text:
Sean Couturier
Couturier with the Flyers in 2012
(1992-12-07) December 7, 1992 (age 26)
Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.
6 ft 3 in (191 cm)
211 lb (96 kg; 15 st 1 lb)
NHL team
8th overall, 2011
Sean Gerald Couturier[1] (born December 7, 1992) is a Canadian-American professional ice hockey player currently playing for, and an alternate captain of the Philadelphia Flyers of the National Hockey League (NHL). The Flyers selected him eighth overall in the 2011 NHL Entry Draft.
1 Playing career
1.1 Minor
1.2 Junior
1.3 Philadelphia Flyers
2 International play
3 Career statistics
3.1 Regular season and playoffs
Playing career[edit]
Minor[edit]
Couturier was born in Phoenix, Arizona[2] while his father, Sylvain Couturier, was playing for the International Hockey League (IHL)'s Phoenix Roadrunners. Following his father's retirement, the family moved to Bathurst, New Brunswick,[3] where his father became general manager of the Acadie–Bathurst Titan of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL). Couturier played his minor hockey in Bathurst and calls the city home.
Junior[edit]
Drummondville had the second overall pick in the 2008 QMJHL Entry Draft, and picked Couturier after defenseman Brandon Gormley was selected by the Moncton Wildcats. Couturier joined Drummondville for the 2008–09 season and helped the team win their first President's Cup as QMJHL champions. He was tenth on the team in points during the regular season.[4]
In 2009–10, Couturier stepped forward to lead the QMJHL in points; he had the lowest point totals required to win the Jean Béliveau Trophy as leading scorer in QMJHL history. Nicolas Deschamps had the same number of points but had scored fewer goals. Teammate Gabriel Dumont was the leading QMJHL goalscorer while Couturier was fourth in the goalscoring race (also trailing Luke Adam of the Montreal Junior Hockey Club and Drummondville teammate Mike Hoffman). In the 2010 playoffs, Drummondville advanced to the semi-finals before being eliminated by the eventual champions, the Moncton Wildcats. Couturier was third on his team in points for the playoffs, behind Dumont and Chris DiDomenico.
In 2010–11, Couturier had a bout with mononucleosis over the off-season, a condition that usually takes a year to fully recover from.[5] Despite this setback, Couturier once again had an impressive year. Couturier matched the 96 points he scored the year before in 10 fewer games, leaving him fourth overall in QMJHL scoring, while having the highest points per game of any draft eligible CHL player. In the playoffs, Drummondville advanced to the second round, before being eliminated in seven games by the Gatineau Olympiques, who would continue on to the President's Cup final. Couturier finished the playoffs with 11 points in 10 games.
His 2010–11 campaign resulted in him being named to the QMHJL First All-Star team, as well as winning the Michel Brière Memorial Trophy as the league MVP and the Mike Bossy Trophy as the best professional prospect in the QMJHL.[6]
Philadelphia Flyers[edit]
Couturier was drafted eighth overall by the Philadelphia Flyers in the 2011 NHL Entry Draft. The Flyers acquired the pick via trade that sent Jeff Carter to the Columbus Blue Jackets in return for Jakub Voráček and the Blue Jackets' first- and third-round (which the Flyers used to select Nick Cousins) selections. Couturier signed a three-year, entry-level contract on September 21, 2011.[7]
Couturier during the 2012 Stanley Cup playoffs.
Couturier made an impression in training camp and started the 2011–12 season with the Flyers, also receiving ice time on the penalty kill. He earned his first point in the NHL in his third game on October 12 against the Vancouver Canucks with a primary assist on a goal by Jakub Voráček. Couturier scored his first NHL goal in his fifth game on October 18, 2011, against Craig Anderson of the Ottawa Senators in a 7–2 win.[8] He was one of the youngest players to participate in the NHL All-Star Game festivities, named on the rookie team and participating in the skills competition.[9]
During the Flyers' opening-round playoff series against the Pittsburgh Penguins, Couturier was tasked with shutting down Art Ross Trophy winner Evgeni Malkin. Couturier earned much praise for his play, holding Malkin to one even strength point while Couturier was on the ice during the series,[10] and also scoring his first career hat-trick, becoming the second-youngest player to score a hat-trick in a playoff game,[11] and adding an assist in a four-point performance during game two of the series. Teammate Jaromír Jágr compared Couturier to Hockey Hall of Famer Ron Francis.[12]
To start the 2017–18 season, head coach Dave Hakstol placed Couturier on the top line with Claude Giroux and Jakub Voráček.[13][14] This move helped Couturier gain confidence and as the season progressed, he improved his offensive play.[15] On March 20, 2018, Couturier recorded his 100th career NHL goal, becoming the seventh player from his draft class to reach that milestone.[16] Couturier was awarded the Pelle Lindbergh Memorial Trophy for most improved player at the end of the regular season after he recorded a career-high 76 points.[17] He was also awarded the Yanick Dupre Class Guy Memorial Award as most sportsmanlike player and the Gene Hart Memorial Award.[17] His offensive and defensive success helped the Flyers to the 2018 Stanley Cup playoffs and earned him a nomination for the Frank J. Selke Trophy for the first time in his career.[18] He finished second in the voting to the eventual winner, Anže Kopitar.[19] In practice before Game 4 of the 2018 Stanley Cup playoffs, Couturier collided with teammate Radko Gudas, forcing him to miss Game 4.[20] Upon his return, after missing just one game, Couturier scored the game-winning goal with just over a minute to play and added an assist in Game 5. In Game 6, he tallied three goals and two assists, totalling seven points in the two games following his return. His hat-trick in Game 6 was the second of his career in the playoffs, as his first was in the 2012 Eastern Conference Quarterfinals against Pittsburgh.[21] After a series-ending 8–5 defeat in Game 6, it was announced Couturier tore his MCL in practice in his collision with Gudas, yet still continued to play in the playoffs.[22][23]
On August 22, 2018, during the off-season, Couturier suffered a knee injury unrelated to the injury in the playoffs of the previous season, keeping him out four weeks.[24] On October 9, Couturier was named an alternate captain for the Flyers on home ice, replacing Valtteri Filppula, who signed with the New York Islanders during the off-season.[25] Couturier scored his first career regular season hat trick, a natural hat-trick, on January 16, 2019, against the Boston Bruins.[26]
International play[edit]
Representing Canada
2015 Czech Republic
2017 Germany/France
2019 Slovakia
World Junior Championships
During his third QMJHL season, Couturier was invited to take part in the Canadian National Junior Team's selection camp in December 2010.[27] Couturier was named to the team for the 2011 World Junior Championships, held in Buffalo, New York, as Canada's only NHL draft-eligible player.
Couturier played for Canada's gold medal-winning team at the 2015 World Championships, where they won the title for the first time since 2007 with a perfect 10–0 record.[28]
Couturier was invited to the play for Team North America at the 2016 World Cup of Hockey.[29] He was later named an alternate captain, along with Aaron Ekblad.[30]
On April 29, 2019, Couturier was named to the Team Canada roster for the 2019 IIHF World Championship held in Slovakia.[31] On May 10, 2019 he was designated an alternate captain, along with Mark Stone.[32] Couturier helped Canada progress through to the playoff rounds, reaching his third consecutive final before losing to Finland to finish with the Silver Medal on May 26, 2019.[33] He finished the tournament posting 1 goal and 4 points in 10 games.
Career statistics[edit]
Regular season and playoffs[edit]
2007–08 Notre Dame Midget Hounds SMHL 40 19 37 56 32 10 3 8 11 10
2008–09 Drummondville Voltigeurs QMJHL 58 9 22 31 24 19 1 7 8 8
2009–10 Drummondville Voltigeurs QMJHL 68 41 55 96 47 14 10 8 18 18
2010–11 Drummondville Voltigeurs QMJHL 58 36 60 96 36 10 6 5 11 14
2011–12 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 77 13 14 27 14 11 3 1 4 2
2012–13 Adirondack Phantoms AHL 31 10 18 28 16 — — — — —
2012–13 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 46 4 11 15 10 — — — — —
2013–14 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 82 13 26 39 45 7 0 0 0 6
2014–15 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 82 15 22 37 28 — — — — —
NHL totals
2008 Canada Atlantic U17 8th 5 0 1 1 2
2011 Canada WJC 7 2 1 3 0
2015 Canada WC 10 3 3 6 2
2016 Team North America WCH 5th 3 0 0 0 0
2017 Canada WC 8 1 1 2 2
Junior totals
Senior totals
President's Cup (with the Drummondville Voltigeurs) 2008–09
Jean Béliveau Trophy 2009–10 [34]
QMJHL Second-Team All-Star 2009–10
Best Plus/Minus record in the QMJHL 2009–10 (+62) [35]
Michel Brière Memorial Trophy 2010–11 [6]
Mike Bossy Trophy 2010–11
QMJHL First-Team All-Star 2010–11
Pelle Lindbergh Memorial Trophy 2018 [17]
Yanick Dupre Class Guy Memorial Award 2018
Gene Hart Memorial Award 2018
^ "Thanksgiving a time for Couturier to Remember Grandparents". NJ.com.
^ "Sean Couturier's Player Page on Voltigeurs Site". QMJHL.
^ "Sean Couturier's career stats at The Internet Hockey Database". The Internet Hockey Database.
^ "Elitesprospects.com – Drummondville Voltigeurs". Eliteprospects.
^ "QMJHL: Sean Couturier, and the forgotten mono angle". archive.li. January 11, 2011. Archived from the original on July 7, 2012. Retrieved April 18, 2018.
