Tango01 | 15 Dec 2014 11:00 p.m. PST |
"In a recent department-wide memo announcing the Defense Innovation Initiative, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel calls for accelerating innovation throughout DoD. Among other elements of the program, "A reinvigorated wargaming effort will develop and test alternative ways of achieving our strategic objectives and help us think more clearly about the future security environment."1 The Secretary's use of the word "reinvigorated" implies that some aspects of the current wargaming program, whether in DoD proper or throughout the Services, requires improvement. Since each of the Services has in place a robust program of wargaming, the Secretary either is calling for additional effort in the joint and OSD arenas or is leery of the objectivity of Service gaming and wants more oversight of the process. Whatever the Secretary's true intent, an effort to improve wargaming support to innovation will face any number of pitfalls. Just throwing money at the problem almost guarantees failure. If this initiative is to bear fruit, wargames must be conducted under the proper circumstances by the right people using correct techniques. Although not specifically called for by the memo, the implied task for the Secretary and his staff will be to establish a DoD-wide policy and strategy on wargaming. This article will set forth some considerations and principles for doing so…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
(Phil Dutre) | 16 Dec 2014 4:45 a.m. PST |
Any news on what scale they are planning to use? |
Frederick | 16 Dec 2014 5:23 a.m. PST |
Wargaming has been part of strategic planning for not only the military but also many industries for years – there is even a book on it |
OSchmidt | 16 Dec 2014 6:36 a.m. PST |
Aw cripes Now we're doomed! Does this mean that the Defense wonks will be hanging out here? Damn! Isn't TMP bad enough already! |
Tango01 | 16 Dec 2014 10:21 a.m. PST |
Scale? 1:1 (smile) Amicalement Armand |
Zephyr1 | 16 Dec 2014 3:12 p.m. PST |
There is a Department of Dungeons? Is it run by trolls like Accounting is in Dilbert…? ;-) |
Kropotkin303 | 16 Dec 2014 3:49 p.m. PST |
"If this initiative is to bear fruit, wargames must be conducted under the proper circumstances by the right people using correct techniques." Ah,ha. That means perhaps that they should be calling on the vast knowledge base of TMPers then. Anyone remember Niven and Pornelle's Footfall where science fiction writers are co-opted into a think-tank in response to an alien invasion? Joking aside, the complexity of modern "real" wargaming must be a many-headed hydra that I would have no way of even starting to imagine. |
etotheipi | 16 Dec 2014 7:04 p.m. PST |
Joking aside, the complexity of modern "real" wargaming must be a many-headed hydra that I would have no way of even starting to imagine. No, not really. |
OSchmidt | 17 Dec 2014 6:09 a.m. PST |
If you judge by the flaming absolute failures we have had in the past, all of which were the product of extensive studies and wargaming, one discards any idea they are useful. As I understand it from people who put on these things, and people who participate these things, they are all frauds jiggery-pokeried to back up the opinions and policies the political people want to pursue or are congruent with the career goals of the generals who engage in them. Little known fact. We all have heard of the Japanese war games before Midway and the interference of Admiral Ugaki. What many have not heard is that at the start of the war, the Japanese took two lieutenants who were good at this and gave them access to everything all the data, all the secrets and told them to keep gaming to come up with predictions. Well the two lieutenants did so. They predicted almost EVERY allied move, and every allied victory and all that was wrong with the Japanese Strategy. Eventually the high command stopped listening to them, and in 1944 broke up the team. They just couldn't handle the reports. Modern wargames are there only to pat the national leaders on the ass, and make them think they really know. Worthless. |
Dye4minis | 17 Dec 2014 8:52 a.m. PST |
Otto. You appearantly are unfamiliar with the concept of validating plans of actions. Suggest you try to find a copy of "Rational Methods, Prudent Choices: Plananing U.S.Forces" by Robert P. Haffa, Jr.; US Govmt Printing office. 202-783-3238. This deals primarily with the development planning for US Forces, once such a plan is devised, it needs to be tested. Through testing, one can discover previously unrecognised situations that may have been missed during the planning process. Wargaming (or running it thru simulations) validate or points out deficiencies without loss of life or materials. It's expected for "players" to make mistakes as After Action reports (AARs) become roadmaps for correcting deficiencies. I chose this book to illustrate the difficulty of balancing changing national security objectives with available and projected resources against projected threats. "Gaming" is a useful tool in keeping us safe. It's not a matter of pushing toy soldiers around like you/we do! Just because you may not have to participate in such "sims" (and at many levels) does not deserve your critical assessment of the way the government uses the "game" aspect. For most of us (myself included!) the actual things being tested lies with the designer of the sim. There are no winers and losers, per say, but the designers obtain the benefit from the collective experience of the current existing forces in the sim. Training, logistics, weapons systems capabilities, tactics,etc. deficiencies are discovered BEFORE actual hostile action…not during the action for real! So please, reconsider your opinion about this subject. That 2015 Porche (insert your favorite) is not "just another car"- it represents the current state of affairs, technology, etc. |
OSchmidt | 17 Dec 2014 10:41 a.m. PST |
Dear Dye4 I'm quite familiar with it. I know half a dozen people who are regularly involved in it. I am also quite familiar with what the counterpart is in business. |
Dye4minis | 17 Dec 2014 7:16 p.m. PST |
"As I understand it from people who put on these things, and people who participate these things, they are all frauds jiggery-pokeried to back up the opinions and policies the political people want to pursue or are congruent with the career goals of the generals who engage in them." So Herr Schmidt, because I participate in these I am a fraud? With a wide brush you paint! I may be a bit more touchy than normal as I buried my Mom today, but Otto, this quote above is the stupidist thing I have ever seen you post! I always thought you were a better man than this- spoutong a line of which you don't show evidence of understanding what you condemned. Really?….. Not like you at all. Tom |
Dye4minis | 17 Dec 2014 7:36 p.m. PST |
"I'm quite familiar with it. I know half a dozen people who are regularly involved in it." Oh, my…with impressive credentials of actually knowing 6 real people that are regularly involved in it…my supporting a COCOM directorate consisting of over 50 make me seem…..so unknowledgeable! This is so not worth the effort today. Excuse me, please. Tom |
skippy0001 | 17 Dec 2014 11:04 p.m. PST |
The whole idea is to see the un-see-able and prepare for it. What if TMP becomes part of a DOD 'Enders' Game'? |
OSchmidt | 18 Dec 2014 2:02 p.m. PST |
Sorry Tom, that's been my experience. I don't tell you your eyes didn't see what they saw and your ears didn't hear what they heard. I've participated in this kind of thing and I've reviewed them. I'm not talking about training exercises and stuff, but simulation stuff. Even the people who create these thing tell me they're frauds and if they're so good howcum we always lose? don't be mad. You've had different experiences. Otto
|
14Bore | 25 Dec 2014 8:43 a.m. PST |
My suggestion is for them is pull out a copy of Empire III and… (ducks and run) |