A&A as a training tool for ROTC cadets

[Redleg13A]

@rjpeters70:

And Redleg, my comment is really less pointed at you, and more at those on these boards (not going to name names) who seem to think that because they play a lot of A and A, they would have known the correct thing to do in World War II, or could have done a better job of it, if they were simply made warlord of a particular campaign, that’s all.

Understood, and that’s where my training as a historian comes in. Objectivity is the key here and they need to be able to understand that. Besides, if they start to exhibit the symptoms of hubris I will quickly do the sharp shooter rhetorical questions that will punch holes in their hubris logic! lol

I’m trying to convey that wisdom and maturity isn’t knowing everything…it is realizing how much you DON’T know…

[Redleg13A]

@rjpeters70:

Ok, thanks. � Like I said, I was asking the question honestly. � It does seem like there are some concepts that can be applied to the tactical. �

But COIN/stability ops isn’t small wars stuff. � It’s nation building, and I can’t imagine the U.S. getting involved in another Phase IV/V nation building activity anytime soon (apart from a collapse of DPRK). � And I’m not even talking about cyber wars stuff, I’m talking about large scale conventional war, potentially with a nuclear-armed adversary. � That to me is the biggest security challenge facing the US in the 2020-2030 timeframe. � That doesn’t mean that I’m jumping ship on the trigger pullers–it means the trigger pullers go back to the forefront of operations, and the snake-eaters go back to their more traditional role.

“Then that LT is out there all alone, under trained, under equipped, utterly ignorant of his/her surroundings because the enemy decided to not fight our fight. I’m preparing them for that moment. I think if they can understand the complexities involved in COIN/Stability/ low-medium intensity conflict…everything else will come easy.” � Ok, back down, take it easy, and breathe. � Let’s not turn this into the lone ROTC-instructor versus the SCMR/CAPE/OSD. � No one is trying to make trigger pullers undertrained or underequipped because we don’t think we’ll be sending men into battle, because UAVs and the boys at Ft. Meade will be doing the fighting for us. � That’s a strawman argument to which no one actually subscribes.

What people are doing is reposturing the force to fight a different kind of war than the ones we’ve fought for the past decade and a half. � So, in such a light, what do we want the force to achieve? � For what ends? � What’s the best way to posture the force, given national objectives and budgetary requirements. � Things like the DPG try to address those issues head on and in an intellectually honest way. �

And if you think an 02 being prepared for a COIN operational environment makes him prepared to deal with anything–then how will COIN prepare him for say, episodic nuclear use by adversary within their own theater? � Because if you can answer that one, then my hat is off to you sir.

You’ll have to forgive me for soapboxing it up…I do that sometimes, no harm no foul.

Not just COIN, but stability ops i.e. peace keeping or the enforcement of NATO/UN treaties such as the Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo etc, example. None of them nation building but with a very real chance to break out into a small intensity conflict.

I’m not necessarily convinced that high intensity conflict in on the US foreign policy horizon. Sure, there is a threat of it, as there has always been. Yet, I really think if we go to war with, say, a country like China or Russia it won’t be on the order of WWII. I don’t think either would risk a war with us which would seriously damage their economic growth that they’ve both managed to achieve through a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. That’s assuming we still manage to operate on the world stage and don’t implode on ourselves due to being spent into the ground trying to keep up with the Jone’s in the military and global market.

As for the nuclear question about that LT dealing with a nuclear strike in their battle space…that’s all 10 level skill sets that every soldier trains on anyways. As far as I know, responding to a CBRN threat is still a soldiers common skill task and that LT would follow his units SOP/TTP’s in dealing with that specific threat. Besides, if the balloon ever went up and you were witness to a mushroom cloud growing over your position…it’s really a matter of time before you and 95% of your contingent are dead anyways. You’re simply postponing the inevitable until fresh bodies can move forward to continue the fight.

The point about COIN/stability ops preparing for most types of situations is because of the nuances involved that aren’t necessarily experienced in HIC. Soldiers can go from direct action TIC’s, to giving out soccer balls to kids, to evacuating wounded from an IED, to conducting a KLE all within an afternoon. Those same LT’s also will be usually operating autonomously in their own AO’s, making their own targeting packages, vetting their own sources, and co-ordinating dialogue between the local population and their own mission objectives…while remaining vigilant to ensure force protection and fighting the enemy actions all at the same time. That LT is more of a surgeons tool in this regard.

Whereas if the fight is high intensity (I think the battle of Fallujah is a good example of a high intensity fight even though the war itself wasn’t) your mission as an LT is pretty straight forward. Kill the enemy, take your objectives. Support by fire, maneuver. Co-ordinate assets, set the conditions, repeat. Violence of action, violence of action, violence of action…That LT is more of a sledgehammer…

That’s the point I was trying to make.

[CWO Marc]

@Redleg13A:

Besides, if the balloon ever went up and you were witness to a mushroom cloud growing over your position…it’s really a matter of time before you and 95% of your contingent are dead anyways. You’re simply postponing the inevitable until fresh bodies can move forward to continue the fight.