^ a b "Sean Couturier wins the Michel-Brière Trophy". theqmjhl.ca. April 6, 2011. Retrieved April 18, 2018.
^ "Couturier, one of many stars vs. Leafs, signs contract; Wed. lineup set".
^ Nicks, Erin (October 18, 2011). "Flyers rout struggling Senators 7-2". NHL.com. Retrieved April 18, 2018.
^ "2012 Molson Canadian NHL All-Star Skills Competition results". NHL.com. January 28, 2012. Retrieved April 18, 2018.
^ Chris Shafer (June 4, 2012). "Group of talented rookies responsible for Flyers quick turnaround". Hockey's Future. Retrieved July 8, 2013.
^ Dan Rosen (April 13, 2012). "Flyers rally to stun Penguins, grab 2–0 series lead". NHL.com. Retrieved July 8, 2013. The 19-year-old became the youngest player to score a hat trick in a playoff game since Ted Kennedy did it in 1945 – Kennedy was four days younger than Couturier is right now.
^ Joe Yerdon (April 14, 2012). "Jaromir Jagr can't help but compare Sean Couturier to Ron Francis". ProHockeyTalk. Retrieved July 8, 2013.
^ Sachdeva, Sonny (September 29, 2017). "Flyers captain Claude Giroux finding his rhythm at left wing". sportsnet.ca. Retrieved April 11, 2018.
^ Dixon, Ryan (November 18, 2017). "Flyers' Sean Couturier making most of offensive opportunity". sportsnet.ca. Retrieved April 11, 2018.
^ Cullen, Scott (April 11, 2018). "Statistically Speaking: 64 points before the playoffs start". tsn.ca. Retrieved April 11, 2018.
^ Wells, Kurtis (March 22, 2018). "Milestone Night for Sean Couturier". thehockeywriters.com. Retrieved April 11, 2018.
^ a b c "The Award Goes to..." NHL.com. April 5, 2018. Retrieved April 11, 2018.
^ "Patrice Bergeron, Sean Couturier, Anze Kopitar voted Selke Trophy finalists". sportsnet.ca. April 18, 2018. Retrieved April 18, 2018.
^ "Sean Couturier finishes second in Selke Trophy voting". June 20, 2018. Retrieved June 23, 2018.
^ "Philadelphia Flyers center Sean Couturier injured in practice collision with Radko Gudas". ESPN.com. April 18, 2018. Retrieved April 22, 2018.
^ Boruk, John (April 22, 2018). "Penguins storm back to bounce Flyers from playoffs". nbcsports.com. Retrieved April 22, 2018.
^ "NHL Playoffs 2018: Flyers' Sean Couturier played two games on a torn MCL and scored four goals". cbssports.com. April 22, 2018. Retrieved April 22, 2018.
^ "Flyers' Sean Couturier reveals he played first round with torn MCL". sportsnet.ca. April 22, 2018. Retrieved April 22, 2018.
^ "Flyers' center Sean Couturier out 4 weeks with another knee injury". ESPN.com. 22 August 2018. Retrieved 17 September 2018.
^ Hall, Jordan (October 9, 2018). "Flyers announce 2018-19 leadership group, with a new addition". nbcsports.com. Retrieved October 10, 2018.
^ "Sean Couturier's hat trick rallies Flyers past Bruins". sportsnet.ca. January 16, 2019. Retrieved January 16, 2019.
^ "Hockey Canada Selection Camp: Team Profile". Archived from the original on 2015-03-23.
^ "Canada's National Men's Team wins gold medal at 2015 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship". Hockey Canada. May 17, 2015. Retrieved December 14, 2016.
^ Panaccio, Tim (August 29, 2016). "Sean Couturier excited to play for Team North America at World Cup after summer rehabbing". nbcsports.com. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
^ "Connor McDavid named captain of Team North America for World Cup". The Globe and Mail. September 8, 2016. Retrieved April 23, 2018.
^ "Hockey Canada names 22 players to 2019 IIHF World Championship roster". Hockey Canada. April 29, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.
^ "Kyle Turris named captain for Team Canada at world hockey championship - TSN.ca". TSN. May 10, 2019. Retrieved May 10, 2019.
^ "Finland defeats Canada for Gold Medal at World Championship". The Sports Network. May 26, 2019. Retrieved May 26, 2019.
^ "The Hockey News". Archived from the original on 2011-07-05.
^ "Sean Couturier's player page at Eliteprospects". Eliteprospects.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Sean Couturier.
Biographical information and career statistics from NHL.com, or Eliteprospects.com, or Hockey-Reference.com, or The Internet Hockey Database
Luca Sbisa Philadelphia Flyers' first round draft pick
Scott Laughton
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Couturier&oldid=904025101"
Adirondack Phantoms players
American ice hockey centers
Canadian ice hockey centres
Ice hockey people from Arizona
Ice hockey people from New Brunswick
National Hockey League first round draft picks
People from Bathurst, New Brunswick
Philadelphia Flyers draft picks
Philadelphia Flyers players
Sportspeople from Phoenix, Arizona
Use Canadian English from July 2015
All Wikipedia articles written in Canadian English


text:
A List Of Cars With Massage Seats Updated 01/2023
Let's face it. Everyone likes a little bit of luxury when they drive.
It could be a nice sound system, leather seats, or a fancy lumbar support system in the driver's seat that can be adjusted in many ways to provide just the right amount of support.
But what if you could get a massage while you were driving?
This is not a crazy idea.
Like most things, you can probably buy it for your car if you can think of it.
Some cars offer massage seats as an option, but they don't come for free.
As you might expect, this choice is left to luxury brands that make high-end cars for people who have more money to spend than most.
As this new feature becomes more popular in cars, you can find it in brands like BMW, Jaguar, and even Bentley, which are known for being high-end.
These companies were the first to make cars with luxury features that are now common in the market.
Think about navigation systems or even big cell phones that were once only available in high-end cars.
Now, these companies are making massage seats that change the way we think about comfort and luxury.
And let's face it.
When you spend as much on a car as most people do on a house, you expect it to have some special features.
That's what seats that massage you can do. They change what luxury means in a car.
They give drivers who spend a lot of time on the road a place to relax and feel at ease.
They give executives and workers who spend more time in their cars than in the office a place to get away.
And they help people who are prone to muscle pain and back pain get the relief they need.
So, car fans who want more than just a little something extra can buy cars with massage seats.
Here are some luxury cars with massage seats that range in price from $36,000 to more than $300,000.
More Cars With Massaging Seats
Are massaging car seats worth it?
Why do I need massaging seats in the car?
Does Hyundai have massage seats?
Does Lexus have massaging seats?
Does Jaguar F Pace have massage seats?
Do massage seats work while driving?
Lincoln has been making luxury cars for a long time, so it makes sense that they would offer massage seats as one of the options to their loyal customers.
The Lincoln MKZ, with a starting price of $36,000, is one of the more affordable cars with a massage seat option.
The Lincoln MKZ is one of the company's more sensible cars. Its smooth ride is made even more luxurious by seats that massage you.
Lincoln also says that its MKZ has a low cost of ownership, which is another thing that makes it stand out from other cars with massage seats.
Even though it is a base model compared to other luxury cars, the MKZ comes with a lot of standard features and gets great gas mileage for its class.
Anyone who likes Volvo knows that its cars are fun to drive and have high-end features.
The Volvo S90 has a roomy interior with five seats, good gas mileage, and comfortable seats that come standard. It also has an option for massage seats.
The Volvo S90 doesn't have the most powerful engine, but it does have a reliable four-cylinder that can make up to 400 horsepower and costs $48,500 to start.
There are more expensive, faster, and better-equipped luxury cars out there.
But at this price, the Volvo S90 lets car lovers with less money try out some of the nicer things about driving.
With the E-Class, Mercedes-Benz takes the idea of luxury to a whole new level. For example, massage seats are a popular option in the E-Class.
Yes, this car has a roomy interior, a powerful engine, and a lot of safety features.
But what you're really after in this car is a great massage.
Even though it's not as cheap as the other cars we've talked about, this E-Class starts at $53,000 and is one of the nicer Mercedes cars, with the reliability and performance you'd expect.
Lexus is another high-end car brand you might expect to have massage seats as an option, and its LS series does.
Not only do you get the comfort of these special seats, but you also get to experience the power of the Lexus engine, the reliability that has made the brand famous, and a number of features that have put Lexus at the top of the luxury car market.
Starting at $75,200, you can enjoy everything the LS has to offer. For that price, you get surprisingly good gas mileage and other great features.
Jaguar has massage seats, of course.
You can find them in the Jaguar XJ, a model with great handling, an impressive engine, and a long list of standard features for a starting price of just under $77,000.
Even though there aren't that many luxury cars, the Jaguar XJ is a great choice for car fans with money to spare and a sore back.
The Audi A8 is similar to some of the more expensive luxury cars on the market that have seats that massage you.
This luxury sedan starts at just over $82,000 and has a roomy interior, powerful engine options, and a level of performance that has helped define Audi in this class.
This car is known for its smooth ride, luxury features that come standard, and surprising gas mileage for a car in this class.
Yes, Porsche does have massage seats, and yes, they cost money.
The Porsche Panamera is a super luxury car and one of the most aggressive sports cars in its class. It also has massage seats as an option.
The Panamera comes with either a six- or an eight-cylinder engine that can make up to 550 horsepower. This is another way to describe this fast car.
It also has all the high-end features you would expect, like a smooth ride and massage seats.
BMW is known for making cars that change the way people think about driving for the rest of their lives.
BMW gives you the choice of massage seats for the 5-Series, which comes in five trim levels.
