Mystics & Statistics

Another AI issue (#3)

My biggest issue with AI is not that it is going to take over the world (i.e. Terminator V?), it is that it makes mistake. AI makes simple factual errors because it lacks the ability to question and crosscheck. Now, granted a lot of people make the same type of mistakes, but if these “machines” are going to be better than us, they kind of need to quit making simple mistakes.

I have blogged about these mistakes before. here Khrushchev Quote and AI – The Dupuy Institute  and here Yahoo AI and order of battle for operations near Chernihiv in 2022 – The Dupuy Institute. It messed up a citation in the first case and it made an error in the order of battle in the second. The problem was that these mistakes were on the web (and AI does not seem to be able to do original research) and it picked up those errors. It does not appear to have the ability to weigh and discern the difference between contradictory data or look deeper into data that does not look right. It seems to have no ability to tell if the data does not look right. It does provide entertaining art though:  War by Numbers by AI – The Dupuy Institute.

Now an old friend of mind has found another error. In this case he was using AI to help with a wargame design. It provided the following note:

  • Even overwhelming invasions (e.g., the Great Heathen Army) suffered setbacks.

Your probability curve (14% at 1:1, 28% at 2:1, 42% at 3:1, etc.) mirrors the historical pattern that 3:1 is the threshold of likely success, a principle echoed in modern military theory (e.g., Dupuy, Numbers, Predictions, and War).

It actually referenced Numbers, Predictions, and War. Not sure if the AI could actually read it as it is not supposed to be available on the web (copyright is still active). But NPW does not actually address the 3-to-1 rule. Doesn’t even mention it (I do have a .pdf version I can search). Now, Trevor Dupuy does have a chapter on it in Understanding War, but it doesn’t really say that. We have blogged about this before:

  1. The U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule – The Dupuy Institute
  2. The Source of the U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule – The Dupuy Institute
  3. The U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule versus the 752 Case Division-level Data Base 1904-1991 – The Dupuy Institute
  4. The U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule versus 49 U.S. Civil War battles – The Dupuy Institute
  5. The U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule versus 243 Battles 1600-1900 – The Dupuy Institute
  6. People keep referencing us on the 3-to-1 Rule – The Dupuy Institute which references another eight links to the blog on the subject, including:
  7. Trevor Dupuy and the 3-1 Rule – The Dupuy Institute

Anyhow, we have talked about it a lot. It never seems to go away even though I think the military analytical community would be better served to never reference it again. I also have a chapter on force ratios in my book War by Numbers.

So, AI pulls up a rule that does not have much validity and then proceeds to give an incorrect reference to a book that never discusses it. Not encouraging.

Isfaran – 2

A second post on Isfaran. The original post was just a look at the terrain: Isfaran – The Dupuy Institute. Apparently, some other people are looking at it too, see WP article: Risky commando plan to seize Iran’s uranium came at Trump’s request – The Washington Post

Now, the part of the article that got my attention was the part about “flying in excavation equipment.” Now, I do not know how deep the enriched uranium is buried and how long it takes to dig it out, but… I am guessing that this would involve holding forces in place in the middle of Iran for day or two or four.

Anyhow, waiting to see what actually occurs.

View of Isfaran and Naqsh-e Jahan Square (Pedram Forouzanfar, 23 April 2020)

FY2027 U.S. Defense Budget

Looks like the FY2027 U.S. Defense Budget will be released on 3 April. It is proposed to be 1.5 Trillion. The FY2026 budget was 961.2 requested, 839.2 billion as passed (see: FY2026_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf and final-fy26-defense-minibus-4-summary.pdf). There are some supplemental bills that push the FY2026 past a trillion.

Of course, it is not the budget until congress passes it. They are supposed to do that before the 2027 Fiscal Year starts (which is October 2026) but have had a bad record for this. The FY2026 defense budget was not approved until 3 February 2026. It will probably gets even more complex as it appears the opposition party is going to take the House in November. This does not include the supplemental $200 billion that has just been requested.

Article on the subject: White House to deliver FY27 budget request on April 3: OMB – Breaking Defense

New York Times article on the subject from 3 April: Trump Requests $1.5 Trillion for Military Spending – The New York Times

French Air Power: 20s and the Rif War – this Wednesday

The second of a series of eight presentations on French Air Power 1918 – 1940 by Dr. James Slaughter for real this Wednesday, 1 April, 7:00 PM (EST) via Zoom.