If I remember correctly, Richard Armour’s satirical book on the history of warfare, “It All Started with Stones and Clubs,” has a section on A-bombs and H-bombs which includes a footnote stating that the hydrogen bomb utilizes the same thermonuclear reaction processes which power the sun, and therefore that if one should explode in your vicinity it is recommended that you look at it through a piece of smoked glass to prevent eye damage.

[Redleg13A]

So, I haven’t posted here in a while but I have been doing the additional instruction throughout the semester. Here are some pics and products of what we’ve done. We started with Axis and Allies and moved our way down to flames of war but without them being able to see their pieces.

[Redleg13A]

We would issue the cadets these products about 5 days before a battle. They would have to use them to plan their missions (one for BLUFOR side and one for OPFOR side). I would assign a commander, XO, 1SG, etc and they would have to work as that team and assume those roles throughout the duration of the operation. For instance, if the platoons were sending up reports that kept track of their ammo and water but the XO failed to send up his report to me in what we call a “BLUE 2” report, then after 2 turns all platoons in that company would only be able to move half the distance normal and shoot at half their normal rate of fire.

All actions by each side were simultaneous so we could take out as much war gaming as possible. The opposing sides were also fighting each other from different rooms and using a facebook page function(Tactical Decision Making is the page) to issue orders and receive feedback. The actual battlefield and pieces were 350 miles away where “referees” would move the pieces and report back casualties, enemy contact/disposition, terrain, etc

The commander never has a clear picture of what the enemy is doing or what their plan is. They also can lose track of their own units if they don’t “battle track” their platoons and sections on the field.

It was quite an enlightening experience.

NVA Operations Map-Old French Mission-1.zip
NVA OpOrder.zip

[Redleg13A]

Here’s the order of battle and how the NVA commander set up their defenses.

NVA, VC OoB.zip

[Redleg13A]

And here’s what it looks like “on the ground”

[cyanight]

That is really cool.  Wish they had that around when I went to the military academy in 1980.  Flames of war is a better game designed for the experiment your using the chain of command.

[CWO Marc]

Thanks for the pictures and the descriptions.  Out of curiosity, what kind of feedback did you get from your students on the enjoyability and learning value of these exercises?  Were there any notable “Aha!” moments in which you saw sudden-insight lightbulbs lighting up above some of the students?

[Redleg13A]

The feedback was overwhelmingly positive and they had a fantastic time throughout the whole process.

There were MANY “aha!” moments throughout the process. The scenerio I demonstrated on here was one of them. The NVA player had basically a perfect set up to lure the Americans into their prepared defenses and then destroy them in detail by overrunning their landing zones once the Americans were ambushed away from their LZs. The NVA commander had fantastic luck on the first turn and had an entire NVA company show up right at the southern drop zone. Instead of waiting to deploy them when they could be supported better by their other forces he attacked immediately and did in fact overrun the LZ…for a while… He then got tunnel vision and decided to attack all around the Americans because they seemed on the “brink” of being overwhelmed. The problem was that as they moved closer to the LZ’s they had to move out of the protection of the jungle and move into the more open elephant grass…which is a problem since the Americans can, at that point, employ massive supporting arms WHILE they maintain an open supply lines close to their LZ. He basically gave all his advantages of sitting and waiting it out, fighting the Americans on his terms and attacked prematurely to overrun the LZs, opening up himself to massive firepower by fighting on the Americans terms.

On a previous one they learned that if you leave orders to be interpreted, then you should probably expect interpreted results from your subordinates. This scenario was an airborne drop in Sicily where they Americans needed to secure a town so that reinforcing units from the beachhead can link up and move on. The American commander wasn’t clear on where he wanted his drop zones to be, so his sticks got badly scattered all over the board. He got lucky and had a sherman platoon show up the first turn available and issued an order for them to move up to help the airborne troops. In the mass of information that they sent to the “referees” (their platoon leaders) that order either got overlooked or ignored. A turn later they figured out that their tanks weren’t in the right spot and they wanted me to have the referee move them to where they should since they did in fact issue the order…my reply was “Did you check to make sure your order was followed?”…crickets…my next question was “Do you think that when a unit is in contact the radios might get a bit busy?”…crickets…then finally “What’s your job as a leader?”…crickets…they realized that in the real world things get confusing very quickly and getting everyone on the same page is quite difficult…They never made that mistake again.

There’s all kinds of examples I have of these types of incidents and the great thing about all this is that most of the cadets that participate are first year cadets…and the ones who come every week are now outperforming not only the other “firsties” but many of the 2nd and even 3rd year cadets…It’s all starting to “click” on the hows and whys!

[Redleg13A]

I’m migrating to the 2nd year cadet instructor position which means I get to keep the guys, for the most part, that I had last year. Also, I’m working towards having this instruction block streamlined into the curriculum at my program because it appears to be quite effective.