Anyone who has ever owned a BMW knows that the company takes pride in meeting its customers' needs by giving them a long list of choices.
This car starts at a price of $87,300 and comes with a lot of features as standard.
Let's say you have a few hundred thousand dollars lying around and want to buy a new car.
Check out the Bentley Mulsanne. It's a car that's meant to take your driving experience to a whole new level.
It makes sense that this model of the Bentley Mulsanne would come with massage seats as an added bonus.
This vehicle starts at $309,000 and comes with a strong 6.8-liter, eight-cylinder engine. It also has many technological features and comforts that you'd expect from a modest home.
Here's a quick look at a few other 2022 model year cars with massaging seats:
The Ford Expedition
Taycan Porsche
Land Rover is a car company. Range Rover Sport
Mercedes-Benz S-Class
Mercedes-Benz CLS
Mercedes-Benz GLE
Mercedes-Benz GLS
Mercedes-Benz SL
Mercedes-Benz EQS
Mercedes-Benz EQE
Volvo SC90
Yes, massage seats are worth it for some drivers.
People with back pain and people who go on long drives or road trips and get sore from sitting in the car for so long can benefit the most from cars with massaging seats.
As was already said, if you drive a lot and spend a lot of time in the car, you'll need a car with massage seats.
If you drive to do winter sports like snowboarding or XC skiing, it's also nice to have heated massage seats.
I also like the massage seats when I have to drive home from a long hike.
Yes, the new 2023 Hyundai Palisade has a driver's seat that can massage the driver.
Yes, some Lexus cars do have seats that massage you.
The Lexus LX and GX are two of these cars that have seats that massage you.
The Jaguar F Pace does have seats that massage you.
In this model, both the front and back seats can massage you.
Yes, you can use the massage seats in your car while you're driving.
How Long Can You Drive On A Bad Wheel Bearing
Is 20% Tint Legal In washington State
What Are Rear Differential
The Effects of Gas on Styrofoam

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Amigo horse rugs are an integral part of the Horseware family. Offering design quality at unbeatable prices. Our Amigo range offers something suitable for every rider.
Horseware Amigo All in One Insulator Stable Rug Medium 200g New Product in the Amigo Range catering for the stable. This is most suitable for sensitive horses and gives the same fill from tip to tail.# Colour: Fig Green With Navy or Silver Grey with Purple Please click here for a chart showing how to measure your horse correctly for a rug.


After holding the government hostage for five weeks, President Donald Trump is still threatening to shut down the government again if Congress fails to approve more than $5 billion in funds for a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Trump is looking for alternative ways to get funding for his wall such as declaring a national emergency. Some of his top aides have warned against such an action, seeing that it would circumvent Congress and create a constitutional crisis.
However, Trump could be walking into a "trap" if he calls a national emergency and might end up splitting the GOP in the process, according to a report from Vanity Fair.
"While Mulvaney, Kushner, and a fleet of White House lawyers are scrambling to build a legal justification for Trump to expand his emergency powers, Republicans on the Hill are wary of the precedent he might set," a report from Vanity Fair said.
"We're pretty uniformly opposed to an emergency declaration. That is taking that emergency act beyond where it's ever been before. We don't like it. We don't want to set that precedent," Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Politico.
Lawmakers have until February 15th to end negotiations before the government shuts down again.


It's almost time for SXSW which means The Wild Honey Pie's annual unofficial party, The Beehive, is coming up fast! We're buzzing to announce a full day and night of music at Weather Up in downtown Austin featuring performances by our favorite bands playing SXSW. Pamnation is proud to be a part of this event and can't wait to hear these amazing bands!
Check out the lineup: Big Thief, Rainbow Kitten Surprise, Overcoats, Calliope Musicals, Nicole Atkins, Hoops, Teen Daze, Yoke Lore, Future Generations, Horse Thief, Born Cages, Frances Cone, Mobley, Mail The Horse, The Eastern Sea, The Undercover Dream Lovers, L.A. Salami, QTY and Madeline Kenney!


text:
<?php
declare(strict_types=1);

namespace stubbles\webapp\interceptor;
use stubbles\webapp\Request;
use stubbles\webapp\Response;
/**
 * Interface for post interceptors.
 *
 * Postinterceptors are called after all data processing is done. They can change
 * the response or add additional data to the response.
 */
interface PostInterceptor
{
    /**
     * does the postprocessing stuff
     *
     * @param   \stubbles\webapp\Request   $request   current request
     * @param   \stubbles\webapp\Response  $response  response to send
     * @return  bool
     */
    public function postProcess(Request $request, Response $response): bool;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
The Derbys
Director of Vineyard Operations
The building was constructed by the Paso Robles Almond Growers Association as a warehouse and processing plant. Construction began February of 1922 on the building that would be referred to as "the symbol of the success of the almond industry in this area". The building was constructed in five months, erecting a processing plant of over 11,000 square feet of reinforced concrete, so efficiently engineered that a handful of men could process 500 tons of nuts. The productivity of almonds began to decrease in the 1930s, and the building was officially up for sale in July 1936. K.B. Nelson, a representative of the Farmers Alliance Business Association, a grain brokerage, purchased the building.
After 84 years of service to the community, the FABA closed their doors in 1975. The building remained empty until 1985 when it was used under the name "Riverside Centre" for various businesses such as appliance repair and drywall storage. Ray Derby purchased the property in October 2010. To protect the integrity and authenticity of the Almond Growers building, Ray and Pam Derby were vigilant in following stringent rules that dictated the modifications they made restoring the building to usefulness again. It took three years to complete the rehabilitation of the building.


text:
Establishing a Base Case
HOW CURRENT LIG
PERFORM AGAINST
H T
H E AV Y T
H R E AT
AS WE SAW IN CHAPTER ONE, WHEN LIGHT FORCES WERE USED in a rapid-reaction capacity to
confront the heavier forces of Saddam Hussein's Army in Desert Storm, they succeeded
in their mission. As noted, however, they succeeded only by default, since the attack
never came. In essence, the light forces performed as a deterrent force. But what if deterrence had failed and the attack had come—if Saddam's heavy forces had advanced and
engaged the much lighter and less mobile American force that was screening the critical
Saudi ports? Of course, that was August 1990. Nearly a decade later, how well would
a light force equipped with modern capabilities fare in repelling a larger heavy force?
In this chapter we use the modeling tools described at the end of Chapter One to
analyze the use of current-capability light forces as a rapid-reaction force against a
larger heavy force, working with different scenarios that vary in terms of terrain and
mission. The results of that analysis serve as a "base case" for future analysis—the starting point for the analytical excursions in Chapters Three, Four, and Five that examine
the impact of the alternative rapid-reaction paths discussed in Chapter One.
In the remainder of this chapter, we define the three scenarios in more detail, first
by describing the scenarios themselves and then by describing the weapon systems available to both sides. Then we describe the events in a narrative fashion from the vantage
point of a lieutenant participating in the conflict. We then "play" the scenario, using
high-resolution constructive modeling to assess force-on-force system performance,
making use of the results from the modeling runs to describe outcomes.1 Finally, we present an "after-action review" of the battle the lieutenant experienced, as well as the battles in the different scenarios, describing the results in more detail by using the actual
outputs of the simulation.
Setting the Context for the Base Case Analysis
The base case focuses on how light forces, portrayed here as the 82nd Division Ready
Brigade (DRB), as configured at the time of Desert Storm, would perform against a
heavy threat. Below we look at the different scenarios and then examine the force mixes
(Blue and Red) for each one.
Base Cases for Three Scenarios
One of the key concerns in dealing with the effectiveness of the light forces in a rapidreaction mission against a larger, heavier force is how well such a force does across a
spectrum of plausible cases. Here, we use three scenarios to represent that spectrum—
L I G HTN I N G OVE R W ATE R
scenarios that vary across terrain and, in one case, across mission. Table 2.1 summarizes
the attributes of the scenarios and their key parameters.
In essence, the first and second scenarios are the same except for the terrain. In the
Southwest Asia (SWA) scenario, the terrain is open with long lines of sight (LOS),
whereas in the East Europe scenario, the terrain is much closer. Such variation enables
us to explore the impact of terrain on force performance, particularly more stressing
(i.e., more limited LOS) conditions and their influence on technology. Whereas in the
first and second scenarios a full light infantry brigade (DRB) faces a heavy threat in a
prepared defense, in the LANTCOM scenario a partially attrited DRB in the second
phase of a forced-entry operation faces a slightly less heavy threat from a hasty defense.
Next, we look at each scenario in more detail.
SWA scenario. Figure 2.1 shows the SWA scenario graphically, revealing that it takes
place in Saudi Arabia. The mission of the Blue light force is to defend a critical junction
along the major pipeline road (shown on the figure). A Red division (consisting of two
armor regiments and one mechanized infantry regiment) is attacking, its objective to destroy the Blue force and control the road network. The immediate Red objective is to
defeat the Blue force, since the road junction has critical strategic value both for access
to oil fields and for logistics and resupply in supporting a continued ground offensive.
