The interesting aspect of that survey is: 60% of Republicans support sending U.S. troops to Taiwan’s defense, as do 50% of Democrats and 49% of Independents.
I have been involved in an off-line discussion related to combat modeling. This is a discussion relevant to that conversation. It is from page 56, Chapter 7: Measuring Human Factors in Combat, of War by Numbers.
Casualty Effectiveness versus Combat Effectiveness
Much of the above analysis was based upon a measurement of casualty effectiveness. This is an outcome. The actual factor we are trying to measure is combat effectiveness. We have no means of directly measuring that. For his combat models, Trevor Dupuy was able to produce a Combat Effectiveness Value (CEV) based upon comparing the results of the model runs to the historical outcomes. The CEV served as a force multiplier for one side. As such, if a force with the CEV of two was attacking at even odds, it would be treated the same as if it was attacking at two-to-one odds. This would then result in better outcomes, more favorable casualty exchange ratios, and higher advance rates. While there was a not a direct linear relationship in the model between combat effectiveness and casualty effectiveness, a higher combat effectiveness value clearly improved casualty effectiveness. Casualty effectiveness was usually higher than the combat effectiveness value.
There is a sense that one can determine “combat effectiveness” as the square root of casualty effectiveness. In this construct, a casualty effectiveness of four would mean a combat effectiveness value of two. In effect, being twice as good as your opponent results in a favorable casualty exchange being four times better. This has not been systematically tested.[1]
Added to that there are some armies that are “casualty insensitive.” This certainly describes the Soviet Army in World War II, which was more than willing to take casualties for the sake of completing the mission or fulfilling their orders. The failure to encourage individual initiative at the lower levels and the insistence that orders must be followed regardless just amplified this tendency. It appears that the Soviet Army rather needlessly suffered additional casualties above and beyond that which other armies would suffer in the same scenario, and that this “casualty insensitive” regime also influenced the casualty effectiveness figures. This certainly also applies to the Japanese Army in World War II, especially with their “banzai charges” and tendency to fight until exterminated.
Still, casualty effectiveness is an important metric and one that gets the analyst closer to combat effectiveness; it is just not a perfect measure.
[1] And we do not know how to test this outside of using a combat model structure.
Basically, Taiwan is saying that China is considering invading Pratas island in 2024 or after (but not before 2024).
Now, Pratas Island is located 200 miles (310 kilometers) southeast of Hong Kong. It is 276 miles (444 kilometers) from Taiwan.
It is a circular atoll with a single island that is crescent-shaped (see picture). It is that little piece of land in the western part of the atoll with a lagoon.
Map of Pratas Island (1969)
The island is about 430 acres (174 hectares) and measure 1.7 miles long (2.8 kilometers) and is only about a half-mile wide (0.537 miles or 0.865 kilometers). Not exactly a prize the size of Taiwan. There are “numerous” oil wells to the west of island. Not sure how much, if any, oil is being pumped there.
The height of the island at the base of the “The Pratas Triangulation Point” is 2.4875 meters (8.16 feet). Sea levels are currently projected to rise 2-3 feet by the end of this century, so I gather this island is going to get smaller over time.
According to Wikipedia there are about 500 Taiwanese marines stationed there. The island has no permanent inhabitants. (see: Pratas Island – Wikipedia).
Pratas Island Lagoon
Now, I am not sure I am going to loose a lot of sleep over this one.
It is a fairly insignificant piece of terrain.
No one lives there.
Is China really going to take the political and economic hit to take this?
If China grabbed the island, they were certainly take a political hit. They are not exactly the most popular country in the world right now, and this would have a negative impact to their world image and standing. I assume the local defense force would defend it, making it a bloody conquest. What would be the cost of this?
Militarily, it would serve to justify increases in the U.S., Taiwanese, South Korean and Japanese defense budgets.
Economically, it might have little impact, but two of China’s major trading partners are the United States and Taiwan. There might be limited or extensive economic sanctions.
Afghan village near Kunduz, 5 May 2008 (photo by William A. Lawrence II).