The Zoom link is here: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89471662474?pwd=IIoobuk6pNyRvyjnSodlgKaHnFqgEY.1

The whole series is here: French Air Power 1918-1940 – The Dupuy Institute

The call for presentations for the Fifth HAAC is here: Call for Presentations for the Fifth HAAC, 20 – 22 October 2026 – The Dupuy Institute

 

Le chef riffain [i.e. rifain] Kaid Sarkash et son fils armés avec des Mausers capturés aux Espagnols : [photographie de presse] / [Agence Rol] : vue 1 – Le chef riffain [i.e. rifain] Kaid Sarkash et son fils armés avec des Mausers capturés aux Espagnols : [photographie de presse] / [Agence Rol].

 

English: Sketch map of Northern Morocco during the first half of the 1920s focussing on the theatre of war during the Rif War. The map shows the limits of the Riffian republic, with Spanish-occupied territory at both end (shaded areas).
Riffian control had spilled over inside French Morocco; the dots represents French fortifications (“blockhaus”) built to contain the Berber tribesmen who, the French feared, threatened Fez for a time. This map is contained in Pierre Sémard’s book “La guerre du Rif” published in 1926.

Article on potential landing sites

This article came across my desk yesterday, and it does confirm or reinforce several points I have been making in last few blog posts: Will Trump Order U.S. Ground Troops to Invade Iran?

If fact, it so closely parallels what I have been saying that I wonder if they were reading my blog. This has happened before with other publications. That they list out the five landing ships and list the landing locales in the same order as I list them makes me suspicious. Could be just great minds thinking alike.

Anyhow, they did add a factoid that differed from my discussion, in that they had the airborne brigade with only two battalions (vice 3) They also left out the 10th Mountain Division, which we know has some presence in the Middle East.

My blog posts:

  1. Isfaran – The Dupuy Institute
  2. Kharg Island – The Dupuy Institute
  3. Qeshm Island and the Straits of Hormuz – The Dupuy Institute
  4. Larak and Abu Musa – The Dupuy Institute

 

Larak and Abu Musa

War teaches geography. Two islands in the Strait of Hormuz mentioned as possible landing sites are Larak and Abu Musa along with some immediate surrounding islands.

Karak is right next to Qeshm and Hormuz Island (see our previous post). It is only a few miles from each of them, and only 24 miles (39 kilometers) from Oman, on the other side of the straight. It is possible to seize and hold Larak and leave Qeshm in Iranian hands, but not sure how this does not generate some U.S. casualties. Of course, one can make the same argument for seizing Qeshm and not seizing the Iranian mainland areas a mile or so away from it. The problem is that all these islands are within mortar range of each other and mainland Iran. I gather Iran has 3,000+ mortars, a very annoying weapon that seems to have been forgotten about amid all the discussion of higher-tech rockets, missiles and drones. 

Karak island is 19 square miles (49 square kilometers). This is like a little over a quarter of D.C. (28%). It is 266 feet tall (81 meters). All these islands are rough with considerable elevation (which does not make things easier).  There are two villages on the island, the largest of 466 people. There is a nice collection of coral reefs off the island. 

 

I gather it has a military base on the island loaded with surface-to-surface missiles in addition to serving as an oil terminal. Two ships were sunk there in 1988. The Iranian Vosper-class frigate Sahand was sunk by the U.S. Navy in 200-meter-deep waters southwest of Larak Island. 45 crew were killed. The Liberian supertanker Seawise Giant was seriously damaged and set on fire by Iraqi antiship missiles while anchored off the coast of Larak Island (see Seawise Giant after the air attack for photos).

 

The other island in discussion is Abu Musa and its surrounding islands. It is even smaller and is disputed between Iran and UEA. So the U.S. could seize the islands and hand them over to UAE. It is inside the gulf just outside of the Strait of Hormuz. It is just south of the deep water shipping lanes that go to and from the strait.

 

It is 4.9 square miles (12.8 square kilometers). It is 43 miles (70 kilometers) from the Iranian mainland and 37 miles (59 kilometers) from the UAE mainland. The highest point is the 360 foot (110 meter) Mount Halva. The town of Abu Musa has a population of 1,953 and the entire island has a population of 2,131 (2012). 

Looks like elements of the 82nd Airborne Division are heading to the Gulf

Well, it looks like elements of the headquarters and the entire 1st Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division is heading to the Gulf. See: Pentagon confirms elements from the 82nd Airborne Division to deploy to the Middle East

This adds three more maneuver battalions to the six slated to be in the area in a couple of weeks. Supposedly, the brigade can be moved there in 18 hours.  They probably won’t get there that fast but might get there before the 11th MEU (see my Kharg post on that). 