Blue is positioned on high ground, but this is typically only 20–40 meters above the Red
Table 2.1—Three Basic Scenarios and Key Distinguishing Parameters
(Saudi Arabia)
Open and flat,
with moderate
trafficability;
line of sight =
Red heavy division
consisting of two
armor regiments
attacking along two
primary avenues
of approach
Close and rough,
with limited
LANTCOM
(Latin
America–Atlantic
Command)
Close and
(partially
covered),
Red heavy
division (–)
two brigades
and a battalion
attacking along
three primary
avenues of
Partially attrited
hasty defense
following a
H OW C U R R E NT L I G HT F O RC ES P E R F O R M A GAI N ST
H EAV Y T H R EAT : E STAB L I S H I N G
B AS E C AS E
Figure 2.1—SWA Scenario: An Overview
Blue sets up in a large-perimeter (270-degree) hasty defense with a battalion to the
north, a battalion to the south, and a company strongpoint in the center (as shown in
the JANUS screen image in Figure 2.2). Most of the Blue combat elements, including
personnel, are designated as in "defilade" in JANUS and therefore tend to be much less
vulnerable to both indirect artillery fire and direct-fire weapons than if they were in the
open. Red attempts to envelop the Blue force with two armor regiments to the north
and a mechanized infantry regiment to the south. In both the north and south attacks,
Red initially uses the existing road networks as much as possible. As the Red force
closes with the Blue force, it separates into company-sized columns and then into attack
formation. Because the terrain is only moderately trafficable, the travel speed of the Red
vehicles is reduced automatically in JANUS as the vehicles move off-road for the attack.
The East Europe scenario. Figure 2.3 shows the East Europe scenario. The basis for this
conflict originates from a border dispute, motivated by the goal of ethnic reconsolidation. UN or NATO action involves quick emplacement of allied forces to dissuade an
attack. Nonetheless, the attack proceeds without delay and unexpectedly escalates into
general warfare involving the U.S. light airborne forces. The figure represents only the
U.S. portion of the much larger, allied force defense. (In the graphic, lines represent
roads, and cross-hatched areas represent urban centers.)
As in the SWA scenario, Blue once again is in a hasty defensive posture, with Red
attacking along multiple axes, and is organized in a large-perimeter defense, optimizing its position in the inherently limited LOS environment (Figure 2.4). In addition to
terrain contours that can block LOS, foliage, which is much more prolific in this envi-
Figure 2.2—Depiction of DRB Hasty Defensive Position in SWA Scenario
Figure 2.3—East Europe Scenario: An Overview
Figure 2.4—JANUS Depiction of DRB Hasty Defensive Position in East Europe Scenario
ronment, provides additional LOS reductions. The armor attack is from the west and
the mechanized infantry attack is from the north. The key difference between this scenario and the previous one is the terrain. This environment contains much shorter LOSs
and even more limited trafficability, with the typical LOS about 2–3 kilometers in the
areas Red chooses to attack.
The LANTCOM scenario. In the LANTCOM scenario, the Blue force objective is to
hold a key strategic point, in this case an airstrip for bringing in follow-on forces. Thus,
Blue forces need to hold this terrain until heavy reinforcements (which are already en
route) can arrive. Figure 2.5 shows the Red and Blue positions at the beginning of the
simulation. The Red objective is to destroy the Blue force before reinforcements can arrive. Preparatory fires from Red self-propelled artillery—firing improved conventional
munitions (ICMs) and high-explosive (HE) rounds—support the deliberate Red armor
attack.
The LANTCOM scenario represents the second phase of a forced-entry operation.
The first phase of the scenario involved an engagement with local militia forces, which
resulted in some losses to the Blue force. Because the Red main effort does not occur
until after this initial engagement, the partially attrited DRB is presumed to have had
some time to regroup and establish a hasty defense. In our version of the scenario, we
Red force
Blue force
Figure 2.5—LANTCOM Scenario: An Overview
assumed that tactical air (Air Force and/or Navy fixed-wing) was able to conduct interdiction missions as the Red main effort approached the DRB. No close support during the engagement was assumed. Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System
(JSTARS) provides initial situation awareness to the Blue commander but does not contribute to the targeting of his indirect-fire weapons. Logistics support elements are not
included in the JANUS simulation (although they were included in the airlift analysis).
The LANTCOM scenario is a high-stress variation of a scenario developed by the
Army.2 Because of its rolling, partially covered terrain, variations of this scenario were
used to examine the military usefulness of weapon systems. In this scenario, a partially
attrited Blue DRB (following forced entry) faces a substantially larger Red force, a division (–)3 consisting of two brigades and a battalion attacking along three primary avenues of approach, as shown in Figure 2.6.
The attrited DRB (assumed to be at roughly 66 percent strength) is assumed to have
enough time to set up a defensive position, complete with extensive ground-based
RSTA, before the Red attack. The main body of the Blue force (two battalions) is positioned around a town. Forward of this (to the west) are RSTA systems spread over the
likely Red areas of advance. The Red forces in the northeast are moving to block reinforcing Blue heavy forces marching from a seaport off the screen. The area shown is approximately 60 by 60 kilometers.
Figure 2.6—Depiction of DRB Hasty Defensive Position in LANTCOM Scenario
We make some key assumptions in the scenario. First, we assume that the DRB
must be attacked by the threat force. That is, the DRB is defending a critical objective
and Red cannot bypass it. The DRB is also assumed to be air-dropped near the objective, with enough time before the start of conflict to set up a defensive position.
Second, the basic rules of engagement assumed in the scenario require both Red and
Blue forces to "fire upon recognition" of their respective adversaries prior to weapons
launch. We envisioned that "fire on detection" would be too permissive a criterion for
weapons launch, and "fire on identification" would be too restrictive for either force.4
In other lower-intensity conflicts, the "fire on identification" criterion may be more appropriate, and in some cases we considered it as an excursion in this work.
The Force Mix for the Three Scenarios
Table 2.2 shows the Blue and Red base case force mixes for the three scenarios. We determined the force mixes by working with personnel at Fort Benning's Dismounted Battlespace Battle Lab (DBBL), which yielded information about the composition of 82nd
DRB, the basis for the force mixes. In this case, the force mixes for the SWA and East
Europe scenarios are identical. In these two scenarios, Red forces outnumber Blue forces
(on an element-to-element basis) by a ratio of four to one. This count does not reflect
the qualitative difference between the combat elements of the light airborne force and
the enemy heavy force. For example, although a Dragon missile and a T-72 tank
count as one element each, they are qualitatively different pieces of equipment.
Table 2.2—Base Case Force Mix for the Three Scenarios
Blue Forces
15 HMMWV-Scouts
58 HMMWV-TOWs
18 Stingers
6 Apaches
14 Sheridans
8 155mm howitzer
18 105mm howitzer
4 AGS
24 Javelin
Red Forces
323 T-72S (tanks)
219 BMP-2 (APCs)
35 BTR-60 (APCs)
30 120/180 MRL (rocket artillery)
72 152 SPH (cannon artillery)
16 HAVOC/HIND (helicopters)
131 T-72S
131 BMP-2
6 120/180 MRL
12 152 SPH
6 HAVOC/HIND
The Blue forces shown in Table 2.2 for the first two scenarios are comparable to
what the 82nd Airborne DRB consisted of in the Desert Storm time frame (around the
time that the initial analysis was performed). Generally, this DRB has one airborne
brigade headquarters company, three airborne infantry battalions, one artillery battalion
(105mm towed), one air defense artillery battery, one attack helicopter company, one
armor company, and one artillery battery (155mm towed). Several points should be
highlighted about the DRB's equipment. First, when the analysis was performed the
82nd Airborne was still armed with Dragon anti-tank missiles. Today, the Army has replaced the Dragon with the much more effective Javelin system. Additionally, we included corps-level Apache attack helicopters rather than the Kiowa Warrior, modified
OH-58s that the 82nd was armed with at the time we were conducting this simulation.
As of the time of this writing, the 82nd is still equipped with the Kiowa Warrior. All
told, the DRB includes 4,297 tons of equipment and contains 3,450 soldiers.
The Red forces possess some sophisticated weapons, including T-72S tanks with
AT-11 (fire-on-move) missiles, BMP-2 and BTR-60 armored personnel carriers (APCs)
with BMPs armed with AT/P-6 missiles, self-propelled 120mm and 180mm multiple
rocket launchers (MRLs), and 152mm self-propelled howitzer cannons (2S3), and
mobile air defense units (2S6) with radar track linked to both guns and missiles. The
enemy does not have sophisticated overhead RSTA and must rely on command vehicle
forward-looking infrared (FLIRs) and visual recognition for the direct-fire engagement.
The force mix for the LANTCOM scenario is similar to the one used for the first
two scenarios, except that both sides are attrited to reflect the scenario described
above. Four armored gun system (AGS) platforms were included in the analysis, since
they were envisioned to be a key direct-fire system in the force. Although acquisition decisions have since eliminated this particular program, they are included here as a surrogate for a notional future direct-fire capability.
The SWA scenario is intended to represent the Operation Desert Storm scenario
from the Gulf War. Here, we use it to replay Desert Storm—referred to here as Desert
Storm II—sometime shortly after the first incursion in 1990 but well before current day.
In this base case, the Iraqi active protection system (APS) Shtora present in 1990 was
assumed to be upgraded to include direct anti-chemical energy capability. Also, the
ZSU-23/4 systems were upgraded to 2S6 systems, which have been on the arms market
for some time. Below, we show how the scenario plays out from the perspective of a
lieutenant in command of one of the infantry platoons in the DRB.
Experiencing Desert Storm—As It Might Have Been
IT WASN'T UNTIL THE FIRST ROUND ACTUALLY EXPLODED no more than 100 meters from his position that the
lieutenant realized that the attack was for real. After the blinding flash from the explosion followed
by the thundering boom, there was a numbing moment of reverberating silence. His only real protection was the shallow bunker he and his radio operator had been able to dig less than 24 hours
before. He could see no movement around him in the darkness, but he knew enough to know not
to move out of position. For it was this shallow cavity that had saved him from the white-hot metal
fragments that splintered everywhere just moments ago. With his heart racing, the lieutenant felt that
this was by far the most surreal moment of his life. Although they had practiced this kind of mission
many times at the NTC (National Training Center at Fort Irwin), now the attack was happening for
real. Their objective was to protect a critical road junction that led to both the oil fields to the southeast and the Saudi capital to the southwest. Failure in this mission would mean a much more difficult and drawn-out campaign for the allied force in the future.
That first explosion was only a calibration round. It was followed by a deafening barrage, which
landed even further behind him. He knew that the Iraqi forces were trying to destroy his unit's C2
network, but he also knew that they were guessing as to its exact location. His brigade, the 1st
Brigade, was the designated DRB of the 82nd Airborne Division. The brigade had reached its defensive positions less than 48 hours earlier. Its soldiers had had enough time to spread out into a
hasty defensive position on the desert's local high ground and find the best cover and concealment
areas. They fully anticipated a massive artillery prep and took necessary precautions. Nonetheless, as the barrages continued, the lieuBecause the force airdropped
tenant wondered what losses, if any, had yet occurred.
into the area, was foot-mobile,
and needed to maintain contact,
personnel were only able to
disperse over a small area a few
kilometers on a side. They were
able to dig protective foxholes
and use the low-lying brushy
foliage for camouflage.
As soon as the enemy artillery fire paused, he heard confirmation
coming though his single channel ground and air radio system
(SINCGARS) from his company commander that the Iraqi armor
was, in fact, on the move. They were 30 kilometers out, northwest.
Intelligence was indicating a regiment-sized unit heading east to maneuver for an attack from the north. His infantry battalion was protecting the northwestern front, and his company commander said that
based on the latest information, their company would not see the first of the fighting. Two other Iraqi
regiments were reported to be moving in the same area, the first following the lead regiment and
the second heading south; neither was fully committed at this point.
The latest round of intelligence reports estimated that contact with the first enemy regiment would
occur within two hours on the northern front. Although the artillery bombardment continued, not
surprisingly, the effort was now clearly being focused on the northern front to "soften it" for the subsequent maneuver attack.
It wasn't until half an hour after the lieutenant's position started receiving fire that a report came
through, passed down from the tactical net (TACNET), that friendly air strikes were inbound. He
guessed these were the F-16s coming out of Doha. Although he knew he would not be able to see
them, he listened through the bombardment for their presence. Unable to hear or feel the familiar sound of the massive gas turbines mounted on the aircraft (a sound he had learned to appreciate during the exercises at the NTC), he was able to clearly distinguish the "popping" of friendly
rounds to his rear. He determined that the enemy must be in range of the 155mm towed howitzers,
maybe even the 105mm, about 15 kilometers away. He thought of the DIVARTY Q-36 counterfire radars he had seen at NTC. Surely these were now directing American fires at the enemy guns.
It wouldn't be long now before the enemy arrived.
He envisioned masses of T-72s, the enhanced versions, some equipped with APS, rapidly
approaching in attack formation to dislodge his dug-in unit. He knew his unit's job was to stop the
attacking armor—as many of them as they could, anyway. His platoon's primary anti-armor
weapon was the Dragon anti-tank missile. Although his men had substantial training with the
Dragon, he knew its range of less than 1,000 meters would put his gunners well within the range
of most enemy direct-fire systems, and casualties were very likely. Nervously, the lieutenant took a
quick trip around the platoon's positions, checking on camouflage and reassuring his men.
The report came through from the TACNET. Although transmitted and passed down to him in
pieces, the report indicated that the air strike was over. Leaving his platoon sergeant temporarily in
charge, he scampered off to company HQ to see what information was available. Once there, it was
apparent that the fire support team chief was getting some information by listening in on the DIVARTY Command Fire net. From what information was passed, he was able to determine that a
portion of the enemy vehicles were successfully engaged while on the road. The JSTARS provided
a good cue for the mixed strike package of F-15Es and F-16Cs, both armed with unguided bombs
and Maverick missiles.
Although a large number of aircraft were compressed into enemy airspace, amounting to about two
squadrons' worth of strike aircraft (some 48 fighters) dedicated to interdicting the enemy advance,
only about 30 vehicles were notably damaged on this attack. Part of the reason for this much lower
than expected effectiveness was the enemy's highly automated, preplanned maneuver reaction
once the air attack commenced. The enemy formation quickly and methodically dispersed into what
was essentially a variation of their attack formation, effectively reducing their density to the massed
smart munition attack from above. As a result, most of the smart munitions detonated harmlessly
into the soil below, with most of them never even having a chance to engage the enemy armor.
The effectiveness of the 155mm and 105mm tube artillery similarly was lower than expected.
Munitions that were fired against the attacking armor consisted of high-explosive (HE) and dualpurpose, improved conventional munition (DPICM) rounds. The ability to kill moving armor with HE
and DPICM was truly tested here. The 155mm towed howitzers fired hundreds of rounds during
the enemy's attack. Even though updates on enemy movement were being sent by the forwardemplaced scouts, who served as the forward air controllers, only two kills of enemy vehicles were
registered. The battlefield damage assessment (BDA) was being confirmed by overhead intelligence
assets.
While both air and artillery strikes against the enemy armor clearly should have had a demoralizing effect on the enemy, the latest intelligence reports indicated that the attack was still continuing
and moving at a very fast rate. More information indicated that the two-regiment enemy attack
from the north was breaking into two distinct attacks, one heading to the north of the DRB and one
heading to the northwest. The third enemy regiment was conducting a more extensive maneuver
operation, which appeared to be a flank attack to the south of the DRB. All three regiments appeared to be fully committed at this point. Essentially, the enemy had maneuvered to cover
nearly 180 degrees around the DRB. The lieutenant's company commander told him that he had
better get back to his platoon position. It would not be long now.
The last hope to preclude a direct-fire engagement with the dug-in light forces were the Apache
AH-64s from XVIII Airborne Corps that had landed with the ground force. This system was the most
taxing of the force to make functional. They were painstakingly reassembled and then carefully readied for attack—each Apache was armed with 16 Hellfire missiles, which were cued by the advanced
Longbow millimeter wave (MMW) radar and fire control system. As the enemy closed for attack,
the plan was to use the Apaches to provide a circle of protection for the ground forces. Although few
in number, these systems had proved in many previous analyses and exercises to be highly lethal
against moving armor.
Had it not been for one enemy system, the Apaches might have succeeded in their defense. As it
turned out, just a few years earlier the enemy had acquired and trained quite extensively with the
state-of-the-art Russian Tunguska 2S6 tactical anti-aircraft system. Not only did this system have two
30mm 2A38 twin-barreled, liquid-cooled guns electronically steered by a radar, it was also
equipped with eight laser-guided surface-to-air SA-19 missiles. While the guns could only reach out
to 4 kilometers, the supersonic missiles could reach out to 8 kilometers. It was these missiles that were
the Apaches' nemesis.
Now back in his foxhole, the lieutenant could see two Apaches move into position to establish their
"ring of defense" to protect the men on the ground and the objective behind. He sought and found
some comfort in the firepower contained in these systems, which seemed so close. They reminded
him of tanks rather than aircraft, especially when they were moving slowly and hovered only a few
feet above the ground. Looking around, he could see some of his men peering out from their fighting positions. Clearly, they were excited to see the powerful Apaches. Flying low, it appeared that
the Apaches would be almost impossible to see, even by the 2S6 Tunguskas. However, to allow the
Longbow radar a chance to "see" the battlefield, the Apaches had to increase their altitude if only
for a moment. As he thought through the range of attack options, in one swift motion he saw the
first Apache rise to take its look, getting its cue from the scouts in front. The Apache had risen no more
than 30 feet when something happened that he had never seen before. There was a bright streak, a
small white explosion, and then a larger yellow-orange one. The helicopter began to cant harshly
and awkwardly. It had been hit, and it was on its way back down to the ground. Although he was
expecting to hear another explosion, as the Apache fell below his line of sight there was hardly an
audible sound of the impact over the other battlefield fire. Perhaps the pilots made it out okay.
While this was occurring, the second Apache was able to complete its look. When it was back in a
relatively low, safe position, he saw it launch one, two, and then three Hellfires. He could not hear
the subsequent explosions afar or see whether they had found their targets. Already the Apache was
moving to a new location to repeat its attack. Of the six Apaches dedicated to the fight, two were lost.
The remaining four returned to the forward area arming and refueling point (FAARP) to get a new
supply of Hellfires. Getting out of his foxhole, the lieutenant crawled to a small nearby knoll to get
a better look. Out in front of the company's position, he could see burning vehicles. All told, the Apaches
collectively killed fifteen enemy vehicles—a help but nowhere near enough to stop the attack.
Unlike previous transmissions, this time his SINCGARS roared, seemingly with a life of its own. The
messages were loud, frantic, and garbled. The direct-fire battle on the ground had now begun. Although the DRB was occupying a considerable amount of terrain, with the contrast between the
darkness of the night and the brightness of the weapons, the battle to his right flank seemed very
close. The first direct-fire weapons to be fired were the relatively long-range TOW missiles, which
were mounted on high-mobility, multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) platforms. He could
barely see the outline of the enemy to the north through his FLIR. A quick sweep over the horizon
showed no targets in his platoon's area of responsibility.
One thing he had to remind himself of was that he would likely see the enemy well before he could
engage them. With the use of a night sight, his gunners would detect enemy targets out to about
three kilometers, but the range of the Dragon missile was less than one kilometer. He would have
to wait patiently before engaging the approaching enemy.
Although he had tried to mentally prepare for the armor attack over the past two hours, when it
came it looked nothing like what he had envisioned. For some reason, he was expecting 10 or 12
targets, maybe a few more that would encroach within a larger wave. As the enemy tanks
emerged over the horizon, they were massed in one local area, not nearly as spread out as he had
thought. Headed directly toward him were about 50 tanks. His heart sank. Although he knew that
there were sixteen HMMWV-TOWs just to his rear, he also knew they were hopelessly outgunned.
He also realized that his infantry company had about six Dragon teams protecting that same western front—and they would have to take whatever the HMMWV-TOWs could not.
The TOWs were fired as soon as the enemy entered into range. Through his FLIR, he could see
some of what looked like T-72s being hit by the missiles. There were certainly other vehicles, maybe
BMPs that were also among the disabled. Oddly enough, he could also make out the hemispheric
explosions centered around some of the tanks; these were the telltale signs of the tanks' APS. In the
distance and to his flank, several tanks appeared to be burning or smoking. Yet most of the attack
was still coming.
He could see flashes emanating from the enemy tanks' muzzles indicating that they were firing back,
but at this point the enemy was still too far away to pose a threat to them. The artillery was different. Within two or three minutes of the TOWs opening fire, the enemy artillery started bombarding the area to his rear from where the TOWs were firing. He hoped that there would be another
F-16 air strike, but he knew there was no way the aircraft could be turned around fast enough. Similarly, a second wave of Apaches was not available to help with this fight. No, this battle was now
theirs and theirs alone. He anxiously monitored the massive formation of approaching T-72s. As they
quickly moved into range, he silently said a prayer and radioed to his Dragon teams to get ready
to open fire. The knowledge that the Dragons could not start shooting until they were themselves
well within the range of the enemy tanks' onboard machine guns was now his main concern.
After-Action Reports of the Three Scenarios
Clearly, the outcome of the battle in Desert Storm II, played out in the SWA scenario,
is not a good one for Blue forces. The real question is, "what happened during the
battle?" And, of course, we are also interested in the analogous results for the more
stressing scenarios of East Europe and LANTCOM. Here, we take a look at the three
base cases for the scenarios in the form of after-action reports—analyses of the outputs
of the simulation model runs for the three cases in terms of some key outcome measures.
When we look at the simulation results of battles to determine how well the DRB
performed against its adversary (here and elsewhere in the book), we focus on one outcome measure among others: the loss-exchange ratio (LER). The LER captures the ratio
of Red losses to Blue losses, and the numbers shown in the results signify the mean of
at least 30 JANUS-based runs.5 It is important to remember that in all scenarios, Red
forces significantly outnumber Blue forces (even in the attrited case of LANTCOM);
thus, low ratios (even though positive for Blue forces) still result in poor overall battle
outcomes. LERs are used because they constitute one objective measure of force performance. In actuality, the LERs vary considerably across the span of a simulated battle (where possible the LER is shown as a function of time); thus, the "final" LER reported is often only a representative and relative measure of force performance.
Beyond LERs, we also examine other outcome measures, including target kills per system for the Blue forces and Blue force survival by system at the end of the battle.
Across all three scenarios we found a number of similarities. Because the DRB was
intentionally deployed into a situation where it was greatly outnumbered, it was no surprise that in all three scenarios, the current or base case DRB could not sustain a defense against the larger attacking armor force. Interestingly enough, although the
DRB does not have the firepower to repel the attack of the larger force, it does achieve
respectable LERs toward the end of the battle (between 3:1 and 5:1, depending on
scenario). Most of this is a result of a very intense direct-fire battle. Also similar
across all three scenarios, the DRB either draws or loses the initial indirect-fire portion
of the battle. Although such simulation results need to be taken in context, we believe
that there is enough evidence to suggest that this part of the battle in particular represents one of the key limitations of the current DRB. The following discussion amplifies
on this conclusion.
Figure 2.7a shows, for the two similar scenarios, the LER over the course of the
simulated battle, which runs 75 minutes for the SWA and East Europe scenarios. (Figure 2.7b shows the LER over 55 minutes for the LANTCOM scenario.) Looking first
at the SWA and East Europe scenarios, the LER over time shows how the respective battles unravel. In the first few minutes, during the indirect-fire battle, very little attrition
occurs, simply because the forces are positioned out of range of each other. As the Red
force begins its advance toward the DRB, the DRB begins to fire its artillery. Although the attacking Red combat vehicles are relatively lucrative targets at this initial
phase (when they are moving in columns), the limited lethality of the dual-purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM) rounds and the inability of HE rounds to hit
moving targets produced very low lethality. Likewise, because the DRB is in defilade, the
Red artillery preparatory fires also yielded relatively low lethality. LERs were between
1:1 and 2:1 for the DRB across both scenarios at this stage of the battle, being slightly
higher in East Europe because the Red armor, with its slower-moving vehicles in the
tougher terrain, is more susceptible to artillery fire.
Southwest Asia
Loss-exhange ratio
(for DRB)
Direct-fire battle
Red breaches
Indirect-fire battle
Time into simulated battle (minutes)
Figure 2.7a—LERs Over Time for SWA and East Europe Scenarios:
Base Case DRB (Fixed-Wing Aircraft Kills and Losses not Included)
(97% of kills)
(3% of kills)
Figure 2.7b—LER Over Time for the LANTCOM Scenario:
Attrition on both sides begins to occur at a more rapid rate during the direct-fire,
close battle. The front line of the direct-fire battle for the DRB is the Apache/Hellfire attack. Even though the Apaches are assumed to stand off (because of Red's highly capable enemy air defense), they typically can see farther and attack first because of their
ability to improve their LOS with altitude. This was the case in SWA; however, the terrain in East Europe precluded a successful Apache standoff attack. As the direct-fire battle progressed, other direct-fire assets—HMMWV-TOWs, Sheridans, and Dragons—
participated. Although the DRB systems tend to have a range advantage over the
enemy systems, the massive attack by Red quickly became the deciding factor. The LER
in both cases—which rose as high as 5:1 in SWA and 3:1 in East Europe—dropped as
the DRB defense was breached at the end of the simulated battle. As was mentioned earlier, it should be noted that the Army has replaced its Dragon systems with Javelins.
However, since the cancellation of the AGS, there is no immediate replacement for the
Sheridans that were included in this base case scenario.
Turning to the LANTCOM scenario shown in Figure 2.7b, we see a similar story.
The base case Blue DRB shows a very low LER for the indirect-fire battle in the first 20
minutes. In effect, it is losing the indirect-fire battle against the overmatching Red longrange artillery. The Blue LER increases as the engagement moves into the direct-fire
phase, but Blue is still penetrated and overrun. The final LER—as shown in the figure—
is 4:1.
We now turn to how individual systems performed during the simulated battle. Figure 2.8a shows simulation results at the end of battle (after the breach of the DRB defense) in terms of kills for the individual systems for SWA and East Europe; Figure 2.8b
shows the detailed results for LANTCOM. Again, we start with the similar SWA and
East Europe scenarios.
In the SWA scenario, 247 Red systems were destroyed by the Blue force, while in
East Europe 279 systems were destroyed—mostly by the HMMWV-TOWs, as shown
in the pie charts. Looking at the bar charts to the right, however, we see that relatively
few systems of the original Blue force remain. The numbers above the bars show the
Kills by DRB system type
Apache 3%
HMMWVSheridan
Total kills by
DRB = 247
Total DRB
losses = 85
Survival index of DRB (%)
HMMWV- HMMWV- Sheridan Apache
Sheridan 4%
losses = 100
HMMWVTOW
Figure 2.8a—Simulation Results at the End of the Battle for SWA and East Europe Scenarios:
Base Case DRB
total number of systems at the start of the conflict; the colored bars reflect the percentage of the force remaining. Thus, in the case of the HMMMV-TOWs in the SWA
scenario, there were originally 58 at the start of the battle, with only about 25 percent
or 15 remaining at the end of the battle. With the exception of the Apaches, which fly
only a single mission in the 78 minutes of simulated SWA battle (and which do not play
at all in the East Europe battle), the Blue force suffers very high attrition.
In the SWA scenario, the Red force penetrated the DRB defense in the north by
committing one armor regiment to lead the attack, with the second armor regiment following closely in reserve. At the time of breach, the second regiment was almost completely intact. In the East Europe scenario, the Red force was able to turn the southern
flank, penetrate the Blue force, and destroy it.
What is the primary reason the Blue force does not survive the Red attack? We can
directly attribute the outcome to the "close-in" location of the engagements. More
specifically, Blue's two primary killers, the HMMWV-TOWs and the Sheridans, engage
at points on the battlefield where they are exposed (within the LOS of the missiles and
main guns of enemy systems). Even though the DRB has some sensor and weapons
range advantages over the assumed capabilities of the attacking force, it is only a mat-
Figure 2.8b—Simulation Results at the End of the Battle for the LANTCOM Scenario:
ter of time before Blue is overwhelmed by Red's larger force. Many of the engagements
occur relatively late in the simulated battle at relatively close range (well within 4 kilometers), even in the relatively open terrain of the SWA scenario.
When we look at the LANTCOM scenario target kills per system in Figure 2.8b, we
see that about 132 Red systems are destroyed by the Blue force. As was true in the SWA
and East Europe scenario, most of these kills come from the HMMWV-TOWs. And
once again, the Blue force suffers very heavy attrition, losing more than half its TOWs
and Apaches, as well as about half its AGS platforms.
In summary, then, when we analyze the DRB performance in the different "spaces"
of the battle—indirect fire and direct fire (close battle) for the three scenarios—we see
a fairly clear story. First, in examining the indirect-fire battle, we see that the current artillery systems, towed 105mm and 155mm howitzers and the associated rounds
(DPICM and HE) do not provide significant attrition against the armored, mobile Red
force. Next, in the close battle, we see that the direct-fire weapons of the DRB outperformed those of the attacking force. With longer-range sensors and weapons reach, the
DRB was generally able to start the close fight before the attacking force could. But this
advantage was short-lived. As the Red force continued its advance, the DRB range and
reach advantage was reduced, resulting in a notable drop in the overall LER.
At the end of the close battle or time of breach of the DRB defense (58 minutes into
the simulation),6 we gathered statistics to determine whether the Red force was likely
to continue the attack. As it turned out, at this time in the battle, both forces suffered
relatively high attrition. The Red force had roughly 70 percent of its forces intact. Likewise, the DRB had 70 and 65 percent of its forces intact, in the SWA and East Europe
scenarios respectively. However, because of the much closer parity of exchange at this
time in the battle, with Red having a much larger overall force remaining and Blue having very few mobile systems, the breach of the DRB defense is altogether likely, resulting in a catastrophic loss.
This chapter examined how a current DRB from the 82nd Airborne Division might fare
against a capable, division-sized enemy armor heavy force. The results are not encouraging. Even with air and attack helicopter support, the current-generation light
force proves to be at a significant disadvantage.
The main shortfalls across all the scenarios were as follows:
Limited capability to locate the rapidly approaching enemy force.
Inability to inflict enough damage on the advancing enemy armor with today's
indirect-fire weapons, leading to an intense direct-fire engagement.
Vulnerability of the current generation of direct-fire systems.
Very limited tactical mobility.
Finally, the current U.S. force was not well protected from enemy fires of all types.
The results did vary by terrain type. Interestingly, the DRB did relatively better in
the open terrain of SWA, where its TOWs could exploit their long range, whereas in the
closer terrain of Eastern Europe and LANTCOM, the outcomes were worse, since the
enemy could close the range into a more advantageous direct-fire battle.
Although the DRB always destroyed more enemy systems than it lost, the kill
ratio—the LER explained earlier—was not sufficient to prevent the enemy from penetrating the DRB's positions, because of the enemy's numerical advantage. In the next
three chapters, we explore the three different paths outlined earlier for improving rapidreaction force capability.
C HAPTE R T WO E N D N OTES
1 Modeling and simulation is used here as a method for analyzing force-on-force performance only. Although battlefield
systems are played down to the vehicle and soldier level, they are treated as entities and are "played" out by their physical
characteristics and performance limitations rather than psychological or behavioral ones. Also, the simulations are often
run well beyond the likely termination of a battle, for the purposes of collecting data in an effort to answer the question
"What might have happened?"
2 TRAC High-Resolution Scenario 33.7.
3 The designation "division (–)" indicates a division made up of less than the normal three brigades.
4 Detect, recognize, and identify are formally distinguished in the JANUS combat simulation through application of the
Johnson criteria; JANUS uses the U.S. Army Night Vision electro-optical detection algorithm to determine sensor-to-target
5 In general, the lower the ratio, the worse the outcome is for Blue forces in the battle. In other words, LERs below about
5:1 or 6:1—i.e., the loss of 5 or 6 Red systems (elements) for every 1 Blue system (element)—usually mean that Blue forces
lose the battle. LERs up to around 9:1 generally signify a draw for Blue forces, while LERs above 10:1 usually constitute
a Blue win—i.e., Red is defeated in place and Blue has sufficient systems to continue to fight another engagement.
6 Approximately one hour (more specifically, 58 minutes) is an important time in the battle, nearing the end of the close
fight; this represents Red's likely decision time for its forces to continue or call off the attack.
Informational Follow-up DRB Approved Research Project
Homework 08 Ch 9 a
TECBAR
Nine Principles of War
Module Two Parent Communication A Beginning Teacher Professional Development Program


Dialoge I – IV shows the communication between two people. The project focuses on creating a sketch of the intense exchange between two cultures by using the gaze as the main form of communication. Here "culture" does not mean a person's origin but the unique cultivation that everyone experiences and makes people individuals.
Conflicts occur when multilayered cultural,emotional and personal experiences are communicated. The gaze plays a major role within this exchange and it becomes a universal language. The piece renounces verbal communication and introduces gestures instead. In aesthetic terms, the image transcends the borders between photography and film. Initially it appears to be a photograph but upon closer observation the picture starts to move and initiates the dialog. Two people are sitting face to face and communicate with gestures that are used in daily life but could easily evade our perception.
In collaboration/Courtesy Charim Galerie, Wien, AT.


I think we all know what's coming next. My oldest daughter has struggled mightily between her ethical desire to be a vegetarian, and her completely reasonable inability to part ways with hamburgers from The Counter, chicken drenched in orange sauce at the Chinese restaurant and delectable slivers of salmon sushi tucked into her lunch box.
1.	No talking smack about the meat on the plates of others, especially in my house.
2.	There will be no carbo-vegetarians here. With every meat you remove a protein or vegetable must be added to the diet.
And so it began, midweek, with Tsorta Tfaya with Couscous. It is a medley of chickpeas and onions doing a darn good imitation of stew, with about half the ingredients. This was not a random choice. I wasn't going to dive right in with tofu or sautéed broccolini, as a girl needs to warm up. Chick peas have just enough fiber and protein that it feels like a good wholesome substitute for meat. I lived for a brief period in Morocco, so this dish felt at once familiar and fresh.
Further, since we're talking weeknight cooking here, there is nothing more friendly than the words "can of tomatoes." Yes it is better to use fresh vegetables, and dried beans while you're at it, but it's early April, it's Tuesday, and you're going to have this dish the way Kayb intended.
We begin where all good kitchen stories do, with onions sautéing gently in butter and oil in a Dutch oven. Along come spices (so you don't have any saffron or you're missing something else, don't sweat it -- just add a little more of everything else) and some harissa, which I have had on hand a lot longer than the Department of Agriculture would recommend.
While that's cooking up nicely, you can wash a pan or two, pour yourself a glass of something and commence with the sort of dinner conversation that begins with, "So, who can tell me what the Stamp Act was?" Watch the room clear. Wasn't that your intent?
Soon the chickpeas and tomatoes come along. Smelling good! Get that couscous going. It won't be long. Rando m notes: Kayb is very excited to have us eat figs, but then never tells us when to add them. I substituted prunes, which I had on hand and prefer to figs in savory dishes, and threw them in when I remembered, which was in the last ten minutes of cooking. This was fine. I used vegetable stock for my couscous, to keep it real, but I used the Israeli type, so I had too much liquid. You've been warned – check the box. I found a heavy pinch of salt and a generous twist of black pepper finished this dish well.
It was so fast, it was so easy, and the reluctant vegetarian, after proclaiming a dislike for onions and prunes, dove in. Did she polish it off like a burger? No. But she's off to a good start.
1. Cut onions in half vertically, slice thinly, and saute in butter and olive oil over medium heat in a Dutch oven until soft. Add all the spices, the honey and the water, reduce heat to medium low, and simmer until the onion is well caramelized. Taste and adjust spices as needed.
2. When onion is golden brown, add chickpeas and tomatos. Simmer, covered, while making the couscous.
3. Bring stock to a boil in a small saucepan. Add couscous, ras el hanout, stir, and remove from heat. Cover and let steam for five minutes. Fluff with a fork.
4. To serve, put a serving of couscous in a wide bowl, shaping so it's higher at the edges. Put tfaya in the center. Garnish, if desired with slices or wedges of a boiled egg.
I can't tell you how many times I've thought the same thing "We begin where all good kitchen stories do, with onions sautéing gently..."
Wonderful dialogue with your daughter. I think it is great that she is thinking about such matters and discussing them with her mom. Best of luck in your adventure together. I'm sure you'll both learn from each other.
So good to see parents taking it in stride and respecting the tween/teen's wishes nowadays. Twenty years ago this conversation would not be happening. My son was vegetarian, along with me, before he was born. Harder than finding veggie food, was explaining back then that it was even possible to raise a vegetarian child. The proof is in my happy, healthy, 6'3" young man at age 19. He doesn't consider himself quite afull-fledged vegetarian anymore, but he knows so much about conscious eating and our food systems today. I revel in watching him get on his soapbox about CAFOs or processed or foods. May you both enjoy the learning and the teaching.
This is something that both my husband and I have discussed. We eat meat, and when ever we eat with our 3 and 5 year old we really watch what we say; as in we are eating "meat". My son understands where meat comes from, we have explained the importance of feeding ourselves - like how a wolf eats when it is hungry and doesn't waste food.
I appreciate a child's imagination as I do remember how I felt as a child staring at the turkey defrosting in the sink. To hear my son as he is gnawing on a lamb chop when my husband slipped and used the word lamb "who would eat a lamb that's crazy?". I have watched him not touch turkey and eat everything around it when he puts thought into a turkey; and yes I didn't say anything to him because well I understand. So when he asks me now I say lets just say meat and then we don't have to over think our food and enjoy it; which ya know it works for him so for the time being it works for my family. If it comes to it with either of our children I would make sure that they took themselves seriously in the choices of what they eat. I can remember when I was a cook up at a tree planting camp. I had the best vegetarians who taught me so much and I would always make a point of making them something similar to the meat meal. I do recall the very annoying picky eater "so called vegetarians" who would suffer through barley shepherds pie or chick pea stew - sorry no Kraft dinner here! You are so right what isn't there to love about a chick pea!
