"US Army Training scenarios using fictional countries" Topic

The US Army has been using fictional countries in their training for all facets of their "Decisive Action Training Environment".
There is a costly amount of time effort, scenario building, and analysis that at the end of the day after memorizing all the fiction items, a scenario is played and graded, and it amounts to science fiction.
Atropia is the current grandiose scenario – with Ariana (Iran) invading it, and allies and the US go to the rescue. Example:
PDF link
Question: Wouldn't the US Army spend the US Government taxpayer's money better on purportedly real scenarios on real countries, using real maps, and training US and Allies to a high standard to face real enemies?
A – training on a fictional enemy doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.
B – Training against a fictional enemy keeps a lot of people employed (retired personnel in several companies) thinking up fictional scenarios.
C – The money and effort would be better spent on real scenarios and real enemies, thus having soldiers focus on the real threats.
D – Memorizing the order of battles of a fictional country is useful.
E – Memorizing fictional orders of battle should stay out of the real Army and degrades our intelligence community.
F – These fictional scenarios are a waste of time.
G – Quit grousing and learn Atropian or Klingon…

A-C, and G.

The real threat is only the real threat if you are planning one year ahead. And if its true we are always fighting the last war then maybe training on a fictional enemy has some value so I guess the answer is G

Don't most NATO exercises use fictitious countries? This was very common in the Cold War era. Till the mid-70s the US Army exercised against the fictional "Aggressor Nation".

During my time in the Army we knew we were most probably going to face the Soviets on the German plain, or North Korea/China. That didn't mean the Army called the enemy by it's proper name at all times. There was a fictitious enemy country known as Opforland. They looked very Soviet, but don't let appearances fool you. Seems stuff like this is supposed to help the Politicos. Plausible deniability is a term I remember being used…

The fictional scenarios aren't all that fictional. The vast majority is based on the real world. Some of them are lifted verbatim from CIA/intell documents and just the names changed. Using fictional names is a great way to avoid politically uncomfortable questions like why is the US planning to invade Canada?

I agree with Cold Steel. As I said on another thread. The US has contingency OPLANs for many events. From an invasion of the US from Canada to … I'd imagine somewhere an OPLAN for aliens landing on the WH lawn.

Question: Wouldn't the US Army spend the US Government taxpayer's money better on purportedly real scenarios on real countries, using real maps, and training US and Allies to a high standard to face real enemies?

That is being done regardless … OPLANs, Wargames, etc. … Whether a real enemy or a "notional" one. Squads, Platoons, Companies, Battalions and Brigades. Will train and operate, etc., in various scenarios, environments, etc. … In a firefight, it really does not matter what the enemy/OPFOR is called. Fire & Maneuver, Fire & Movement, Flanking attacks, etc., etc., will generally be the same. Chances are even if they are Klingons …

Oh … by the way … I have working knowledge of Klingon … "Qapla'" … just incase …

Al Jazeera, Russia Television, CCTV, NHK, BBC, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and other media outlets would all love the opportunity to report on current U.S. Army planning to invade Iran, Canada, and the Klingon home planet. Think how sensational a report that would be!

In the 80s we trained against GSFG and Warsaw Pact, using almost real ORBATS and TO&Es. After the wall came down we exercised against Genfore who were remarkably Russian in tactics and equipment! There were other forms of enemy, in one establishment we used Kharkasia!

Tally Ho!

There's also the not-insignificant advantage that stripping the enemy force of a specific national identity will help combat preconceived notions of their abilities, objectives and attitudes. Which will make the main point of these training exercises (understanding the enemy and planning out how to defeat him) much more valuable.

There's also the classic 'plans are useless, planning is essential' chestnut (pretty sure this was Eisenhower); writing up plans to fight a specific real-world enemy is basically a waste of time. Training your force in *how to plan effectively* is where all the value is. And for this purpose a fictional situation is just as or more useful than a 'realistic' one.

-Will

A flawed premise, IMO. At least the snarky possible answers are anyway. The politicos don't like to use real names, just in case the plan gets out to the media and causes a flap. Not much waste in using fictitious names as the maps and OOBs are usually from the real guys.

NATO still uses fictional opponents using potential OPFOR equipment and tactics. As does the US Army. As others have noted, only the names are changed – it's not like millions of dollars are spent making up fake countries, redrawing maps, etc.

The real answer is probably "a bit of everything" but as it turned out, you never did fight the Soviets but you did fight plenty of small countries influenced by them.

So maybe the pencilpushers were right all along?

Fictional countries, especially in multinational exercises, help focus behavior as preconceived biases are not there.

Anyone exercise in Fontinalis or Trutta?

Invade Canada? "Bigger" (actually rhymes with slugger) off you lot, unless you want to tangle with warrior wolverines, rabid beavers and merciless-murdering moufettes! We, the people of Canuckistan, will bleed you dry and fill your cemeteries with would-be heros. You will learn to fear the Maplemujahideen of the North! The Mississippi will run red with the lifeblood of your fallen and you will be consumed in a martial polar vortex of doom. We of the North will defy you, destroy you and America will become a land of widows and orphans! So, you may boast like wannabe-brave men or die like fools. The choice is yours. We are watching and waiting!
invadecanada.us
Sheikh Rod Ibn Robert. Alcan Akbar!

