Gaming for the next war
Strategy Page:
...
"Setting up wargames of recent operations can be enormously useful. Take the Iraq campaign of 2003 as an example. The world was amazed at the speed with which three American divisions rushed into Iraq, bulled their way through sporadic opposition and shot their way into Baghdad and conquered the city, all within three weeks. The troops who were there would tell you that it wasn't as easy as it looked. And the officers running the wargames later would be looking at what little changes might have made a big difference, one way or another. What if the Iraqis had used their troops more effectively (better training, tactics and/or leadership)? What if the Iraqis had some better weapons (anti-tank missiles that can penetrate the thinner top armor of American M-1 tanks)? What if the American advance had been slower, or faster (actually, that was possible, but not a whole lot faster.) What if the Turks had allowed the 4th Infantry Division to advance on Baghdad from the north? What if the American troops had some different weapons?
"These 'what ifs?' are also played out for the operations after Saddam's government was run out of business. Irregular warfare can be wargamed as well. Both the Iraqi and Afghan operations are constantly wargamed to see what new equipment or tactics might work better to end the fighting and save American lives. The wargaming allows Americans to look at the situation from the enemy's perspective. When you are wargaming operations that are still going on, every new bit of information on the enemy enables you to make the wargame version of the enemy more accurate, and predictable. This kind of wargaming of the 1991 Gulf War convinced many U.S. officers that a faster invasion of Iraq, a 21st century version of the World War II 'blitzkrieg' ('lightning war'), would work against the Iraqis. This was not an easy conclusion to reach, because World War II practitioners of blitzkrieg (now called 'shock and awe'), found that a properly prepared (mentally, if not in terms of better equipment and troops) opponent, could trip up a blitzkrieg offensive and inflict large casualties on the fast moving attacker. But lots of wargaming, and knowledge gained in 1991 about how the Iraqis operated, convinced the American generals that the Iraqis could be successfully blitzed. This proved to be the case. But thoughtful officers will replay the 2003 campaign many times, tweaking this element or that, to better understand what a future foe might have done to trip up another such offensive."
...
Strategy Page:
...
"Setting up wargames of recent operations can be enormously useful. Take the Iraq campaign of 2003 as an example. The world was amazed at the speed with which three American divisions rushed into Iraq, bulled their way through sporadic opposition and shot their way into Baghdad and conquered the city, all within three weeks. The troops who were there would tell you that it wasn't as easy as it looked. And the officers running the wargames later would be looking at what little changes might have made a big difference, one way or another. What if the Iraqis had used their troops more effectively (better training, tactics and/or leadership)? What if the Iraqis had some better weapons (anti-tank missiles that can penetrate the thinner top armor of American M-1 tanks)? What if the American advance had been slower, or faster (actually, that was possible, but not a whole lot faster.) What if the Turks had allowed the 4th Infantry Division to advance on Baghdad from the north? What if the American troops had some different weapons?
"These 'what ifs?' are also played out for the operations after Saddam's government was run out of business. Irregular warfare can be wargamed as well. Both the Iraqi and Afghan operations are constantly wargamed to see what new equipment or tactics might work better to end the fighting and save American lives. The wargaming allows Americans to look at the situation from the enemy's perspective. When you are wargaming operations that are still going on, every new bit of information on the enemy enables you to make the wargame version of the enemy more accurate, and predictable. This kind of wargaming of the 1991 Gulf War convinced many U.S. officers that a faster invasion of Iraq, a 21st century version of the World War II 'blitzkrieg' ('lightning war'), would work against the Iraqis. This was not an easy conclusion to reach, because World War II practitioners of blitzkrieg (now called 'shock and awe'), found that a properly prepared (mentally, if not in terms of better equipment and troops) opponent, could trip up a blitzkrieg offensive and inflict large casualties on the fast moving attacker. But lots of wargaming, and knowledge gained in 1991 about how the Iraqis operated, convinced the American generals that the Iraqis could be successfully blitzed. This proved to be the case. But thoughtful officers will replay the 2003 campaign many times, tweaking this element or that, to better understand what a future foe might have done to trip up another such offensive."
...
Comments
Post a Comment