Home

  • Smoke ‘em if you got… oh, hell.

  • Django Unchained and the Terry Stop

    You may have seen the news where Daniele Watts, an actress from the movie Django Unchained, claims she was unjustly place in handcuffs and mistaken for a prostitute, just because she was black.

    As usual, it’s not quite that simple.

    Ms. Watts admits she was with her boyfriend, Brian Lucas, and that the two were kissing in the car.

    Apparently, witnesses in the Directors Guild building thought the two were having sex in the car. Whether they were or were not is irrelevant.

    Someone, likely someone in the DG building, called the police to report what they thought was indecent exposure.

    And the police responded.

    When the police encounter you in such a circumstance, or more often, when they pull you over for a traffic violation, that’s known as a Terry stop, from the 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio, the decision which laid down the constitutional guidelines for such an encounter.

    Basically, the police may briefly detain you so long as they reasonably suspect that someone may be engaged in criminal activity. And “reasonably suspect” is further described as “specific and articulable facts”  that a crime has been committed, or is being, or will be.  Note, this is a far, far lower bar than probable cause for arrest. Basically, the reasonable suspicion of a crime is the hurdle that must be cleared to begin an investigation, not to effect an arrest.

    The police, having received a call that someone matching the descriptions of Ms. Watts and Mr. Jones, and finding persons matching that description at the reported location, can articulate specific facts that led them to suspect a crime had been committed, at least enough to investigate.

    Approaching Ms. Watts, the officers demanded identification. Now, there are conflicting court decisions regarding the validity of a stop and identify status in California. But at this point, for the purposes of Terry, this encounter became a detention.  And it is generally held that you must identify yourself to police during a detention. Whether that must be via written, state issued ID, or simply a telling of a full true name, or other biographical information, what you may not do is simply walk away and disregard the officer. And apparently, that’s what Ms. Watts did.

    In a police audio of the incident obtained by TMZ, Daniele Watts is heard accusing the police of racism when Sgt. Jim Parker asks her for ID. She then tells cops that they don’t who she is before storming off, refusing to show her ID.

    Witnesses from the nearby Directors Guild office building allegedly told the police they were watching her and her boyfriend have sex in the passenger seat with the door open.

    One eyewitness said the man was sitting in the seat while she was straddling him, in plain sight of everyone around them.

    After storming off, Watts was apprehended by a police officer a short distance away and brought back where she continued her rant.

    First, having authority to detain you, they also have the authority to use reasonable force to effect the detention.  Having left the scene, the escalation to handcuffs is a reasonable one for the police to take. Mind you, at this time, the police still have not ascertained Ms. Watts identification.

    Further, in many jurisdictions, storming off would constitute interfering with an investigation or some similar offense. That is, while the Terry stop is a brief detention for purposes of investigation, the interfering with investigation is a crime itself, outside the original suspicion that prompted the stop, and the police, having seen the violation with his own eyes, would have more than cleared the bar for probable cause not just to investigate, but to actually arrest and charge.

    We’re reasonably quick to condemn the heavy handed actions of the police. And we’re appalled at the numbers of officers who seem to not understand the laws of their jurisdictions. But virtually every officer in America is extremely well versed in the rules and limits of Terry, even if Sgt. Parker conflated the reasonable suspicion of a Terry stop and Probable Cause. That they chose to complete their investigation into the original complaint of indecent exposure, and not to pursue charges against Ms. Watts for interference is to her good fortune.

    We’ll not also a common police tactic that every Army recruiter is familiar with.

    We have a strong suspicion that part of why Ms. Watts reacted the way she did was the police were not terribly forthcoming with what they were doing, and what Ms. Watts legal status was. Rather forthrightly explaining why the police were detaining her, and why they could demand she identify herself, Sgt. Parker prefers to ask open ended, fact finding questions.

    Sgt. Parker (to Watts): What’s your first name? Why do you think you’re in handcuffs? Do you think we put you in handcuffs or you did?

    Watts: I put myself in handcuffs?

