Comments for Unclear on the concept...?

Unclear on the concept...?

2005-12-30T15:51:15Z

A french artillery piece from WWI.

Made of paper. Explains a lot... right?

Actually, no.

Also known as a Quaker Gun.

Obviously, used for deception purposes - whether as in pretending to have something more powerful than you have for deterrence purposes (see May Day Parades at Red Square, or early Nazi Party Rallies at Nueremburg), or to deceive the mean people who suck and are trying to kill you as to the location of your *real* toys - so they can die surprised, later, when they miscalculate and you end up killing *them,* the bassids!

I just picked on the Soviets and Nazis, but hey, the North and South did it too - especially the North, early in the war around Washington. Such as these logs in a fort at Centerville, VA in 1862.

The concept has a long pedigree with the US Army - at *least* as early as 1780. As late as 1984, as I was a participant in *this* fight - on the winning side.

They were crucial for D-Day.

[Off on a tangent - while out looking for the Washington story, I stumbled across this, which confused me for a minute...]

Serb Quaker Gun

My Kosovo involvement includes some *direct experience* with the Quaker Gun concept as a component of Information Operations, just as relevant today as it was for Colonel Washington. To my mind, within the overall limitations on the campaign for both sides, the Serb Quaker Gun Concept was every effective.

And we still do it on our side, too.

In fact - if anyone has any pics of current (or the last 20 years or so, to avoid OPSEC issues) decoys, send 'em along!

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2005-12-30

2005-12-30T17:36:07Z

Not mentioned in the Kosovo retrospective was General Short's comment in Aviation Week upon being told that most of NATO air's hits were on decoys: "If bombing decoys will keep the whole Serb Army busy replacing those decoys, then they won't be doing any ethnic cleansing." Heh. Clueless...

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2005-12-30

2005-12-30T16:35:47Z

One Who Shall Remain Nameless (because he's still with the program) debriefed me on how the "visual image recognition" branch of the smart weapons family was doing ca. 1997: "As long as it's targeting a T-72 and coming straight down at noon, it works like a champ. If it's offset to the side, or there's a shadow near the target, or if you're shooting at something other than a T-72, all bets are off. It can't tell a BMP from a bump in the road." I can say that things have improved and I can't say by how much--that's getting into OPSEC territory.