Talk:Swarming (military)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

B class review

Awarded B class. But why have I never heard of swarming in this sense? Is it a recent or minority theory? Perhaps its origins should be discussed. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarming isn't a new process, and has certainly been a term used for natural phenomena. It's a more recent definition, especially in the sense of network-centric warfare. I had hoped I made this clear -- Genghis Khan did it, Blitzkrieg didn't qualify with its "pulsing" requisite, but the Battle of Britain, and especially the Battle of Surigao Strait qualified but the term wasn't defined until some of the retrospective papers I cited. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to look at some of the sources, though I haven't gone as far as buying the papers. I think the article should make it clear that this is a modern theory, and demonstrate that it is widely accepted, or alternatively present it as a minority theory. At present the article reads as if it is presenting established fact, or a tactical approach that has existed for centuries. In fact I don't believe the commanders involved would have seen much in common between their approaches, and would certainly not have said they were swarming.

To my mind (and this is POV) the theory is linking together a series of largely unconnected tactics and situations with some common features and giving them a name. Whether that is useful or not depends on how far the theory is accepted and applied. My opinion doesn't matter, but the article should certainly make it clear that it is discussing a modern theory and discuss how widely accepted or otherwise it is, and what makes it sufficiently notable for inclusion in a encyclopaedia. For instance, is it taught in staff colleges? When did anyone last say, "I know! I'll use swarming tactics!"? Cyclopaedic (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good observations. Yes, it is taught in the staff colleges, from the perspective of being the kind of operations you'll use when you have enough networking resources and the people trained to use them. Whether swarming is the universal name is a good question; I've heard a presentation which, at first, sounded as if the presenter was drunk, and then the light dawned. He had emphasized that you had to get everyone absolutely synchronized, so they could carry out asynchronous attacks. Asynchronism, information overload, swarming, etc., are all ways to get inside a Boyd OODA loop, or, less formally, getting your enemy doing nothing but reacting and trying to guess where the next attack will come.

You are correct that people used many of these techniques before they had a name; I can argue that Arminius used them against Varrus. In more modern periods, there are things that clearly used the principles, and consciously, but not by that name. For example, certainly from Vietnam on, attack aircraft, if they weren't being micromanaged by politicians, would, whenever possible, use a "wagon wheel" approach. This corresponds to the "pulsing" I mentioned. In the wagon wheel, one or two aircraft might come in high at 270 degrees, and, as soon as it's safe from fragments to overfly the target, another pulse comes in low at 135 degrees. As they are pulling out, there's a medium level pass from 180 degrees. Along with the actual attack runs, there may be manned electronic warfare aircraft, or decoys, coming in at yet different directions, altitudes, separation and speed.

It's a good question who first used the term, and I'll try to track it down. Certainly, Boyd and Warden had its principles in mind, but I don't remember them using the term. Arthur Cebrowski, ISTR, did use the term, and again, ISTR, Thomas Barnett. It's a distinct concept in the Army battle command systems and Future Combat System.

You shouldn't have to buy any of the papers; I'll make sure that every reference is free--I thought they were, but maybe I need more.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Iran swarming/US Navy incident

Can someone please add something on this, or find a place for this, or tell me where to put it? I think it is very important.

On January 7 this year the explicit, named concept of military swarming entered world consciousness--and that of the headline writers--more than ever before, IMO. A sample news report, this from the NYTimes, is here. (The WikiNews account of it is late and is about a video of the incident, not the uncident per se.)[1] The term "swarm doctrine" was repeatedly used in relation to this incident; a Google search on "iran us navy swarm" will turn up a huge number of hits. Apparently the US Navy had already performed a large simulation of a swarm attack against it in the Strait of Hormuz.

Also from the Times, in a different article:

There is a reason American military officers express grim concern over the tactics used by Iranian sailors last weekend: a classified, $250 million war game in which small, agile speedboats swarmed a naval convoy to inflict devastating damage on more powerful warships.[2]

A final quotation, this time from a named source: "Iran still states that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps will employ swarming tactics in a conflict," U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage said.[3]

A white paper from December 21, 2006, "Iran's Doctrine of Asymmetric Naval Warfare" by Fariborz Haghshenass, published by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, deals extensively with this swarming doctrine of Iran.[4]

Thanks for the interest! You already have me rethinking some headings, as while you are talking about asymmetrical warfare, you are talking about high-intensity warfare. Two places come to mind: a new section 4.3, or something in section 6. It also might be appropriate to mention the more coordinated Japanese kamikaze attacks, especially the kikisui plan at the Battle of Okinawa and, perhaps, the plans for defense of Japan against invasion, in Operation Downfall. The Somali attacks in Operation Gothic Serpent/the Battle of Mogadishu might qualify as an example of swarming, without the people doing it consciously calling that.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best regards, Shlishke (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sources for "A 1987 proposal" appears to be some sort of stealth advertising

Every source used in this section is by the same author and are published on the Web site of a company that's attempting to sell the "small military aircraft" mentioned in the section.

This does not appear to be a neutral source and I would propose this section be deleted if a more objective source is not available.

ttu103 —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Invasion of Normandy?

Is the Invasion of Normandy considered "swarming", at least in military terms? If so--or even if it isn't (given the "Blitzkrieg is not swarming" section)--I feel that maybe something should be said about it, seeing as the Invasion of Normandy is possibly the best and most well-known example of swarming in human history... But that's just what I think! -- 66.92.0.62 (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. If you have WP:Reliable sources describing the battle as swarming it can be mentioned. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update

" networks needed to make swarming routine will be available around 2010-2011" so... does anyone know if this happened? If yes, can we update the abstract? If not, can we remove the line, or at the very least source it? 87.110.86.38 (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Swarming (military). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"this paper"?

Reading late at night on my phone and found this: 'This paper suggests abandoning the term command and control in favor of [...]' in the article?

Which paper? Is this an explicit copy-paste from a paper? RC3141 (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RC3141 it is referring to the citation immediately before, [5], which all that material comes from. It is not ideal. Really some extra inline citations should be added to make it clear where the material is coming from. I can't think of an elegant way to do that, but anyone is welcome to improve that section. Commander Keane (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]