    Sgt. Parker: Who do you think put yourself in handcuffs? Who do you think put you in handcuffs?

    Watts: I think that this officer right here put me handcuffs because…

    Sgt. Parker No, I think you did the minute you left the scene.

    While at first, it seems Sgt. Parker is going of a little self justifying rant, what he’s really attempting to do is get Ms. Watts talking. And the first rule of staying out of jail is, DON’T TALK TO THE POLICE.

    Sgt. Parker likely doesn’t have any great particular expectation that Ms. Watts will say something terribly incriminating. It’s just that officers virtually always talk to citizens and suspects this way, in an attempt to get people talking. You never know. Maybe she will suddenly say something terribly self incriminating.

    Army recruiters use open ended fact finding questions both as a means of establishing rapport with prospects, and as a tool to help better determine the possible motivations and goals of applicants.

  • The Tao of Boyd: How to Master the OODA Loop | The Art of Manliness

    John Boyd is described by some as the greatest military strategist in history that no one knows. He began his military career as a fighter pilot in the Korean War, but he slowly transformed himself into one of the greatest philosopher-warriors to ever live.

    In 1961, at age 33, he wrote “Aerial Attack Study,” which codified the best dogfighting tactics for the first time, became the “bible of air combat,” and revolutionized the methods of every air force in the world.

    His Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) Theory helped give birth to the legendary F-15, F-16, and A-10 aircraft.

    Perhaps his most significant contribution to military strategy, though, came from a series of briefings he gave. In them, Boyd laid out a way of thinking about conflict that would revolutionize warfare around the world.

    The idea centers on an incredible strategic tool: the OODA Loop — Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. Nation-states around the world and even terrorist organizations use the OODA Loop as part of their military strategy. It has also been adopted by businesses to help them thrive in a volatile and highly competitive economy.

    via The Tao of Boyd: How to Master the OODA Loop | The Art of Manliness.

    It’s a long post, but one of the better explanations of the OODA loop I’ve seen for the layman.

    While AirLand Battle Doctrine didn’t embrace the OODA loop, it DID stress agility, and meant very much to do so in an intellectual, mental manner, not merely as a physical characteristic.

  • Albert Wedemeyer and the Victory Plan

    The 1941 Victory Plan came up in the comments about the mobilization of divisions for World War II.  It’s a topic that’s little known outside historical circles, but one worth serious scholarly study. Unfortantely, I’m pressed for time, so you only get the briefest gloss on the subject.

    The US Army had for some time anticipated that it might be drawn into the war in Europe. And it had sown the seeds of a massive mobilization of the Army. In 1940, for the first time, the Congress enacted a peacetime draft, greatly swelling the ranks of the Army. But at that time, while the Army might anticipate being drawn into war with Germany, the nation was still at peace, and there was still a very strong isolationist sentiment in the country. The first role of the swelling Army authorized in 1940 was to train an Army for the defense of our own coasts, and then to provide task forces for the defense of the Western Hemisphere, particularly in areas such as the Caribbean and the Panama Canal.

    With the increased cooperation with Britain in 1941, however, it came to be understood that if the US did in fact find itself at war with Germany, it would have to come to grips with the German army and destroy it. That meant deploying across the Atlantic.

    That summer, GEN George C. Marshall tasked an obscure Major, Albert C. Wedemeyer to come up with a plan, outlining what the national objectives were (based on political guidance and the assumption that we would in fact join with Britain to fight Germany), what would be needed to defeat Germany in terms of forces, and the production and manpower required to fulfill that need.

    With all the officers senior to Wedemeyer, even in the Pentagon, Marshall’s choice seems a touch odd. But Wedemeyer was hardly your run of the mill Major. He had a few things going for him. First, the wave of promotions the Regular Army was about to undergo hadn’t quite caught up to him yet. But like virtually all Regulars, he would have seen some level of promotion soon in the expanding Army. Second, he had spent the 20s and 30s largely in schools, schools that had made him almost uniquely qualified to undertake this task.

    Wedemeyer knew the Germans better than almost any other officer in the War Plans Division. He’d actually attended their Kriegsakademie, the German Army Staff School.

