strategic bombing the Allies carried out in WWII, and talks about how closely tied ground and air power, as the Germans did it in Blitzkrieg, is practically unstoppable. The other day, I read an article in the Air & Space Magazine by a man who advocates abolishing the USAF and rolling it back into the Army, as it was in WWII. When you read Fuller, and see how close integration of the two forces makes such tactical sense, putting the two back together starts making more sense.

Cé hé sin > ttyymmnn 11/02/2015 at 17:38

2

I’m reminded of the story told about how the British Interplanetary Society were meeting in London 1944 and a V2 arrived unannounced nearby. Realising what had happened they jumped to their fleet and applauded because they now knew that someone had perfected the idea of a ballistic missile and thus paved the way for a manned rocket.

ttyymmnn > Cé hé sin 11/02/2015 at 17:39

0

I’ve never heard that story, but scientists can be an odd lot, so I suppose it’s entirely plausible.

sunnydaysam > Dunnik 11/02/2015 at 17:46

1

wow! best writing I’ve seen in awhile. thanks.

Dunnik > ttyymmnn 11/02/2015 at 17:48

2

The USAF, as an institution, is well known for its aversion to the tactical ground attack mission. The whole point of setting up the USAF as a separate branch was really because of the strategic bombing enthusiasts. If your major role is striking into the enemy heartland with bombers and fighter escorts, there’s no army involved, so it made sense, by that measure, to have a separate service.

Funny how this is certainly not the case in the French Air Force. It’s a separate service, but the very name, “Armee de l’Air” literally translates as “Army of the Air”. French doctrine puts a heavy emphasis on army co-op, the lack of which was a major factor in why they got their ass handed to them in 1940.

French pilots and planes, it’s said, are as good at dogfighting as anyone, and while they don’t have a dedicated attack jet, they’ve always either baked in the fighter-bomber role or created attack variants of planes.

Tohru > ttyymmnn 11/02/2015 at 17:54

1

Reminds me of this:

ttyymmnn > Tohru 11/02/2015 at 18:00

0

Or this.

That video you posted is brilliant.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > ttyymmnn 11/02/2015 at 23:05

1

My grandfather had just arrived in London and went in with some shipmates to have a few beers. They were in a bar when v-1 landed down the street. Went diagonally through one building to then blow up the one across the street. They ran back to the tanker “where it was safe!”