I plan on trying to get some participation from the Captains career course at Ft Sill to not only see where our holes are in the instruction, but also to validate the training. We have an ambitious plan this year, but with all the changes in cadet command, I imagine we might be able to get some official support to make this type of instruction more prevalent in an official capacity at my university.

[Redleg13A]

@Cow:

Try playing Battlefield 4 competitively. It is pretty bad for Joes that have PTSD as the gunshots are realistic and the combat experience is relatively similar.

Good for squad based tactics against an equal size equally equipped squad. America is not always going to be picking on little guys forever. Personally I would never fight the Russians in a war unless the Russians declared it themselves, trust Putin more than Obama, trusted Putin more than Bush 10 years ago, nothing changed.

No….no it’s not. At least not my combat experience anyways which includes the battles of Baghdad and the second battle of Fallujah…the FoW allows for a company sized or more fight. Battlefield can’t simulate lack of logistics, enemy capturing your intel, or you as a leader only working with part of the picture from a map. You can’t use pre planned fires, co-ordinate close air support, or ensure each platoon stays on line to prevent gaps where the enemy can slip through.

Picking on little guys…seems to work just fine for them, if anything we will be fighting “little guys” for the foreseeable future. We’ve been doing it since we started this country. Ever since we’ve had an army there’s been some LT with his platoon all by themselves in the middle of nowhere tasked with doing a job that a battalion should be doing…the formula for success in a big war at the company level is pretty cut and dry. The formula for success in a “little guy” war is much more elusive because it requires finesse, study, and surgical precision direct action.

[Redleg13A]

Read the whole thread.

[Redleg13A]

You drove?…that’s it? Where were you at?

Global is an introduction. It is good to show basic concepts. I had the first year cadets last year. After a few games of that we go down to the operational level with vignettes and a decision making process under a time standard. Then we go to the tactical level with the flames of war which has been modified to fit our needs. We’ve incorporated the troop leading procedures into each “battle” along with preplanned fires, mlcoa/mdcoa, commanders intent, terrain analysis, battle tracking, 9 line medevac/uxo, salt reports, and a living breathing opponent in real time. Oh, and they can’t see their pieces and they have to estimate the enemies location based off of subordinate leaders reports. Then, the consequences of the battle they’re fighting will be felt 2 weeks later when they have to fight the next one. That’s what we are working with in a nutshell.

When did this become a discussion about the validity of the state? You’re the one who took the first shit. Not me. I don’t owe you an answer anyways. It likely wouldn’t matter the answer I give. I sense a bit of tea party rhetoric with your comments about the necessity of a civil war and enthusiasm for firearms. Saying this is a police state is a bit of a stretch. Wanting a civil war tells me you haven’t experienced how terrible combat really is. The thought of my children having to experience the things I have is simply unacceptable.

I started the thread in global almost a year ago when I was new to the forum as well as new as an instructor . I started with global as evidenced by the pictures I posted of my cadets playing the game. I modified it over time thinking those that gave me good feedback and advice or showed genuine interest would like to know what was happening. You’re taking its place in the global section a little too hard. Why did you hijack the thread? What was the purpose of that? The moderators didn’t think it needed to move so what made you think it was your responsibility to kill it? Perhaps you’re omniscient and we are just ignorant of that fact. It was certainly a dick move. Explain it to me? Wearing your ideology and beliefs on your sleeve is never usually productive.

Also, when and where were you stationed if I may ask? And when did you got to benning for osut if you were an 11B first…

[General Haig]

I believe the military will also allow the rich and joyful to join. Part of being in a free country.  Redleg13A was discussing  G40 in the G40 forum and I see no harm or foul. I am looking forward to more of his posts.

[cyanight]

Today was not a good day for DESU in the year 1945?

[Redleg13A]

Perhaps I should post all of the PMs he sent also. Mr cow claims to be a veteran and is apparently really angry with me for being in the military. I have reported many of his posts to the moderators so they can see that he is simply trying to derail this thread and is admittedly trying to troll me. I thought there were repercussions for that kind of conduct on this forum …am I wrong? I thought that part of the agreement that every member signs is that we won’t be discriminatory towards other members. Cow is clearly breaking that term of use…so, where are the mods I ask?

To mr cow, you never served. Claiming to be a veteran when you’re not one is illegal and there is a new fervor in the US to catch these phonies. You’re not nearly as anonymous as you think you are…

[Redleg13A]

I didn’t realize we were enemies…

[Witt]

Enough now Cow.

[General Haig]

Years ago chess was the G40 of it’s day. A beginners guide to analysis. Much as G40 lends itself.    It could be used by any military instructor of any nation.  And on a side note these United States are the freest states in the world for the individual. You can’t beat it anywhere.  This nation of United States is the “shake-n-bake” of nation building. If all nations followed the rule book we follow, might find that militaries are no longer needed but be prepared for possible interplanetary encounters.  So G40 will still be useful in planting seeds or new conscripts.