    Second, Wedemeyer had access to the Army Industrial College. Stung by the poor showing of American industry in the mobilization of World War I, the Army in 1924 set up a think tank to analyze the industrial capacity of the country, and determine which industries could be converted to militarily useful wartime production. The college had an encyclopedic knowledge of virtually every industry, virtually every set of machine tools in the entire nation. If you wanted to know where the Army could buy 8 million entrenching tools, the AIC had a master document that could show which companies could best convert to making them.

    Most importantly, Marshall knew and trusted him. Marshall had a short list of officers he knew, or knew of, whose past performance had impressed him sufficiently that he would task them with seemingly impossible planning missions. Having assigned a task, Marshall would then leave the officer to work with little interference. If that officer measured up and produced, he would almost certainly be rewarded with promotion, and command. If the officer failed, he would be banished to less critical roles.

    Wedemeyer understood that a modern industrial nation could realistically only put about 10% of its population in uniform. His estimates of manpower in total, and roughly how they would be equipped, and the industrial might required to do that, were incredibly prescient. His estimate that, accounting for the Navy and the Marines, that the Army would put about 8 million men in uniform spot on.

    Where he erred badly, as noted in the comments of the previous post, was the estimate of the total number of divisions the Army could field. The rough number he estimated was 215 divisions. As it turned out, the Army would only activate 91 divisions. There were a couple reasons for this. Again, as noted in the comments, the support troops required were far in excess of original estimates. That includes both the institutional side of the Army dedicated to training troops, as well as the logisticians required to keep the Army in the field. Further, the numbers of non-divisional troops raised were far in excess of his estimates. For instance, the Army raised dozens of tank destroyer battalions during the war, none of which Wedemeyer anticipated in the Victory Plan. Similarly, he had not anticipated the large numbers of independent tank battalions, nor the large numbers of field artillery battalions outside of Division Artillery. In the event, the habitual attachment of a TD battalion and an independent tank battalion to almost every division in Western Europe resulted in a de facto level of armor in an infantry division that was utterly absent in Wehrmacht infantry divisions.

    Wedemeyer did see that the relatively small triangular division would have to be heavy on firepower, with generous numbers of automatic weapons, mortars, field guns, anti-tank guns, and artillery. Further, it was incredibly mobile. US infantry divisions both had huge numbers of trucks assigned (compared to the German army) both as prime movers, and as lift for logistics and troop transport. And there were also huge numbers of non-divisional truck companies to support the logistics of the Army in the field.

    Wedemeyer got far more right than he got wrong. Most importantly, with a fairly rational starting point, the Army could do just that- get started.

    Marshall eventually rewarded Wedemeyer with stars, and duty in the Far East. Not as visible or as important as other theaters, Wedemeyer’s name is almost unknown outside military history circles. But that doesn’t diminish the incredible accomplishment of his Victory Plan.

    For further reading, this is a good place to start.

  • iSAT

    The local chapter of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics hosted a luncheon today with John Dankanich, the iSAT program manager as speaker. iSAT stands for Iodine Satellite, and it is a Cubesat program to test iodine instead of xenon in a Hall thruster engine. Right now, there aren’t a lot of options for small satellite propulsion. Solid motors are one use only, liquid engines take a lot of weight and space, and hypergols will try to kill you. By letting the iodine sublimate, i.e. go directly from solid to gas, all you need is a little heat to turn on your engine.

    This isn’t the kind of engine that will lift a payload from Earth to orbit, but it will allow orbit change, even inclination change. Dankanich spoke about the military uses, being able to put communication relays or observation satellites into the right orbit quickly, perhaps even a constellation. You could have a constellation of small, cheap satellites around the moon or Mars or Venus. As for myself, I was interested in the end-of-life uses for small satellites, to deorbit a spacecraft before it becomes space debris.

    Another point in favor of iodine was the much lower pressure than the current xenon Hall thruster engines. It opens up the possibility of rapid-prototyping your tank and even a conformal design to fit in the available space. Iodine presents some challenges in terms of what materials it’s compatible with, but we ought to be able to handle that.

    Busek thruster proposed for iSAT.  Photo courtesy of NASA/iSAT's Facebook page.
    Busek thruster proposed for iSAT. Photo courtesy of NASA/iSAT’s Facebook page.

    It was an interesting talk, and it sounds like they have hit the ground running with a lot of hardware ready to go or easily modified for this mission. I wish them a lot of success in the future.

    If you’d like to follow iSAT’s progress, they are on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/NASAisat .

  • H. R. McMaster in the news

    Go hit CDR Salamander this morning.

    LTG H. R. McMaster, arguably the best strategic mind in the Army right now, spoke recently  to the AUSA on the future of warfare.

    WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Sept. 10, 2014) — Americans and their leaders all too often wear rose-tinted glasses when it comes to assessing future warfare, said the deputy commander of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command for Futures and director, Army Capabilities Center.
    Too often, people think battles can be won through engineering and technological advances: cyber, advanced weapons systems, robotics and so on, said Lt. Gen. Herbert R. McMaster Jr.
    Big defense firms sell big-ticket systems that are supposed to win wars, he said. The firms use subtle and not-so-subtle advertising that you need this system for the sake of your children and grandchildren and if you don’t purchase it, “you’re heartless.” Congress usually obliges…

    …Although the Army has dominated the battlefield technologically in the recent past, that’s no guarantee against an increasingly agile, adaptive foe. The enemy is becoming more adept at eluding firepower through dispersion into civilian areas, disrupting communications and adopting new technologies, he explained. And, non-state actors like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are already fielding capabilities once the sole domain of states.
    The “zero dark-thirty” myth is another, he said. This idea uses systems theory to explain warfare as a series of linked nodes. The idea is to selectively take out nodes that are critical to the enemy’s network.
    In systems theory, the U.S. would simply conduct air strikes or a special operations raid of limited duration to disrupt the network, he said. The systems theory goes back to the Spanish-American War in 1898, when sea power was supposed to win the war, but it took boots on the ground, he said.

    As CDR Sal alludes, sometimes the medium IS the message. This wasn’t an OpEd piece in a military journal or a newspaper. This was on the army.mil domain. That makes it, if not official policy, then official enough.

    There’s a lively discussion in the comments at Sal’s, which has a greater depth and grasp of history than any coming from the White House about our operations against ISIS.

  • Load HEAT- Anna Torv

    I can’t tell you how many times over the years people have suggested the Fringe star for LH. We’ve got a fairly rabid bunch of sci-fi fans as readers. And finally, here she is.

    Anna Torv (1)Anna Torv (1)Anna Torv (1)Anna Torv (2)Anna Torv (2)Anna Torv (3)Anna Torv (3)Anna Torv (4)Anna Torv (5)Anna Torv (6)FOX UpfrontAnna Torv (8)Anna Torv (9)Anna Torv (10)Anna Torv (11)Anna Torv (12)Anna Torv (13)

  • The Star Spangled Banner at 200

    I’m  a bit late to this.

    Saturday marked the 200th anniversary of the British bombardment of Ft. McHenry. The bombardment was watched, from aboard a British ship, by Francis Scott Key, who penned the poem that became, eventually, our national anthem. Notoriously difficult to sing, when sung properly, I still find it moves my very soul.

    And yes, that banner still waves, o’er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

    https://i0.wp.com/free-photos.co/albums/american-flags/large-american-flag-flying-in-the-wind.jpg

  • Daily Dose of Splodey- Volcano, not JDAM edition

  • World War II- Mobilization on an Industrial Scale- The Creation of a Division

    From the Napoleonic Era through the end of WWII, the basic model of large scale land warfare was of the mobilization army. That is, a small professional army in peacetime would vastly expand in time of war by means of conscription of a major swath of the military aged male population. The standing army would provide the framework upon which to build new units, and the command structure of corps, armies and theater headquarters.

