""Wargaming" a real tactical situation" Topic

Here are some questions for those with actual experience in commanding platoons or companies. When you 'wargame' a problem in the field, what exactly do you do, who is involved, and how does the process differ to what us civilians mean by wargaming? Are there any publications that describe the thought process, i.e. is it codified in any way?

On a slightly higher level the Wargame is part of the planning process. The staff will sit around a map table over which will be a series of overlays showing likely enemy courses of action.

The staff will have produced a number of plans each of which will be run through as a wargame, with the G2 (Enemy) reacting where applicable. In addition other staff may intercede with potential problems such as routes, logistics, weather, air etc.

Finally a plan will emerge that will have Decision Points, Named areas of Interest and Targeted areas of interest, bounds, timelines, routes, fire plans etc. The wargames process should highlight the many what ifs to allow the commander to plan for them. Another form of the wargame is the rock drill.Google this for some more info: military wargaming process

At a lower level, not so much detail but still a similar process with a quick map/model/ or even chalk on bazooka plates, bearing in mind at the tactical level there will not be the luxury of time. Training will be used to practice SOPs such as anti ambush drills, actions on, obstacle crossings etc.

In 2003 at HQ 7 Armd Bde we used 1:300 models as part of the wargames process!

Tally Ho!

Real world, we practice how to move across the terrain, maintain formation and tactical control. I also had a large sand table in the company area that we also practiced on with Roco models. My platoon leaders also worked with their tank commanders on the table too. We didn't usually use the "wargaming" rules like rolling for kills, etc. The purpose was to work out how they would accomplish missions and react to enemy actions.

My most recent experience was with security details moving between operating bases in Iraq. The entire team would gather around a fairly accurate sand table and game out missions. A leader, sometimes the company commander or 1SG, or even the battalion sergeant major or the operations officer or his senior NCO, would serve as the moderator and walk the team through scenarios. There might be someone from the battalion intel section present to input on threat actions. Depending on the unit, there may be on the terrain board (micro armor or diecast cars and miniature soldiers) for everyone or just the key vehicles.
I guess it was more like a role playing game than a traditional wargame.
I sat in on some testing of doing this on a computer game which at the time was a little clunky. I am sure they have enhanced it. I think the camaraderie of the team sitting around going over the mission would be lost if the process were completely reverted to the computer.

Thanks for the responses! Quite a lot to absorb there!

I think the biggest difference between military wargaming and hobby wargaming is the purpose behind it. There is something of a paradox at the heart of military wargaming as part or operational planning in that to be effective it should be competitive, but who wins is probably the least important part of the exercise. Done properly, IMHO, the purpose of the wargame is to test a plan and identify any flaws or gaps so that they can then be addressed and the plan refined.

The classic example that is often trotted as an example of poor wargaming is the Japanese preparation for Midway. At an early stage in the wargame several Japanese carriers were sunk due to a lack of CAP. The senior umpire then resurrected the carriers and the IJN team went on to ‘win' the wargame. I would argue that this was an example of a wargame doing exactly what is was meant to do – it highlighted a flaw in the initial IJN plan. Having identified the flaw the umpire then partially reset the game and proceeded to test the rest of the plan. The wargame identified the lesson; that the IJN staff officers didn't learn the lesson and refine their plan was down to poor planning rather than poor wargaming.

For British references have a look at JDP 5-00. There's a section on wargaming in the planning chapter IIRC. I'm pretty sure JDP 5-00 has been superceded now, so there's almost certainly a declassified copy on the net somewhere.

Just got home from Battle Staff training a couple of weeks ago – what they said.

As noted … we would train … practice … rehearse … use/develop SOPs, etc. … and do it all over again At Squad, Platoon and Company level daily in some cases.

At the Ranger School, which was mostly Squad size patrols. They used to use those little green plastic toy soldiers, colored yarn, etc. … So you could set up a little terrain table any where in the dirt. The yarn would show routes, Rally Points, Objectives, etc. It would go something like around the dirt terrain "table".

"Martinez … this guy with the MG is you. You'll set up a support by fire position here."
"With McCoy, you are this guy, you are the ammo bearer. " "Your primary field of fire is … "

Well you get the idea.

When my Mech Company was attached to a Tank Bn. They/we would use those little green toy tanks and APCs. In the same manner.

At Bde level our Bde Cdr, had us order our Mech Bde, a USSR MRR, and Tank Regt from GHQ. And had the Training Aids guys on Main Post make a vacu-form model of the NTC. The Bn S2/Intel guys mounted and painted everything at Platoon level. And we'd "wargame" with the GHQ and the NTC terrain board.

Just like the example at the Ranger School I mentioned …

We even a few years before that. We used an old system called Dunn-Kempf. At Bn and Bde level. Using the maps of the area were deploying to. And move the little plastic models with paper unit IDs …

Hope that helps ?

Wargaming a tactical proplems is part of the 6 step Marine Corps Planning Process, detailed in the MCWP 5-1 Marine Corps Planning Porcess: PDF link

It is not generally what gamers would consider a wargame, rather its normally an action/reaction discussion of what is likely to occur during the phases of an operations, designed to identify vulnerabilities and opportunities in the plan.

There are a huge range of "wargaming" done in support of training and education. This is likely closer to what hobby gamers would think of as wargaming.

A very good reference is: Mastering Tactics: A tactical decision games workbook. Schmitt, J. (1994). Publisher Marine Corps Association. ISBN 0-940328-14-3

There are very elaborate computer simulations that are used to 'adjudicate' tactical proplems in training environments. The information from the 'wargame' is used to generate staff action and planning.

I have used, as do many others, different versions of wargames to train personnel. Squad leader was a very popular game among Marines back in the early 90s. The libarys at Camp Lejeune, 29 Palms, and MCB Base Hawaii, at least, have (or had?) fairly extensive collections of wargames that can be checked out.

Tactical Decision Games are fairly commonly used by Marines for training. They are usually more 'talk-throughs' then what gamers would think of as wargames.

Very often "models" or "minatures" (usually "toy army men") are used on sandtables to illustrate concepts of operations and/or SOPs. As Legion says above this often includes use of colored string and laminated markers to designate terrain features, and tactical control measures such as phase lines, objectives, target reference points, trigger lines…

Several years ago I used 1/285 minatures on sandtables to train combat engineer officers and SNCOs on breaching and countermobility operations. I used them in the lecture/demonstration part of the class. Then they had to write/issue an order and we "wargamed" it.

In this case no 'wargame' rules were used, but I adjudicated the results based on desired learning objectives. We made them them communicate as if speaking over a radio, other students would play their subordinate 'squads' and/or vehicles in the exercise while I or the other instructors would play the role of Battalion Task Force S-3 and/or Company Commanders. Intent was to exercise the breaching tactics as well as communications/signals planning, fire control and coordination with supported infantry and armor units.