jharper%euroies.ucd.ie@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Jerry Harper) (10/05/89)
From: Jerry Harper <jharper%euroies.ucd.ie@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
It has struck me over the last few months that one of the primary
presuppositions of weapons designers, and one rarely mentioned here, is
that operators will know how to make *effective* use of the artifacts.
(And the road to Hell is paved with good presuppositions :-). Just how
complete is the training within US forces concerning battlefield nuclear
weapons? I remember a report of four years ago which was headlined in
most UK newspapers regarding the appalling literacy levels to be found
among US frontline troops in charge of missile systems? Are such
statements veridical or not? With President Bush trying to get literacy
back on the agenda, I'd be interested in ex-service personnel experiences
with new technology.
Jerry Harper {email:john_harper_ucd@eurokom.ie jharper@euroies.uucp}
Artificial Intelligence Research Centre
Computer Science Department
University College Dublin
Dublin 4. IRELAND tel: 353-1-693244 x 2484patterso@ads.com (Tim J. Patterson) (10/07/89)
From: patterso@ads.com (Tim J. Patterson) In article <9936@cbnews.ATT.COM> jharper%euroies.ucd.ie@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Jerry Harper) writes: > > >It has struck me over the last few months that one of the primary >presuppositions of weapons designers, and one rarely mentioned here, is >that operators will know how to make *effective* use of the artifacts. >(And the road to Hell is paved with good presuppositions :-). Just how >complete is the training within US forces concerning battlefield nuclear >weapons? Extremely good point and a valid concern, I fuzzily recall a newpaper article about 3 years ago that said during a recent NATO exercise in Germany > 60% of the US tank crews could not use their range finders because they didn't know how to work them. Another piece of RUMINT Tim [mod.note: This reminds me of a footnote to the boardgame "Squad Leader." While noting that American tanks of WWII were fitted with gyrostabilizers for elevation (and granting them a lesser penalty to fire while moving than other nations) they pointed out that only one about crew in three understood the thing well enough to keep it aligned for proper use. - Bill]
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/09/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: patterso@ads.com (Tim J. Patterson) >... said during a recent NATO exercise in >Germany > 60% of the US tank crews could not use their range finders >because they didn't know how to work them. >[mod.note... American tanks of WWII were fitted with gyrostabilizers >for elevation... only one about crew in three >understood the thing well enough to keep it aligned for proper use. - Bill] And tank crews are an unusually favorable case, because there is usually some attempt to steer soldiers with mechanical aptitude or background into tanks or artillery. The infantry could use such people too, but usually has to make do with the leftovers, because the "mechanical branches" have constant huge maintenance workloads and need all the competent people they can get. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu