"US Military wants more wargames" Topic

link

I'm not sure exactly what specifics they have in mind. I've been to presentations for war game ideas at the USAF War College that included all branches of the service and they were mainly looking for staff level logistical support type simulations.

Wolfhag

Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

Sounds like real beer and pretzel gaming.

Any game is good practice at making a decision and seeing the consequences. They can train you to make the right decision, training you to make a decision is harder.

And it's good for the hobby.

Hold on, I thought that you can't learn anything from wargames. We are told so all the time by several prominent TMP members. Someone had better warn the military of their folly!

Hold on, I thought that you can't learn anything from wargames. We are told so all the time by several prominent TMP members. Someone had better warn the military if their folly!

They way their brass have been throwing lately I'd get better dice and dice thrower.

Maybe I should get on writing "Five Staff Sergeants in a depot in Fallujah" huh

I Agree Woflhag, seems like they are wanting games using modern logistics and systems so their personnel can better understand their own environment under the stress of conflict.

So I guess Napoleons campaigns including all logistics is out of the question.

Sounds like real beer and pretzel gaming.

More like how to get the beer and keep it cool for a long cross country trip whilst making sure there are enough pretzels for everyone.

"So I guess Napoleons campaigns including all logistics is out of the question."

Oh, I don't know. There are a lot of similarities:

Does the depot/fortress have what I need in the quantity I need? If so, how fast can I get it to where i need it most?
Time and distance still remains a challenge. Transport availability remains a problem. Security of supply transportation remains a problem.

Seems to me that if you really understand the problems of napoleonic life and times and (of course) are living in modern times, if issues are presented to you in a logical order, you just might be able to furnish some "modern" ideas for solutions to problems not yet realized by the "experts"!

Sometimes, people are too close to a problem. It is just a good practice to have a fresh set of eyes to look at it without the "familiarity" of daily dealing with the problems.

I raise my hand to work in such a job! (Might get me back to the USA quicker?)

v/r
Tom

After like most Army Officers, having duty positions in both maneuver and support/operational/command and log/maint. … A well rounded leader really needs to understand maneuver ops and how to support those missions. Especially with modern tech with not only supplying beans & bullets for the troops. But all the logistics and supplying the parts, etc. for all those "iron monsters". Plus toilet paper, pens, pencils, etc., etc. … Even understood, an Army runs on it's stomach …

In the Spring of 1973 I was stationed at HQMC at Quantico and was assigned as an aide to Major Joe Hoar (later 4 star General CENTOM Commander after Schwartzkoph). The Marines were war gaming the invasion of North Vietnam using the reinforced 1st and 3rd Marine Divisions. It was held at the MCDEC building that has an adjoining indoor basketball court. I was mostly used as a messenger. I still recall reading a dispatch about PT-76's detected crossing a river at XX coordinates.

The building was crisscrossed with field phone commo wire all meeting in the big conference and planning room that had mostly Generals and Colonels. I was a lowly PFC at the time and although having extensive experience playing Panzer Blitz as a civilian they did not seek my opinion.

The culmination of the exercise was in the basketball court with the brass sitting in the bleachers. The floor was taped off for different landing zones complete with color coded wooden models of naval support, amtracks, landing craft, etc. It was pretty impressive. I was not able to stick around to watch the progress and outcome.

I seem to recall two Maine Colonels in a violent argument about using Bolt Action or Flames of War for the beach landing combat. Some things never change.

Wolfhag

My Bde Cdr [197th Mech Bde], wanted us to wargame our Mech Bde vs. a USSR MRR and Armor Bde/Rgt. I was the Bde Asst. S4 at that time. So I got to order all those wonderful toys from GHQ ! The S-2 got to paint'm up and mount'm on bases in Platoon strength. The owner of GHQ even called me up to make sure the order was good, etc. … The guys at Training Aids made a huge muliti-part board of the NTC. And we wargamed the exercise before we deployed. Still got our butts kicked though …

Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

That's what the military needs, more careerists.

"In the Spring of 1973…..I seem to recall two Maine Colonels in a violent argument about using Bolt Action or Flames of War for the beach landing combat."

Neither Bolt Action or Flames of war had been written in the 1970s

Detect humor ON!

