'Not a Precise Science': Assessing Effects of Operational Fires.

Abstract

Battle Damage Assessment is one area that appears positioned to benefit from high technology collection and analysis systems, but the view is deceiving. The Persian Gulf Conflict revealed that while we had the latest state-of-the-art national level reconnaissance available at the operational level, we did BDA the same way we have always done it--by forming ad hoc structures that do not exist in peacetime, reassessing the questions that we sought to answer with BDA, and tying those answers into the operational commander's evaluation of operational and strategic objectives. Surprisingly, more information did not ease the job, suggesting that we need better intelligence, not more data, and that we must expand our conception of BDA toward 'combat assessment'--evaluation of what BDA means to accomplishment of objectives. Current joint doctrine is deficient in providing the 'umbrella concept' for joint combat assessment. Despite collection deficiencies at the tactical level, U.S. ability to gather BDA and combat assessment information is unequalled. We need to adopt a doctrinal approach to solving the BDA 'problem' for two reasons--to better use what we have and to build a sound base for future equipment and structure decisions.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Jun 14, 1996
Accession Number
ADA312158

Entities

People

  • William M. Bransford

Organizations

  • Naval War College

Tags

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Battle Damage Assessment
  • Battles
  • Damage
  • Damage Assessment
  • Deficiencies
  • Doctrine
  • Gulfs
  • Peacetime
  • Persian Gulf
  • Test And Evaluation
  • Warfare

Readers

  • Joint Military Operations and Doctrine.
  • Military Training and Readiness Simulation
  • Systems Analysis and Design