Well, I took the time over the last few weeks to post up most of my Chapter on Afghanistan from my book America’s Modern Wars. It was interesting to revisit what I had written. The 13 blog posts are summarized here:
Note that our fourth to last sentence on the subject is: If history is a guide, then this government will be replaced one way or the other several years after we withdraw. This was written in early 2015.
I then continue: What will replace it is hard to determine, but will probably include a return to some extent of the Taliban, or perhaps with them leading the new government. It is also distinctly possible that the country will return back into civil war. None of this fulfills our objectives.
So, does my chapter on Afghanistan in America’s Modern Wars make us four-for-four?
We have discussed on this blog before our analysis for the Gulf War, the casualty estimate for Bosnia peacekeeping mission, and the casualty and duration estimate for Iraq. In each case, we were either the closest public estimate or pretty much dead on. Just as a reminder:
In 1995 we provided the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) with our predictions for Bosnia. This was, as far as I know, the first formal attempt to make a prediction of casualties for an “operation other than war.” This prediction is in Appendix II of America’s Modern Wars and is discussed here:
In 2004 we provided the Center for Army Analysis (CAA) and OSD Net Assessment our predictions of casualties and duration for the war in Iraq. Again, as far as I know, this was the first formal attempt to make an analytically based prediction on casualties and duration for a insurgency. This prediction is discussed in depth in Chapter 1 and Appendix I for America’s Modern Wars and is discussed here.
I always like to claim that we are three-for-three, in that we have published three predictions before conflicts occur that are fundamentally correct. As significant, in my mind, is that we were correct, based upon historical analysis and using combat models build upon history for not only a conventional war, but for an unconventional or guerilla war and for a peacekeeping mission. This is a wide range of scenarios. We are not aware of anyone else who has done this.
In early October I spent the weekend in Virginia Beach at the “Warbirds Over the Beach” airshow. This seventh post on the air show include some more Great War airplane pictures that I took and a few other pictures taken by others. It will be my last post of Great War airplanes for now.
This is a replica of SE-5a. One of the better allied fighters in the war (5205 built). It usually had one cowling mounted machinegun and one Lewis gun mounted on the upper wing.
In early October I spent the weekend in Virginia Beach at the “Warbirds Over the Beach” airshow. This sixth post on the air show include some more Great War airplane pictures that I took, and a few other pictures.
Fokker became famous during the Great War. In addition to inventing the first working synchronized machinegun, he also built a few nice planes. The first famous one was the Fokker Eindecker (E.I, E.II, E.III and two gunned E.IV, etc.), which was basically a French Morane Saulnier G with a metal frame and a Oberursel U.I. 9-cylinder rotary engine with 100 horsepower. This was a license built copy of the French Gnome Delta. The Morane Saulner G also used a Gnome engine (80 horsepower version). Below is a picture of replica of a Fokker E.III:
Fokker E.III at the airport in Jaroměř, Pterodactyl Flight, Radka Máchová, 2016 – photo taken by “Portwyn” (from Wikipedia)
The next famous Fokker, and arguably the most famous, is the Fokker DR.1 triplane. All Great War airshows seem to have one of these. This show had two. It was the plane that Baron Manfred von Richthofen (“The Bloody Red Baron”) scored his last 17 kills with and was shot down in.
Picture taken by friend.Picture taken by friend.Picture from the Military Aviation Museum.
And then there was the Fokker VII. There were two copies in the museum, but none flying that weekend.
Note: As indicated in the side markings, this Fokker DVII was built by Albatross. Below is a Fokker built by Fokker.
And then there was the Fokker D.VIII, back to using a single wing after using three and then two.
Picture taken by friend.Picture from the Military Aviation Museum.Picture taken by friend.
Picture from the Military Aviation Museum.
Anthony Fokker was Dutch, not German. After the war he moved back to Holland and then to America. He passed away in New York City in 1939 at the age of 49. This was one of his famous post-Great War planes:
The Southern Cross in 1943 (from Wikipedia)
This plane made the first ever trans-Pacific flight from mainland United States (Oakland, CA) to Brisbane, Australia in 1928. It was a distance of 7,250 miles (11,670 kilometers). It did stop at Hawaii and Fiji along the way. The crew was two Australian pilots and two Americans, a navigator and a radio operator.
