Does skill, technology, or learning matter most in warfare? Recent battlefield evidence argues that industry should rethink old weapons, invest in simulations, and emphasize corporate agility.

Analysis of the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War continues to suggest answers to what matters most in warfare. As my friend Byron Callan likes to say, wars are audits; and to paraphrase Leon Trotsky, from time to time, another war gets interested in us. Militaries and their supporting industries should thus always want to know what inputs best predict victory. Then, in pursuit of a reasonable return and efficient processes, we should ask ask what industrial factors matter most for supporting that victory. To answer this question, I update an assessment I began in 2013 with new evidence from the Russo-Ukrainian War. I consider three possibilities in the literature, and offer three ideas about what to do:

1. If technology matters most, then manufacturers have strong arguments for new weapons—and new skills too.
2. If skill matters most, then the training & simulation industry has the best argument.
3. If learning matters most, then agility is an essential corporate quality for wartime contracting.

If indeed (3) is true, then, every arms manufacturer and military software developer with the financial means should have a team on the ground somewhere in Ukraine trying to learn what’s being learned, and critically, how to learn.

My four-page analysis is available here: Download On Skill Technology and Learning in Warfare 20230804.