"The Navy Needs a Wider Look at Wargaming" Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board Back to the Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile Article The Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
| Tango01 | 19 Mar 2015 10:59 p.m. PST |
"Under the auspices of the Defense Innovation Initiative, announced by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel before he left office, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work has sounded a call to revive the practice of wargaming in the Department of Defense. In a memo issued Feb. 9, Work announced plans to "reinvigorate, institutionalize, and systematize wargaming across the Department." This memo is a vital first step, and should instigate a Navy wide re-examination of when, why, and how we conduct these evolutions across the force. Lessons learned a century ago demonstrate that the Navy should take the memo's intent on board, but must go even further than Mr. Work's suggestions in order to maximize the warfighting ability and innovative spirit of the fleet…" link Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| seldonH | 20 Mar 2015 3:52 a.m. PST |
mmm… now the real trouble begins… they have to agree on the rules… should they use GQIII or Man o War :) |
 McKinstry   | 20 Mar 2015 4:22 a.m. PST |
Not to mention scale. Since table space may be limited by the sequester, I'm thinking 1/6000? |
| 53Punisher | 20 Mar 2015 7:13 a.m. PST |
|
| Mako11 | 20 Mar 2015 11:42 a.m. PST |
Shipwreck, since I doubt those 1950s and 1960s era computers they are no doubt still using in the DoD will be able to handle the complexity of Harpoon. Plus, it's got a nice, catchy name to remind them of what could happen, if they don't get it right. |
| Lion in the Stars | 20 Mar 2015 7:59 p.m. PST |
Not to rain on your parade, but the Stark was built before the Sheffield got hit. And would have cost more than a new ship to rebuild without the aluminum superstructure. Bad design? Yeah, but not quite as critical as the bulkhead penetrations on the Sheffield that were supposed to be fireproofed and WEREN'T because the fireproofing was too expensive. I really hope that whoever authorized that particular omission was charged with negligent homicide in the deaths of all those in the Sheffield, and had to pay for the replacement of the Sheffield because the lack of fireproofing is what doomed her. |
| David Manley | 20 Mar 2015 11:45 p.m. PST |
"Lack of fireproofing" had nothing to do with the loss of Sheffield. Loss of gastight integrity due to the internal blast was the significant aspect, coupled with mechanical and damage induced failures in the firefighting system. In fact many lessons relating to firefighting and damage conrrol techniques and equipment were learnt from Sheffield and other Falklands damage cases by the RN and shared freely with allies, and those were often taken up especially by the USN (my NAVSEA chums have often said that without some of the improvements that were made in US kit and procedures the Stark and Sammy B incidents would have been a lot worse, and other NATO nations have similarly credited Falklands LFE in mitigating severe accidental damage) |
|
