The Navy Needs a Wider Look at Wargaming | Hacker News Reader

The Navy Needs a Wider Look at Wargaming

news.usni.org

29 pointsprotomyth11 comments

In addition to the compelling arguments made here, I would argue wargaming should also be introduced at the very lowest levels as well. Many of us joined the service loving strategy games like Risk, Axis and Allies, Settlers, etc. Bring that to a Secret-level, tactical wargame, and all of a sudden you get innovative tactics from those unburdened by institutionalized doctrine. Our adversaries are wily - we must be doubly so. The only way to test is to play.

I had to dig in a lot of libraries and bookstores for knowledge on armor warfare when I joined up way back when. I found a book that actually gave me a great baseline for setting up interactive scenarios called Armor Attacks: The Tank Platoon. I still use this for armor wargaming.

http://www.amazon.com/Armor-Attacks-Interactive-Small-Unit-L...

Agreed. I'd say the wargames are out there in places, just not as widespread as they should be, and I would love to see more of them. When I was a new Air Force officer in 2004, there was a school called Air and Space Basic Course that we went through. We played a wargame there where we simulated an Air Operations Center, with targeting, planning, deployment and so on. Basically, picking targets, building strike packages, considering logistics and intel, and so on. I enjoyed it and I think it did a good job of putting us in the mindset of what the Air Force really does. There was also a modified version of Starcraft we played as a team, with planning and targeting involved. (and I played a lot of Starcraft in college so I had no problem with that exercise...)

Turns out there's a old page that describes both of those here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/cf/au_catalog_1999_2000/catalog2000_... I've been out a few years, but I think I heard that (unfortunately) ASBC got shut down as part of budget cuts a few years ago. Hopefully some of this is replicated in the other schools officers go to.

I am reminded of the apocryphal saying attributed to an unnamed Russian soldier.

>> "A serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine."

[http://thediplomat.com/2013/09/unorthodox-and-chaotic-how-am...]

As one of the commenters on the USNI site said, I didn't realize naval wargaming had fallen so far. It sounds as though games like Harpoon are not used at all anymore, at least not in a serious fashion.

I think Armstrong is being a little optimistic about the benefits, though. Top Navy brass has a history of showing disdain when creative junior officers bust the shit out of their tactics and doctrine.

I'm surprised to hear that this is a problem for the Navy, because it certainly wasn't a problem in the Marine Corps (a department of the Navy). Table top exercises were pushed all the way down to the lowest level in the infantry, with force on force exercises occurring at the company level. It was a common sight in the field, between exercises, to see squads huddled around dirt terrain models - gaming out scenarios with the squad leader acting as dungeon master. Some interesting ideas came out of those sessions, like prehooking tow straps on humvees and top down building clearing. A few times a year there would be battalion level exercises, where the officers got to play, but the enlisted were always running scenarios.

The lack of officer war gaming might explain why casualty projections for urban combat where so insanely high, stale information plugged into models that no longer fit reality.

I'm sure those interested enough in checking this thread may already know this but before the Battle of Midway, Japanese admirals ran a wargame to see how it may turn out.

Their wargame showed Japanense navy would lose with losing some big carriers. However rules were bent during the wargaming (or result ignored) and it erroneously showed Japan would win. Of course history proved their wargaming (unpolluted version) proved to be correct.

The Japanese probably didn't wargame the possibility that cryptography by the Allies revealed their plans. See [1], where General George Marshall is quoted as saying: "as a result of Cryptanalysis we were able to concentrate our limited forces to meet their naval advance on Midway when we otherwise would have been 3,000 miles out of place." [1]

[1] http://www.navy.mil/midway/how.html

Highly recommend "Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway". Great book on why Japanese navy was doomed to lose at Midway.

Here is some defense innovation: cease all violent activities and promote peace through passivity, treaty writing and well-to-do local economic development

It must be nice to have a division of unicorn cavalry at your command.

We will never be able to abolish war until we have first defeated fear. Until then, violence and the threat of violence will be an effective way to influence human behavior.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com