In early October I spent the weekend in Virginia Beach at the “Warbirds Over the Beach” airshow. This fifth post on the air show include some more Great War airplane pictures that I took, and a few other pictures.
This is a Halberstadt CL IV. This was a late war plane introduced in 1918. Mercedes 6-cylinder water-cooled in-line piston engine of 160 horsepower. Some 700 were ordered. Two forward firing fixed machineguns (LMG 08/15 “Spandau”), one ring mounted machinegun (Parabellum MG 14) for the observer.
This version is a replica and it does differ from the original in a number of areas.
Of interest is the rear mounted machinegun on an circular ring mount. This was something the Germans were doing but the allies were not. This does appear to be a precise recreation of the ring mount.
The exterior radiators do not appear to be “standard issue.” Probably a modern addition. Below is a picture of a CL IV in the National Museum of the United States Air Force.
Source: From Wikipedia.
I do not think the high back seat is “original issue.”
And the cockpit. The windscreen is a modern addition. These airplanes did not have such a windscreen. Not sure how much of this cockpit is authentic.
A look from above with another museum piece. Note that ring mount is fundamentally different.
Source: Wikipedia taken by Eric Salard. Plane is at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum
So this version in Virginia Beach does not appear to be a perfect reproduction, but it does fly.
In early October I spent the weekend in Virginia Beach at the “Warbirds Over the Beach” airshow. This fourth post on the air show include some more Great War airplane pictures that I took, and a few other pictures.
Cockpit picture of a Nieuport 17, one of the most common of the French fighters (some 3,600 built). Now, I don’t know how authentic the cockpit is. They may have added some gauges for the sake of modern pilots, as this is a flying model. The sign that says “experimental” is not original issue. I gather it is there to meet an FAA requirement.
The plane was missing a gun. So, here is a period drawing of such:
The Alkan-Hamy synchonization gear installed in a Nieuport 17 (source: Wikipedia)
They also often just carried a Lewis gun on the top wing (or both)
Early Nieuport 17 in July 1916 with a Lewis gun and a cône de penetration (Source: Wikipedia)
In early October I spent the weekend in Virginia Beach at the “Warbirds Over the Beach” airshow. This third post on the air show includes some more of the pictures I took, and a few other more “professional” pictures.
After immersing myself in the thrilling displays at “Warbirds Over the Beach” in Virginia Beach, I couldn’t help but indulge in daydreams of owning a beachfront property. The serene waves and sandy shores beckon, offering a tranquil escape from the everyday hustle. Imagine waking up to the sound of the ocean, the salty breeze wafting through your windows. Whether it’s a cozy cottage or a modern beach house, the allure of beachfront real estate is undeniable. For those captivated by coastal living, exploring options like Miami’s vibrant offerings at https://exprealty.com/us/fl/miami/ presents an exciting opportunity to turn these dreams into reality.
Owning beachfront property isn’t just about luxury; it’s about embracing a lifestyle where every day feels like a vacation. Picture yourself strolling along the shore at sunrise or hosting friends for sunset gatherings with the ocean as your backdrop. The charm of beach communities like those found in Miami, with their blend of cultural richness and natural beauty, makes them a prime choice for those seeking both relaxation and adventure
This is a flying model of the Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter. I have already posted this picture. The Sopwith 1 1/2 stutter did its first flight in December 1915 and was introduced to combat in April 1916. It was the first British aircraft to enter service with a forward firing synchronized machine gun that fired through the propeller. It was also the first airplane to have air brakes (the Wikipedia article on air brakes only started discussing their history in 1931). It had a 130 horsepower French built Clerget 9B 9-cylinder air-cooled rotary piston engine. I gather 1,280 were built in England and 4,500 were license-built in France by 11 different companies.
This picture below taken by a friend of the same plane at the same time. Not sure why his picture looks brighter and better than mine. We were both using Apple I-phones. But then, I am really not that patient enough to be a good photographer.
They also had one in the museum
This is the observers compartment. Note the control stick. I gather this is a field improvisation, but was done during the Great War.