Why do the Klingons keep getting pulled into this they are a peaceful people who have never attacked anyone.

Green Berets have always trained in subversion of the country of Pineland. In practicality, you never know who your next enemy will be, things change fast.

Russia was still nominally a "friend" 2 years ago and ISIS didn't exist.

Here are 5 fictional countries that the USA trains to fight in:
link

Krasnovians are tough SOBs, usually giving better than they received!

Pineland is an apt euphemism for Ft. Bragg. Nothing but sand and pine scrub. Hated the training areas.

Green Berets have always trained in subversion of the country of Pineland

IIRC … that FTX was called "Robin Sage" … But as Cold Steel points out, nothing but sand and pine scrub …

Invade Canada?

Yes Rod and you are priority target for at least one Delta Force Tm … maybe two !

Why do the Klingons keep getting pulled into this they are a peaceful people who have never attacked anyone.

reH Suvrup Suvwl''a'.

IIRC … that FTX was called "Robin Sage" …

The final exercise is called Robin Sage, but the fictional country is called Pineland, People's Republic of.

Yes, that's it …

Nah, Russia has not really been a friend since Putin was elected for his second term.

Fictitious countries allow lazy scenario designers to use real world cultural concerns yet fill the OPFOR's country with better equipment than what the real one possesses. Atropia is probably a lot more formidable than Iran.

Using fictional countries for exercises enables training that doesn't offend potential allies/enemies

It also allows flexible training

And – I have no doubt about this – there are lots and lots of operational plans for dealing with actual enemies, just ones that are not public domain

And – I have no doubt about this – there are lots and lots of operational plans for dealing with actual enemies, just ones that are not public domain

Exactly … Regardless, when I was on Active Duty '79-'90. We trained and trained and trained … repeat.
Remember that old saying – "Prior Planning Prevents Ps Performance".
All the way down to individual/Fire Tm level, there were SOPs, etc. … That insured everybody knew what to do in certain situations, etc., … " You train the way you fight – You fight the way you train …"

Another consideration is that once real names and places are used, the classification of the materials is changed. This may alter how the preperation for the training event is conducted and the amount, type, distribution, and control of the materials and products related to the event. While there are benefits to training on operational security and operational security there are trade offs in cost, time, and ease.
So, more flexibility for planners, less potential public relations or political fall out for using real names, and reduced cost and more simplified preparation due to reduced classification, OPSEC, and COMSEC issues.

Very much agree … [A former Rakkasan 3-187, '80-'83]

And we can't forget Sun Tzu, to paraphrase, "All warfare is deception …"

G

I am pleasantly surprised by most of the posts.

Even in airsoft gaming we use fake countries. (Exception being ww2/Vietnam reenactment)

While most spend thousands of dollars to get the perfect Delta Force or Spetznaz kit. When gaming it ain't us vs Russia

But as I said … In a firefight, it generally really does not matter what the enemy/OPFOR is called, who they are, etc., … Some may have certain predilections, habits, etc. … However, Fire & Maneuver, Fire & Movement, Flanking attacks, etc., etc., will generally be the same. Chances are even if they are Klingons …

I'd rather fight Klingons than Daesh, AQ or the Taliban … at least they have "honor" …

Actually I could imagine nothing more satisfying than serving radical islamist terrorist jihadis. But it's just a thought …

Speaking as someone who used to design such scenarios, I think wminsing, Cold Steel, and cosmicbank have the core of it wrapped up.

The key issue is we don't want to practice against what XYZ did yesterday, but what we can reasonably project they are going to do tomorrow. So the fictional forces are very like, but appropriately (we think) different from the real ones. The best training transfer happens (IMHO) when an individual gets to opportunity to practice against two distinct versions of the same force, which given time and fiscal constraints, is infrequent.

Using a different name helps keep people from being too grounded in what they "know" about XYZ and actually helps them associate the lessons learned back to the real adversaries. Everybody knows who is who – it's usually a running joke at briefs in these exercises to "accidentally" say the real world force name, then blurble a bit, apologize, and use the exercise name.

Not offending people is a side effect that gets leveraged in public affairs actions.

Speaking as someone who used to design such scenarios

Good to know as now and in the future your comments on topics like this will hold more weight and veracity … I like to listen to those with real experience(s) on any topic.

Using a different name helps keep people from being too grounded in what they "know" about XYZ and actually helps them associate the lessons learned back to the real adversaries.

This.

When I was in we had plenty of counter insurgency type training. The operations order almost always had a fictional country with the name "San" or "El" something… The OPFOR was always encouraged to wear bandanas, boonie hats and any mix match of uniforms and civilian clothing they wanted.
The MOUT site would be named something like Tacoville.

You did not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who our opponents were!

We also trained for conventional warfare against 1st rate opponents and they almost always had names that started with "Peoples Republic" of something… Our opponents were uniformed and well organized! The MOUT site became something "grad".

Ditto on my experiences as well …