Hard to envision that you would move parts of the 82nd Airborne Division if you were not going to do something. It appears the three options are 1) Kharg, 2) Isfaran and 3) Qeshm, with Kharg the most likely option for deployment. Might be just an attempt to provide more pressure on Iran in negotiations.

I also note articles like this one: Trump on brink of ground invasion in Iran as Saudi strongman makes astonishing pitch in secret call. Have no idea if there is any validity to the article.

I will avoid for now pontificating, or more aptly, speculating as to what will be done and how it will work. There is a point when you should not say more than what you actually know.

A few relevant links:

Kharg Island – The Dupuy Institute

Isfaran – The Dupuy Institute

Qeshm Island and the Straits of Hormuz – The Dupuy Institute

Qeshm Island and the Straits of Hormuz

The Straits of Hormuz is dotted with islands. The largest is Qeshm. Is it expected that if the U.S. is going to conduct land operations against Iran it will either be at Kharg, Isfaran or at Qeshm and possibly Hormuz Island and other islands in the Strait.

The Straits of Hormuz is 104 miles long (167 kilometers) with a width that varies from 24 mils 929 kilometers) to 60 miles (97 kilometers). It is bordered in the north by Iran and in the south by the UAE and Oman (Musandam Peninsula).  

Qeshm is by far the largest island in the strait. While there is a considerable doubt about the value of occupying this island, it has certainly been discussed. 

 

The island itself is 576 square miles (1,500 square kilometers). In comparison, Fairfax Country VA is 406 square miles (1,050 square kilometers). The country of Bahrain is 304 square miles (787 square kilometers). It is 84 miles long (135 kilometers) and between 5.8 (9.4 kilometers) and 25 miles (40 kilometers) wide. It is within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the Iranian mainland. There is no bridge connecting the island to the mainland. 

The island as of 2016 has a population of 148,993 in at least 59 villages and towns. The largest town is Qeshm (40,678).  The existence of this large population would create complications for any U.S. ground operations.

It did have an earthquake just off shore in 2005 of Magnitude 6.0 that killed 13.

In 1622 English navigator William Baffin (of Baffin Bay and Baffin Island) was mortally wounded there fighting the Portuguese. One English bible editor has posited that this was where the Garden of Edin was located. It is pretty dry now.

A few interesting links: Inside Qeshm, Iran’s underground missile fortress and geological marvel | US-Israel war on Iran | Al Jazeera and Qeshm Island.

Another island in the strait is Hormuz Island. It is much smaller, being 16 square miles (42 square kilometers) and 610 feet (186 meters) in height. It is 5 miles (8 kilometers) off the Iranian coast and within sight of Qeshm. It has a population of around 6,000. This 2025 travel video is worth watching: 10 BEST Things to do on Hormuz Island in Iran 🇮🇷

Anyhow, for a variety of reasons, I do not think the U.S. is going to do ground operations at Qeshm or Hormuz Island, but one never knows.

Kharg Island

Kharg Island is in the news a lot, so let’s talk about it. It is the primary shipping hub for Iranian oil located near the northeast end of the Gulf. It is 107 miles (172 kilometers) from Iraq. Just to state the obvious, it is no where near the straits of Hormuz (it is 410 miles, 660 kilometers, away from them).

 

The island can actually be seen on this map near Iran, opposite of Kuwait. If I had a graphics person, we would add a red dot to the map.

It is a coral outcrop some 16-17 miles (25-28 kilometers) off the coast of Iran. It is 5 miles long (8 kilometers) and 2.5 to 3 miles wide (4-5 kilometers). The highest elevation is 230 feet (70 meters). It has its own supply of fresh water and the waters around it are deep. There are a number of nearby offshore oil fields that are piped directly to the island. It is the sea port for the export of 90% of Iran’s oil products. It has the ability to store up to 30 million barrels of oil. It has a population for 8,193 as of 2016, It is the home of several archaeological sites, including a Christian monastery.

 

Now, the U.S. is assembling forces. On the way to the Gulf is the 31st MEU (based in Okinawa), which will be arriving maybe later this week. It is based round the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli (LHA-7). These are small carriers. Along with it is the USS New Orleans (LPD-18). See: UPDATED: Tripoli ARG, 31st MEU Transit Malacca Strait En Route to the Middle East – USNI News.