    For most of this era, the regiment was the standard formation raised. Roughly 1000 men strong, and virtually all of it infantry, as little as a few weeks of drill would suffice as training before a conscription regiment was considered fit for duty.

    But by the time of the beginning of World War II, the US Army had evolved its doctrine to embrace combined arms, especially the integration of infantry with artillery as a team. Further, advances in motorization, signals, and engineering, coupled with a shift to the division as a standing permanent formation, as well as being the primary tactical formation, meant that rather than simply raising regiments, the Army would focus on raising divisions, training them as a single unit, and once trained, deploying that entire division overseas to a theater commander as an integrated tactical unit.

    First, let us take a quick look at the Army’s triangular infantry division. The division consisted of a headquarters, three Infantry regiments, a Division Artillery of roughly regimental size, and the Division troops, with such diverse units as the Engineer Combat Battalion, the Medical Battalion, the Cavalry Reconnaissance Troop, Quartermaster, Ordnance, and Signal companies, and a Military Police Platoon.

    All total, the division would have a strength of just over 14,000 officers and men. And virtually the entirety of the divisions men would be draftees with absolutely no military experience. The division would have to train them both in the most basic of military skills, then for the specialty the Army intended for them at an individual level, and finally, once some semblance of individual skills had been imparted, begin training the component units as units.

    A couple months before a division was activated, the head of Army Ground Forces, LTG Leslie McNair, would sit down with the head of Army personnel and pick the future Division Commander, the Assistant Division Commander, and the Division Artillery Commander; that is, the three general officers of a division, one Major General, and two Brigadier Generals. Those officers would be sent to a short course at the Army’s Command and General Staff School to be indoctrinated on the organization, training, and tactical employment of the division

    Concurrently, a cadre of about 1300 officers and senior NCOs would be selected from an existing division to form the skeleton of the new division. For instance, the Division staff, the commanders of the various regiments and battalions, and key positions in their staffs would be named. This cadre would also undergo training in anticipation of the division’s activation, but with more an emphasis on how to train the draftees that would shortly come into their charge.

    The great majority of divisions raised for the war were infantry divisions McNair’s AGF laid out a standard training schedule that divisions would follow. Lasting roughly one year, at the end of a crawl-walk-run approach to unit training, AGF would have produced a division that it could release for embarkation overseas to a theater commander.

    The broad overview of the training schedule looked like this:

    17 weeks of basic and advanced training
        13 weeks of unit training
        14 weeks of combined arms training and large-scale exercises
        8 weeks of final training

    The first 17 weeks would be devoted to what today we would call Initial Entry Training. Rather than conducting basic training at another post and then joining the division, here the division bootstrapped its own basic training course, over about 8 weeks, and then conducted what amounted to Military Occupational Specialty training for the many, many different jobs in the division.

    The 13 weeks of unit training would quickly build from the team to the battalion level. Examples might start small, such as the rifle squad in the defense, then quickly grow to an entire company live fire attack course.

    Fourteen weeks of combined arms training was where the division’s regiments began integrating with the supporting divisional artillery battalions, forming the Infantry/Artillery team that was the heart of the division’s combat power. See also this link.

    The final 8 weeks of training ideally saw the entire division maneuvering as a single unit, and exercised not just the combat troops, but also the logistical elements of the division. And of course, as larger and larger units maneuvered, the staffs and headquarters of those units became more familiar with how to best employ them.

    The Chief of Staff of the Army, GEN George Marshall, was a great believer in large-scale, force on force maneuvers. During unit and combined arms training, the various companies, battalions and regiments of a division could square off against one another. Eventually, the division would conduct maneuvers against another division going through its own mobilization and training.

    Having completed its year long training schedule, the division would continue training at various levels until such time as it was alerted for embarkation and deployment.

    Two other major ingredients were needed for the division’s recipe. One was equipment. The other was a post, or cantonment for the troops to live and train on. Personnel turbulence would also have a major effect on a division’s ability to constitute itself and train for deployment.

