December 26, 2024: The old saying of “adapt or die “is applicable to life in general and war in particular. While not adapting in your life can harm, discomfort, surprise or dismay you, it’s usually not fatal. In war, failure to adapt will often get you killed. History is replete with examples. In ancient times the Greek city states that did not adapt eventually lost their independence while the ancient Romans eventually lost their empire by not adapting to new threats.

One of Rome’s foes was the Persian Empire. The Persians were enthusiastic adaptors and that enabled them to stop the previously unbeaten Roman army. The Persians did this with mounted soldiers, in an age before stirrups were invented. These horsemen were heavily armed with sword, lance, darts and a compound bow which was compact and accurate at more than 200 meters. Both rider and horse were armored. These mounted warriors were often called cataphracts, a term indicating that rider and horse were both armored. The use of cataphracts began over 2,500 years ago and declined rapidly with the appearance of gunpowder weapons. By the 1500s the cataphracts were obsolete and cavalry survived into the 20th century as scouts.

Warfare underwent some major adaptations in the last century as satellite, aerial and drone surveillance made long distance combat possible. Explosives-equipped weapons continued to evolve into the 21st century when drones suddenly appeared during the Russia-Ukraine war that began unexpectedly in 2022.

The rapid developments during the Ukraine War should not have been surprising because they follow a trend laid out during numerous 20th century conflicts. That was when combat continued to become more of a distant, but deadlier, experience. The campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq reminded military commanders worldwide that trends in how wars are fought over the last three centuries are continuing and accelerating. Three hundred years ago, in the early 18th century, gunpowder in muskets and mobile cannon extended the range of weapons beyond what any army had ever seen before.

That was just the beginning, as over the last three centuries, weapons have achieved longer range, and greater accuracy. This has forced armies to spread out. By a century ago, it was often necessary for armies to spread out over many kilometers of frontage. For thousands of years before that, a few hundred meters of front was the most two armies would encounter. But with rifles and artillery being able to hit with increasing accuracy, at ever longer ranges, troops had to spread out and keep their heads down. No more standing tall together in large groups and marching into battle.

In World War II, the average tank engagement was about 700 meters, but it took an average of 18 shots to knock out another tank. During the 1973 Arab Israeli war, the average range was about a kilometer, and it only took two shots to destroy the target. By the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the average range was over two kilometers, and it took a little more than one shot per kill.

The wars in Kuwait, Israel and Iraq were unique, however, in that they were fought in generally flat, desert-like terrain with little vegetation. A large part of World War II was fought in urban or wooded areas, where the longest shot you could get, under any circumstances, was about half a kilometer. The increased accuracy of modern tanks makes their gun more lethal no matter what the range. But longer range means that enemy crews with less training, and less capable fire control equipment, are less likely to get off an accurate shot. And increasingly, the first shot is the one that will kill you.

Bombing accuracy has also made enormous gains. During World War II, you had to drop about nine thousand bombs, from an altitude of 10,000 feet, to guarantee a hit on an 18x30 meter target. You had to stay that high to avoid most of the anti-aircraft fire. Back then, CEP/Circular Error of Probability was one kilometer. That meant that half the bombs dropped would fall into the one kilometer circle. By the 1950-53 Korean war, CEP had improved to 330 meters, meaning it only took 1,100 bombs to hit the target. A decade later, during the Vietnam war, CEPs of about 120 meters were achieved. This meant only 176 bombs were needed. By the 1991 Gulf War, the average CEP was 60 meters, and 30 bombs were needed. In 2003, the CEP was less than ten meters, and one bomb, and one aircraft, was all it took. During World War II, it required over 500 aircraft to get the hit, which is why back then, most of the bombing was either with hundreds of bombers, or a much smaller number of bombers coming in very low and very likely to get shot down if the target was heavily defended.

In the last two decades, the U.S. Army has emphasized marksmanship. This means that infantry, machine gunners and tank crews are much more accurate than they have been in the past. This is a major reason why anyone fighting American troops takes such high casualties. While most opponents fire wildly, American troops fire back with deadly accuracy. All of these changes, and the American dedication to marksmanship, has greatly upset the leaders of many foreign armed forces.

The highly accurate tanks and bombs require money. Not just for the equipment, but for the cost of wear and tear on equipment, and ammo used, for lots of training. Most nations keep defense costs down by not using their weapons a lot and not firing off a lot of ammo. But this has increasingly led to catastrophic defeats at the hands of more accurate and better trained troops like the Americans or British, or troops of any army that trains a lot.

For decades, the Soviet Union built weapons that were not sturdy enough to be used a lot for training. These tanks, guns and other weapons were meant to be taken care of until there was a war, then they were used a lot, in the hope that a quick victory could be achieved. Now that the Soviet model has been, well, disgraced, many generals, and admirals, are being forced to rethink over half a century of accepted wisdom. In the end, adapt or face defeat now or eventually. The United States is trying to absorb the drone lessons of the Ukraine War but is having a hard time doing so while at peace. When at war you must adapt or be destroyed. In peacetime you can talk and study an innovation to death. This is why so many nations are paying attention to what happens in Ukraine and then trying to adapt their own forces to these new methods.