The military has a large inventory of computer simulations with which war-games are conducted. These systems often connect to the military's go-to-war mission command systems so that they can train as they will fight. While I think a lot can be gained through smaller, non-computerized, table-top games, it is unclear that the referenced memo is calling for more war-game solutions. Instead I think he is calling for wider USE of existing capabilities.

That's what the military needs, more careerists.

Based on my time on active duty, '79-'90 … Better to have professionals who are well trained and experienced, etc. …

Dye4minis:
I could not agree more.
The basics of logistics, supply line safety, maneuver, army control and leadership (or lack thereof), weather, morale, strategic and tactical control are all represented during the Napoleonic Wars.

However, I'm not sure the current military hierarchy would use a simulation in this time period as the younger generations may not be able to relate, since they did this all without a computer.

HAHA! I bet you are right, wrgmr1! Instead, they had clerks and grunts doing the accounting, moving and storing. That of course meant more mouths to feed and pay for. Less accuracy- perhaps the high rate of shrinkage was somewhat "overlooked" as long as the right officer got his kick-back?

Oh, and let's don't forget about "quality control"! Kilroy was not yet born so who ensured that all 500 kegs of powder were "good"? I still maintain that even with computers doing most of the work today, the basic "important stuff" essentially remains the same in demands for command attention.

But you are most likely right-anyone attempting to compare with today's troops would most likely be wasted effort.

Perhaps they need to create a game on Project Management, and Military Contract Writing/Negotiations, so they get their kit on time, and on budget.

I posted the link in a group that has discussions with defense contractors that develop war games and simulations for the military headed by Jim Dunnigan. We'll see if they have any inside info. Maybe there is a market for "Flames of Neptune" or "Logistics Action".

During the Cold War a large defense simulations company had a contract with the US Navy to develop a computer naval warfare simulation. They rolled it out to the Navy who tried it out. The Navy told them to redesign it so that no US carriers can be sunk because if Congress found out carriers can be sunk by the enemy they may not fund more of them. So the story goes, I can't get confirmation on exactly who and when.

This is my favorite one: link

Regarding Mobius remark about careerist. I think this is what he meant:
careerist (kəˈrɪərɪst)
1. a person who values success in his career above all else and seeks to advance it by any possible means.

There is a lot of that going on right now with the defense cutbacks.

Wolfhag

Always been going on, Wolfhag…

Back for two decades or so, NATO used to run a massive wargame at Camp A.P. Hill, Virginia every other year or so. It was intended to exercise the logistics system, but for it to work, a big chunk of the Central Front was displayed in table top form, with markers representing company level and referees resolving combat. There were about 400 participants. MI officers played the Soviet parts, and NATO allies Brits, Dutch, Germans sent delegations to participate also. Although only a lieutenant at the time, I played the part of a U.S. divisional artillery commander, trying to prioritize and respond to urgent calls for fire. After about four days of play, Soviet forces were doing pretty well (almost to the Rhine). A number of "Hero of the Soviet Union" awards had been given out to particularly daring commanders. It was a lot of fun, actually.

Mako11:

While it is easy to criticize the military acquisition system, few people understand the root causes of slowness and unresponsiveness. Those who are forced to try to make the hidebound system work are rarely consulted about how to make their jobs easier so they can be more effective, efficient, and responsive. Instead "experts" are brought in as consultants, and most of their recommendations are rubbish.

Acquisition has been "reformed" any number of times in the past few years without addressing one of the key causes of failure: the requirements generation process, which generally lacks foresight, discipline, and grounding in what is technically feasible at a reasonable cost. In the last round of acquisition reform, in order to "streamline" acquisition, the size of the Federal Acquisition Regulations doubled from 40 to 80 pagers!

Most importantly perhaps, there are lots of laws and rules that must be followed. You must disabuse yourself of the notion that the acquisition system is about getting the best value for soldiers and taxpayers. It is about redistribution of wealth from "less favorite" people and organizations to "more favorite" ones. The only way to fix this is with real reform that reduces the amount of meddling int he process that can be done by folks in the global epicenter of stupid -- Washington DC.

Back on topic: the military doesn't need any more games. In fact, they need fewer that are easier to use. We have a lot of simulations with duplicative capabilities that are maintained for political or "rice bowl" reasons. Our military simulations are quite capable, but the developers are rarely allowed to spend money making them more intuitive and giving them a modern user interface.

Buck

1. a person who values success in his career above all else and seeks to advance it by any possible means.

There is a lot of that going on right now with the defense cutbacks.

Wolfhag

You may be correct Wolf … But you'll find that in any big organization, even more so in the civilain sector. Regardless it happens … Hopefully a military leader does not put his men and the mission behind his own needs. But again it's a big organization …

Maybe I mean this.
"I come over from supply"
YouTube link

There are some that think why the US took a shellacking the first six months of WWII like at Iron bottom sound was that there was a lot of careerism in the Navy.

"In the Spring of 1973…..I seem to recall two Maine Colonels in a violent argument about using Bolt Action or Flames of War for the beach landing combat."
Neither Bolt Action or Flames of war had been written in the 1970s

During this period the Army was using some kind of D6 rules system. I think it started with a "D" and sounded kind of German. I used to have a copy but I don't even remember the name now.

I found the name, it is Dunn Kempf.

Yep, played Dunn-Kempf a few of times while on active duty … was not too bad, it served it's purpose.

"I come over from supply"

LOL ! Like I said, all officers in the ARMY bounce back and forth between Tactical/command duty positions and Staff/Log/Maint, etc., postings It's just the way things are done. I was an Infantry Officer. Started out as a PL and then Bn S3Air in the 101. Then an S4 in the ROK with the 2ID. When I got back to the world was assigned to the 197th Mech Bde. I was a Bn BMO, Bde BMO, Mech Co. Cdr, then Asst Bde S4. That sort of progression, was generally considered a well rounded route. To be a Bn, Bde or higher commander you need to know how "things" work at many levels and occupational skills, etc. …

I seem to recall two Maine Colonels in a violent argument about using Bolt Action or Flames of War for the beach landing combat. Some things never change.

Just the names of the games being argued over, methinks…

Does anyone remember the computer or console game from the early 2000s where you had to win both the physical battles and the war for popular opinion?

Didn't the pre-WWII war game in Louisiana show how unprepared the US Army was? I think about 1/3 of the US Army division commanders were relieved of command after the war started? When we entered WWII Japan had been at war for since the early 1930's and Germany for a few years before us too. I'm sure they vetted commanders. Just because you are not the best combat commander does not mean you are not a good leader/officer.

I think the careerist situation is pretty much human nature. War games can show who is a better combat commander and who has the overall management skills too but not definitively. During peace time many of the real warriors leave because the system becomes bureaucratic and many professionals don't want to put up with it. I don't think there is any getting around it. Officers are in competition to get to the next level and the pyramid gets smaller and smaller as you rise to the top. The system does not guarantee the best combat commanders will get to the top. If you want to play the game you can move up, if not move out. But all careerists are not going to be bad commanders and not only careerists will get to the top. Same situation in civilian life.

I think all of the branches are using officers more as generalists and not specialists. It give the branch more management flexibility. A war game will at least give them the big picture of what they'll need to do even if they don't have specialized knowledge and like Legion4 said a well rounded officer when he gets to higher echelon command.

Wolfhag

There's also the "promote to failure" mentality that afflicts a lot of organizations:
If you do good at your current job, you get promoted.
This continues until you end up in a job you aren't actually good at, any longer

Then you get stuck there, because it's usually a bigger hassle to demote someone.

History has quite a few commanders who did great at one level of command but started lacking (even if they never became "bad") at higher levels.

As far as "barracks" vs "combat" leaders, obviously it's complex but I'll add that in peacetime, it seems you need more of a focus on organizational structure and promoting the general service culture.

So maybe there's a need for both? Of course, recognizing the limits of either is important too.
"Little Mac" in the civil war did wonders getting the Union army in shape and believing in itself, but he wasn't the right man to take it into the field.

If you do good at your current job, you get promoted.

Generally, but not always … However, like any big organization, you have lots of slots to fill. Sometimes you don't have "Top Guns" to fill all those positions … Or course there is politics at times or you off someone who you shouldn't have, etc., etc. … happens … for better or worse … I remember being RIF'd after 10+ years on active duty. And then joining the USAR. The Bn Cdr looked at my paperwork[ ORB, DD 214, etc.] … And said, "Why are you here … I don't see anything wrong with you Captain ?" "Did you sleep with the COL's daughter ?" … I said, "Sir, if I knew things were going to turn out as they did." I would have slept with his daughter and wife !" …

Legion4,
Maybe it's not too late! Look them up on Facebook.

Many civilians think the military is like Federal Civil Service. Enlist, guarantee your 20 years and retire. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Commandant of the Marine Corps said he only wants 1 out of 5 enlisted Marines to reenlist. Many good people will be forced out, that's just the way it is.

My son is at Camp Pendleton and there are officers that are "head hunting" looking for some junior Marine to NJP for an illegal haircut, not wearing their uniform correctly, or some other B S. The LT's buddy may be the Company Commander who then gets to show how hard corps he enforces regulations by burning the enlisted Marine for some stupid infraction. Both officers get to write up something about how well they are doing their job. Unfortunately this is part of how part of their Fit Rep is looked at.

One squared away Marine in my son's unit got NJP and busted from Corporal to Lance for not having his hair cut properly on his day off at the gym by an LT out head hunting. Almost all Marine reenlistment bonuses have been pulled too except for specific language expertise or MARSOC.

When they go on field exercises the junior officers are always looking for them to do extra work or make stuff up so they have something to write about on on what they did during the exercise. There is a lot of pressure on them to look good and they need to compete with each other. Just being good at what you do is not enough. Large civilian corporations are not much better.

War games also serve as a way for the officers to look good which is probably why the results are tweaked towards fantasy.

My son is a L/Cpl and isn't worried as he has a $100,000 USDK job (and no college debt) doing the same thing as a civilian if he got out tomorrow but he wants to stay in. His strategy has been to befriend a few good officers and senior enlisted and do everything he can to make them look good. A number of other officers have tried to burn him but nothing has stuck. I've warned him but he keeps pushing the envelope. He's trained himself to fill four different MOS's and is doing training and giving classes that Sergeants should be giving but don't have his knowledge base.

Wolfhag

I remember being RIF'd after 10+ years on active duty. And then joining the USAR. The Bn Cdr looked at my paperwork[ ORB, DD 214, etc.] … And said, "Why are you here … I don't see anything wrong with you Captain ?" "Did you sleep with the COL's daughter ?" … I said, "Sir, if I knew things were going to turn out as they did." I would have slept with his daughter and wife !" …

ROFLMAO!!!!

You can get Dunn Kempf from LuLu or as an ebook or some-such. I still have my original copy (it was modified WRG), and is very playable.

Problem with wargaming and the brass, they'll just ignore any lessons learned from negative results.

I spent over 26 years in the US military, almost 21 active, mostly as an officer, and was always surprised at how little wargaming and studying military history we did. I came to the conclusion, we avoided wargaming because it would expose a lot of incompetence. I couldn't imagine many senior officers who like to be humiliated by a junior officer, or Lord forbid, a sergeant, who out maneuvered them on a tabletop.

pjm

Below is an excerpt from this link: link

Periodically Moltke would take the entire student body of the War College and as much of his General Staff as he could spare and literally ride on horseback to one of the actual invasion corridors into Prussia. Moltke would then personally describe the situation he viewed the most likely first clash between invading and Prussian forces.

He would then turn to the most junior student present and ask for his plan of battle. He would then ask the second most junior, then the third until he would ask the opinion of the most senior General present. Why? If the most senior spoke first would any junior disagree? Besides the younger officers might come up with something innovative. They would then ride to a hill overlooking where Moltke felt the next phase of the battle would be fought and the process was repeated.

By the end of the day the group would have arrived at a consensus battle plan. Yet the exercise did not end there. They then played a map-based war game. The entire group would retire to a local inn. Moltke would then name the senior ranking general (aside from himself) to command the invading forces. He then named the second ranking general to command the Prussian forces. He continued thus until the staffers and students were split into two equal teams. He did this for two reasons. First, Moltke believed that if their plan could succeed against some of their smartest strategists it would probably also succeed against any enemy strategist. Second, with two equal size teams more officers could participate meaningfully. The Blue (Prussian) team would use the plan devised during the day. The team representing the invaders would develop their own plan.

This was sophisticated enough but Moltke was not done yet. The next day he would contact the local garrison. (This was an actual invasion corridor.) He would direct the garrison commander to march a few hundred soldiers where the plan called for thousands to march. This was done to test the marching times and other details of the plan. When all this was done the plan went on the shelf as the actual plan for an invasion along that corridor.

Looks as if someone was doing it right and no computers needed.

Wolfhag