    The common perception today is the the US simply produced vast quantities of all the material needed for war. And to be sure, the US did pull off a miracle of manufacturing. But in the early stages of mobilization, the production of equipment was not yet vast enough to equip units as they were activated. Typically, as a division was planned for activation, the Quartermaster Corps would begin planning to issue all the thousands of different pieces of equipment a division would need, from uniforms to rifles, to trucks, artillery pieces, signal wire for field telephones and untold other numbers of items.

    But as noted, rarely was the production of war material sufficient to fully equip a division. Usually, a division would be issued roughly half the equipment its tables of organization called for. That limited allocation would at least allow the division to begin training.

    But while a partial allocation might be enough to begin training, it was usually only sufficient to train at the individual and small team level. A division however, is more than a collection of small teams. It was a carefully designed tactical formation, a weapon that was more than the sum of its parts. It was designed to be wielded as an entire formation, and as such, it needed to train at all levels, from the individual up through and including the entire division. But putting the entire division through its paces was clearly impossible without its full complement of equipment.

    Of course, the division’s Quartermasters would attempt to draw the rest of the division’s equipment as training went along. The hope was that by the time regimental and divisional level training took place, the full allocation of equipment would be on hand.

    It rarely worked so smoothly. First, even as the Army was struggling to mobilize divisions, industry was still struggling to ramp up production of military equipment. Worse, just about the time the fruits of that production star
    ted to come forth, Lend Lease came upon the scene, and much of what the Army had planned for was suddenly diverted to Britain, Russia, China, and other Allied nations.

    Even as divisions trained on what little equipment they had, changes were afoot. New models of equipment or entirely new types were introduced into service, meaning that a division would have to completely retrain on new equipment. One example is the basic rifle of the Army. M1 Garand production was slower than hoped, so prior to 1943, virtually all the divisions created trained throughout their mobilization with the M1903A3 Springfield rifle. Only when they were alerted for embarkation for overseas service would they receive M1 rifles.

    The production of equipment and the mobilization of divisions did not often align, and neither did the mobilization of divisions, and the need for divisions to deploy. Early deployment of US forces, particularly before our entry into the war in December 1941, were usually regimental sized and limited to the Western Hemisphere for the defense of advance bases in places such as the Caribbean. Early campaigns such as the invasion of North Africa in Operation Torch employed divisions that hadn’t fully completed their training. Worse, not having the full complement of their equipment, they were forced to strip other divisions in training of what little equipment they’d managed to gather. That had a knock on effect of delaying the training of those units. It would be well into 1943 before a division could reasonably expect to have a complete divisional set of equipment for the final phases of its training.

    Simply keeping people in the division during training was a struggle. One of the key concepts of the Army in WWII was that we would field a small overall number of divisions, but they would be kept at full strength through individual replacements once committed to combat operations.

    But even before deployment, indeed, throughout training, a division would face a drain on its manpower. The cadre that first formed the core of a division had come from another division, further along in the training pipeline. Eventually, our division in training would be tasked to calve off 1100 or so of its most experienced officers and men to form the cadre of yet another division. This large-scale turnover in often key personnel was often a significant blow to the training of a division. And it wasn’t the only drain on manpower. Throughout the Army, volunteers were sought for special programs, such as Airborne training, special units, transfers to the Air Corps, and large numbers of the brightest enlisted men to attend Officer’s Candidate School (OCS). New draftees would be sent to bring the division back up to strength during its training, but the need to train those draftees at the individual level while simultaneously trying to train the units at higher levels was a challenge. Turnover of a quarter of a division’s personnel was not uncommon, and as much as half in some cases.

    We will describe the challenges of providing a post and associated facilities for raising and training a wartime division in a later post.

    In spite of the challenges facing a division commander when tasked to raise a division for service in World War II, the Army, and LTG McNair’s Army Ground Forces had devised a well thought out program that did allow the Army to raise and train divisions rapidly. Some divisions were better trained than others when deployed, but that was often more a matter of the talents of the commanders than of the training program devised. The division making process was successful enough that of the five US divisions committed to the invasion of Normandy on D-Day, arguably the single most important day of the war, three had never before been in combat.