Author Topic: A Blast from the Past, Hoping to start a Discussion  (Read 748 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smuckatelli

  • Condottieri
  • ******
  • Posts: 3273
A Blast from the Past, Hoping to start a Discussion
« on: February 02, 2021, 02:44:34 PM »
This is an article from 2006 about the then current simulation status in the USMC. I'm thinking about expanding this discussion to other threads.

"The family of tactical decisionmaking simulations (TDSs) consists of several different wargaming software applications designed to be distributed on compact disk or via the web. The focus of effort during TDS concept development was to enhance the Marine’s decisionmaking ability. TDSs are designed to provide a training capability that could be used to exercise doctrinal, analytical, and intuitive decisionmaking applications and skills. Combining this approach with other operational and leadership initiatives, such as mentoring and leadership development based on experiential learning methods and critical thinking, poses a leverageable opportunity for enhanced performance anytime, anyplace."

 https://mca-marines.org/blog/gazette/tactical-decision-making-simulations/

Anyone feel a want to expand on this?

Online Jarhead0331

  • Judge Advocate General
  • Administrator
  • Arquebusier
  • *
  • Posts: 15129
  • Global Moderator, General Counsel, Heavy Weapons
Re: A Blast from the Past, Hoping to start a Discussion
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2021, 02:51:05 PM »
Since this program dates back to 2006, and the Marine Corps has been involved in near constant combat operations since, I'm curious if there have been any reports generated which study the effectiveness of wargaming software applications in achieving the goal of enhancing decisionmaking in the field and under combat conditions, and if so, which applications were most successful and what changes have been made to the kinds of programs utilized. Also, how have advances in technology since 2006 been taken advantage of to increase the training outcome?

Any thoughts or links that you can direct us to would be greatly appreciated!
Grogheads Uber Alles
Semper Grog
"No beast is more alpha than JH." Gusington, 10/23/18


Offline Smuckatelli

  • Condottieri
  • ******
  • Posts: 3273
Re: A Blast from the Past, Hoping to start a Discussion
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2021, 04:34:17 PM »
Since this program dates back to 2006, and the Marine Corps has been involved in near constant combat operations since, I'm curious if there have been any reports generated which study the effectiveness of wargaming software applications in achieving the goal of enhancing decisionmaking

We had some Cognitive Task Analysis done, our major problem is that this deals with intuitive decision making. Basically all of the experiences that you have had in your life time shortens your decision making process. I'm going to quote a Gazette article that I used as my 'Foreward' in the CCM Workbook:

 Foreword

“Close Combat” and Learning Infantry Tactics

I have learned more about small-unit infantry tactics from the “Close Combat” simulation than I have from fourteen years of Marine Corps infantry experience.

“Close Combat” is a computer combat simulation published by Atomic Games. The focus of the simulation is on infantry combat at the small-unit level. The series currently consists of five versions: Close Combat I: Omaha Beach, II: A Bridge Too Far, III: The Russian Front, IV: Battle of the Bulge, and V: Invasion Normandy. 

I am an infantry major with fourteen years commissioned service, seven years with 5th Marines, three years in schools, and three years as an infantry training officer with the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab. I have deployed overseas with 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines four times. I have commanded two infantry platoons and one rifle company. I have served as a battalion operations officer and regimental operations officer. I am a student of tactics. I have taught NCOs and officers infantry tactics. I have participated and led tactical decision training.

None of these activities or learning experiences can match the effective and focused tactical learning that I have experienced through repetitive fighting of the small unit scenarios in “Close Combat.”

“Close Combat” permits a player to fight hundreds of scenarios, make thousands of tactical decisions, experiment with different tactics, and learn from his mistakes. I would be a far more qualified platoon commander now than I was twelve years ago. Through fighting the “Close Combat” simulation, I have internalized significant platoon-level tactical lessons:

•   Long unsupported assaults are deadly. Assault for short distances, against a lightly armed or well-suppressed position.  A single enemy soldier can destroy a squad across 100 meters of open ground.

•   A long covered approach is always better than a short open route. Be careful of covered approaches that cannot be covered by an overwatching unit.

•    Every unit needs obscuration. Smoke save lives. Every assault and every withdrawal should use smoke.

•    Fire and maneuver is the key tactic. Use the majority of your force to overwhelmingly suppress the enemy, and a small assault unit to rapidly close on the objective.

•    It's all about suppression. Fire without maneuver is wasteful and indecisive. Effective suppression is the basis for all infantry tactics.

•   Units without mutual support are doomed. Mutually supported units protect each other from being fixed or assaulted.

•   Mortars are inherently inaccurate. Area suppression is NOT destruction. Rounds are limited. Use them well. Don’t waste mortars on bunkers or buildings.

•   Concentrate your fire. Fire control insures decisive action. In contact, men will disburse their fire. Sequentially destroying targets with point fire is more effective than distributing ineffective fires

•   Every unit— squad, platoon, and company—needs antitank capability when facing tanks. An infantry unit with no organic antitank weapon is either retreating or overrun. Tanks can only be fought in close terrain.