Bravo to you for helping your daughter make smart choices while she decides what is best for her. I went through a similar phase in high school and although I didn't become a vegetarian, I learned how to be a thoughtful consumer. Incidentally, to Antonia and Ronda's point, in 9th grade there was one night a week when my parents both had work meetings so my Mom had me start cooking dinner for my brother and I. She eased me into it slowly - I made pressed sandwiches for the first month, then moved into boiling noodles, etc. It was kind of fun and over time I learned bit by bit. My brother and I had fun and once in a while, when my results were "inconclusive" (Read: burned), we treated ourselves to pizza delivery!
I was just wondering what kind of chickpeas and prunes you use...the prunes are as small as the chickpeas or are the chickpeas as large as the prunes?
I used standard-sized canned chick peas and pitted prunes which are available both commercially and in bulk at Whole Foods etc.
In the photo those are actually raisins, which were yet another alternative for the dates, or figs, or prunes! All would work well -- it just depends on what you like and what you have on hand.
I see you may be confused by the photo here but those are actually raisins the prunes will indeed be larger.
Yes, I noticed that they must be raisins after I read the list of ingredients listed. I usually photograph the ingredients that I actually cook with. Raisins would probably be a milder flavor, especially for a budding vegetarian.
i enjoyed reading this a lot. i wish your daughter loads of luck. i also love how you told her no talking smack about meat on other people's plates!
Jenny, the thing that's so great about your column (in addition to your fun writing style and lessons in cooking) is your snapshot into your family life and what that says about Family and the ways we raise children today. Clearly there's no recipe for that--we all just do the best we can to walk the fine line between letting them make choices and wanting to communicate our values--whether it's about, food, cooking, the environment, health...the list goes on and on. Those of us who participate in this forum (food52) do so because we care about food-- and it's clear that we demonstrate our love for our families in the ways that we feed them. Some of us are vegetarians, and some of us prefer not to be (or can't). All of us who have children know that each of our children presents us with unique challenges, and that no matter where they are as adolescents, they grow in such interesting and surprising ways. (My nephew, at around age 12, declared himself a "vegetarian except for hot dogs;" 15 years later he is a fabulous cook with a really sophisticated palate.) We really can't know if a preference stated by a given adolescent is real or not--we can just walk the fine line as you are doing with your daughter and as WinnieAb did with her son--doing our best to make sure that they are healthy, and doing our best to love our children exactly as they are. With your writing you give us a snapshot into your life--loving your children--trying to balance your needs and desires with theirs. It's what we all do, ultimately, every day. Thank you for sharing your life with us.
This is such an incredible comment I almost can't do it justice with a reply. You have touched on what is wonderful about the food52 community -- people sharing their food and their lives, which are of course intrinsic, and ultimately, no matter our choices, facing the same central challenge -- to cook and eat well in a busy nutty world. Thanks so much for this comment and for being here!
Jenny, your writing makes Mondays a treat.
I am so glad to have you here!
I am not sure I am ready to surrender the flame of my mercurial vintage stove to my 11 year old, but your point is well taken. She helps bake and with other basic cooking chores and she should be adding more to her plate, so to speak, you (and Rhonda!) are correct!
I am going to make this tonight! Thank you!
My mother used to tell the story about the Thanksgiving I declared I was a vegetarian, and ate only green beans for dinner. I gave up my stance about a year later. I'm sure none of you would be surprised to hear that the smell of bacon did me in.
And then what did I do? Married a vegetarian. Now, I'm vegetarian half the time, and he's a "meat-reducer," eating the occasional chicken, lamb and pork. And I cook two meals a lot of the time.
Regardless, fantastic to see the shout out for this recipe, Jenny. I had missed it, and now will be sure to give it a try. Thanks so much.
Sounds like your kitchen is a very busy and entertaining place. Can't wait to hear if you make this!
I think this sounds delicious - and might be even better with a few chunks of lamb or chicken thrown in! We'll try it the veggie way first, of course. Love your "can of tomatoes" comment!
What can I say? I love me some canned tomatoes now and then!! Hope the dish works for you!
Sounds yummy! Thanks, Jenny. I'm not a vegetarian, and neither are my kids, but I'm learning to be more mindful of (and thankful for) the animal that is slaughtered, before digging into my honkin' fill-in-the-blank (burger, slab-o-bacon, leg-o-lamb, chicken, whatever.) Even go one step further and be mindful of the farmer who raised the animal, the grass that fed the animal, the sun that grew the grass, etc. etc. I know, corny, but it's strangely meditative. Can you tell I've been reading up on my Buddhist relaxation techniques?
It's the environment we are in, no?
Brava to you for your two points made to your daughter.
But I wonder -- why do parents cave into these unreasonable demands from their adolescent children? Vegetarianism is abnormal for humans. The "face" comment from your daughter points to the fact that she's not making an ethical decision at all, but a political and a social one, a decision to bend to someone (teacher? influential mentor?) who is putting pressure on her to make the shift, and to conform to her peers -- all the wrong reasons.
So basically you are calling me, a lifelong vegetarian, as well as millions of Hindus who are vegetarian, abnormal.
Way to be not only poorly informed, but condescending and nasty at that.
I, along with my brother and every single one of my many cousins, was raised vegetarian and none of us are malnourished, unhealthy, or scrawny. Sure, at 5'4", I'm not the tallest gal, but that's the average height of the American woman and it so happens that I'm the shortest of all of my female cousins (because my dad is the the shortest in his family) - most of them are at least 5'7", which is considered somewhat tall for women. I've always had normal bloodwork, have never been anemic, and have always had low levels of cholesterol - same goes for all my family members. None of us have ever been overweight and it would be virtually impossible for any of us to be obese. Overall, we are in far better health than most Americans.
I won't even bother getting into the environmental impacts of eating meat and how vegetarianism is much better for our planet.
Bottom line here is that you should do a little more research into such issues before making inflammatory and uneducated statements.
djgibboni - I don't agree that Jenny allowing her daughter to give vegetarianism a try is caving "into these unreasonable demands" from her child. Serving ice cream sundaes for dinner all week or buying a new princess dress every time it was desired would be caving into the unreasonable. Showing respect for a child's thoughts, concerns and sensibilities is a different thing altogether and I think it is quite wonderful. It seems to me that her daughter struggled with the decision for a while and really put some thought into taking the leap. The fact that she has agreed to stay within the limits that her mother set shows commitment. As a parent, you want your child to experiment, discover and begin figuring out who they are while they are still under your watchful eye. I am sure that Jen considered this - if her daughter is going to give vegetarianism a go, she can do it in a semi-controlled environment where her parents can guide her toward healthful, nutritious choices. I believe that forcing our children to eat what is put in front of them encourages unhealthy relationships with food and with family. I also think that AntoniaJames' suggestion is a great idea - her daughter's choice to go vegetarian gives Jen the opportunity to guide her on a secondary journey - her child, who is certainly old enough, can get involved in the actual menu-planning and preparation of the food. It will allow her daughter to take ownership for her choice and will also leave her with the wonderful gift of knowing how to cook, which will benefit her no matter what her dietary choices are in the future.
I dealt with a similar situation a couple of years ago when my son was 8 and declared he would never eat meat again (on Thanksgiving, no less). It lasted 2 years...2 really long and annoying years, to be honest, because it was hard to get him to eat everything I thought he should be eating. Plus I personally don't think it is the best diet for growing children, esp. boys, so we fought. A lot. After a while, he realized he didn't feel all that great and he really missed meat, so he gave it up. He is no longer a veg now, but he is conscious about where the meat he eats comes from, and he's likes a lot more vegetables than most kids. Anyway, this dish is right up my alley- I love chickpeas and harissa and everything else in here...it sounds really delicious.
I think so many parents face this. Either way, who doesn't love a chickpea??


text:
MIKE PEREZ
MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL EXECUTIVE BOARD
Chief Executive Officer, Americas
Mike is Chief Executive Officer for the Americas and a member of the global Executive Board for HH Global. As a 20-year industry veteran of marketing services outsourcing, Mike leads overall strategic growth and operations and drives the success of HH Global's largest region, focusing on customer relationships across 13 countries. He is responsible for leading and directing the talented management team that works collaboratively across the Americas, aligned with HH Global's vision, "to be the world's most innovative marketing execution partner."
Mike joined HH Global in 2011 as President of HH Global's Americas operation, where he created and led the execution of HH Global's growth strategy in the Americas, the Asia Pacific region, and Japan.
From 2014 to 2015, Mike served as Global Managing Director and CEO of the Americas, where he led day-to-day global operations in 28 countries across the Americas, Europe, India, Africa, the Asia Pacific region, and Japan.
In December 2014, Forbes Magazine featured Mike as an industry expert and innovator based on his accomplishments and ability to drive growth during a challenging time for all businesses engaged with the print industry. The Forbes interview followed HH Global's 2014 plaudits from International Trade and ranking by The Sunday Times HSBC International Track 200, Inc. Magazine, and the Stevie Awards as one of the fastest growing independent companies in both US and international markets.
Before joining HH Global, Mike served in a variety of senior leadership roles at NVISION from 2002-2011, where he held full P&L responsibility for sales, marketing, creative services, business development, and consulting services. From 1996 to 2002, he held a variety of sales and leadership positions for R.R. Donnelley.
Mike received a BA from Kennedy University and earned an Executive Scholar Certificate from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.
ROBERT MACMILLAN
Group Chief Executive Officer
EDWARD PARSONS
Group Chief Financial Officer
STEVE NUNN
Chief Executive Officer, EMEA
LEE HUMPHREYS
Chief Executive Officer, Creative Production Services
KEVIN DUNCKLEY
Chief Digital and Innovation Officer
CRAIG BINGON
Chief Executive Officer, APAC
NICK DIXON
CEO of Veriteva and Blueberry Wave