Being sent there from the west coast is the 11th MEU, based out of Camp Pendelton CA, along with the USS Boxer (LHD-4), USS Comstock (LSD-45) and USS Portland (LPD-27). It will take three weeks or longer to arrive.

A Marine Expeditionary Unit is a brigade size force of 2,200 that includes command elements, a reinforced infantry battalion, a composite helicopter squadron and a logistics combat element. It can land a reinforced battalion. The U.S. has 7 MEU’s. Two are soon expected to be in the gulf region. Besides landing these MEU’s, the Marine Corps does not have any independent capability to conduct an opposed landing of a brigade-size force or larger. See: Marine Expeditionary Unit – Wikipedia

It is close enough to Iraq that forces could be inserted by helicopter directly from there or from a number of other spots in the Persian Gulf. If operations were done against Kharg, it would probably be an air assault vice an amphibious operation, even though certainly Marines would be involved. I gather there are some army assets in the region including the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, and the 2nd Battalion of the 127th Infantry Regiment (Wisconsin National Guard). I assume they are both located in Iraq and Syria. (See:10th Mountain brigade to deploy to Middle East, Army says | Stars and Stripes and Army’s 10th Mountain Division gets orders to deploy to Middle East ). This provides four additional maneuver battalions. Additional army assets are being sent to the gulf, including helicopters. There are rumors that one brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division might also be sent.

So potentially in three weeks are so we will have six maneuver battalions available for operations in either Kharg, Isfaran (see: Isfaran – The Dupuy Institute) or Qeshm or other islands in the Straits of Hormuz.

E. B. Vandiver, long serving head of CAA, has passed away

E. B. Vandiver, known to everyone as “Van”, passed away this last week at the age of 87. He became the director of the Concepts Analysis Agency in 1984. I first briefed him in 1987 when I was leading the Ardennes Campaign Simulation Data Base (ACSDB). He retired from full-time work in 2012, promoted up to being “Director Emeritus.” CAA had now become the Center for Army Analysis and had moved to its own building in Fort Belvoir.

A bio: Edgar Bishop Vandiver III (born September 19, 1938), American operations research analyst | World Biographical Encyclopedia

I gather there will be services in Fairfax, VA on Wednesday, March 25.

Obituary: Edgar Bishop Vandiver III Obituary (1938-2026) | Fairfax, VA

As he was the head of the Army’s premier analytical office for almost 30 years, he had an impact on the army and its development from the 1980s, through the collapse of the Soviet Union, through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and after. The head of CAA started as a major general slot back in 1973. Vandiver filled that role for 28 years. 

Past Directors:

  • MG Hal Hallgren January 1973 – February 1976
  • MG Ennis C. Whitehead Jr. April 1976 – May 1980
  • MG Edward B. Atkenson July 1980 – February 1982
  • Mr. David C. Hardison February 1982 – September 1984
  • Mr. E. B. Vandiver III September 1984 – November 2012
  • Dr. William Forrest Crain November 2012 – May 2020

Current Director: Dr. Steven Alexander Stoddard

Wikipeida article on CAA: Center for Army Analysis – Wikipedia

In his almost 30 years at CAA, he tended to make his impact through his management and direct conversation, as opposed to issuing papers and reports. I always found this oral history project done in 2005 to be of interest:

Military Operations Research Society (MORS) Oral History Project Interview of E.B. Vandiver, III, FS on JSTOR

Anyhow, we crossed paths a lot over the decades, although we did not know each other personally. The first major project I worked on, the ACSDB, was funded by CAA and regularly briefed to Van starting in 1987. The Kursk Data Base project I worked on was funded by CAA and was the source for four of my books (my fourth book on Kursk is coming out this fall). We were asked by him to do the Enemy Prisoner of Wars (EPW) studies and the three Urban Warfare studies among other projects. We ended up do the Iraq Casualty Estimate for him in 2004. That work is summarized in my book America’s Modern Wars. Certainly, half of my book War by Numbers was as a result of CAA funding. It was a productive relationship that lasted 22 years. Certainly his willingness to take me seriously when I first started working in this industry in 1987 and his willingness to continue taking me seriously after Trevor Dupuy passed away in 1995, went a long way in being able to do the work that I desired and in keeping The Dupuy Institute alive. 

My last conversation with him was in 2009 or so as the budget was in decline and there was little funding left. I did acknowledge him in several of my books. In the end, without Vandiver at CAA, I would not have had the career I had and could not have done the explorations that I did. He tended to provide budget and let us work the projects as we best felt. He always supported the value of historical research and historical analysis. He had a very significant impact on the community.