•   Concentrate your fire. Fire control insures decisive action. In contact, men will disburse their fire. Sequentially destroying targets with point fire is more effective than distributing ineffective fires.

•   Every unit— squad, platoon, and company—needs antitank capability when facing tanks. An infantry unit with no organic antitank weapon is either retreating or overrun. Tanks can only be fought in close terrain.

•   For anti-tank positions, deep and narrow sectors of fire with defilade on both sides are best. The best sector of fire allows you to engage only one tank at a time.

•   Defensive positions are temporary. All units need multiple positions and the ability to withdraw.

•   For machinegun positions, deep and narrow sectors of fire, with defilade on both sides, are best. Primary and secondary sectors separated by frontal protection are better.

•   Cover is life. Move from one covered position to another. Good cover is relative to a single enemy position. Mutually supporting enemy positions can overcome the protection of your cover.

•   Use bounding overwatch to move. A squad in contact needs immediate suppression from another unit. The measure of success is the number of units that can immediately bring suppression to bear upon enemy contact.

Good Marine leaders know all of these lessons. They have been taught, they have read, they have trained to do them. But I, and those Marines who have fought “Close Combat,” know these lessons in our bones. We know the penalty for mistakes, for misreading the situation, for making decisions too late. Hundreds of simulated men have died in botched assaults, poorly laid positions, and as a result of unexpected enemy actions in order to teach these lessons. We have examined the ground, checked the line-of-sight, positioned the units, and supervised the units in contact so many times that the key tactical principles have become ingrained as second nature. 

I have defended three hundred road intersections. Not just the first step of putting a defensive scheme on paper, but all the way through to initiation of combat, falling back to secondary positions under pressure, and sometimes being overrun by the enemy because I failed to protect my machine gun positions. I cannot walk across a street now without seeing in my mind the intersection occupied: “An anti-tank weapon tucked into that low position with an oblique field of fire and good defilade, machineguns here and here, one squad forward with a alternate position near the guns, one squad on the corner in case they put infantry down that alley.”

The historical methods for teaching tactics, walking the ground, working through the examples in the manuals, tactical decision games, and actual field exercises, are important and must be done by all leaders. Schools and units must focus on real leaders, real units, and real ground.

To augment this practical training however, leaders need to experience the chaotic challenges of combat hundreds of times. As an inexpensive and easy-to-use tool to teach a Marine leader the dynamics of tactics, the “Close Combat” simulation is matchless.

Repetition. In order to understand and identify patterns, Marines need hundreds of simulated examples. In order to internalize lessons, Marines need to fight an active enemy and suffer from their own tactical mistakes. Through repetition, the basic lessons become so well known that advanced tactics and experimentation can be attempted. Only with the experience of fighting through a hundred enemy positions can a leader look for weaknesses in a given position and initiate creative ways to exploit that weakness. Reading the subtle aspects of a tactical situation is a learned skill that requires far more practice than is currently available outside of a simulation.

•   Efficient use of time. Schools and units schedule training time. Far more time is typically available to individuals in the ‘gaps.’ Weekends, nights, travel time, and dead time can all be used for individual simulation training. This time is usually far more plentiful than that allocated to formal learning environments. In the operating forces, especially, opportunities for individualized learning should be maximized.
•   Peer competition. Marines can fight each other on a simulated battlefield. These tactical learning experiences, heightened by professional rivalry, can serve as a catalyst for doctrinal discussions, an opportunity to build leader cohesion, and a chance to compare tactics and techniques among professionals. “Close Combat” simulation is a great tool while deployed either on ship, on exercise, or overseas.

Close Combat” is a valuable tool. I recommend it to all Marine leaders interested in improving their small-unit tactical skills. Fight the scenarios. Fight your peers. Fight to learn to lead.


Brendan B McBreen
Major          USMC


Offline Tripoli

  • Man-at-Arms
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: A Blast from the Past, Hoping to start a Discussion
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2021, 05:11:52 PM »
If I may interject just a bit of non-quantifiable personal experience and wargaming: As a USN SWO, I am sure my performance while on battlegroup and fleet staff was improved by my wargaming experience.  While I can't quantify it,  Smuckatelli's  broad points are are consistent with my experience.  In summary, wargames teach you a method of thinking, familiarity with the tactics, experience in what happens when you apply and don't apply them, giving you a "leg up" on military leaders who haven't played them.  While not equivalent to actual combat, wargames can teach many of the same lessons.  See generally https://battledrill.blogspot.com/2014/07/battle-techniques-masked-movement.html?spref=tw for an example of the professional level use of games to teach/demonstrate tactics.   I know when I used even primitive computer games such as "North Atlantic 85" in some of the intelligence classes I taught, the class was uniformly enthusiastic about the games to teach warfighting concepts.
“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?” -Abraham Lincoln