Modifying existing hardware to create a maneuver simulation - Letters - Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir:

One major challenge facing our combat leaders today is lack of "repetitions." In other words, they do not get enough practice to be proficient in combat tasks. A platoon leader may serve in his job for only 10 to18 months, and a company commander may serve for only 18 months. During these short periods of troop leadership, these individuals will be lucky to maneuver their units in a tactical environment a handful of times. The battalion commander enjoys a longer tenure, but his opportunities for tactical employment are even slimmer. Practice or repetitions are needed to improve the odds of success in any venture. As we frequently chant but seldom practice, "rehearse, rehearse, and rehearse." With limited opportunities to maneuver, our leaders often learn their lessons in the field as opposed to before the training event. The end result is that the knowledge needed to succeed is obtained near the end of command tenure, when it is too late to use. One approach to remedying this problem is to increase the use of simulations in our training. This can be at the unit level, or as the new model of the captains' career course suggests, during required military education levels training.

The lack of training dollars and low operating tempo miles force us to look for other ways to train for combat. In an attempt to remedy this problem, the military has created simulations for tactical use, which provide leaders with the ability to gain repetitions, but are cost effective. Certainly simulators such as simulation network (SIMNET), Janus, brigade/battalion simulation (BBS), and others are effective training tools. These simulators are constantly improving in quality to allow us to approach real-life conditions. Despite the effectiveness of these trainers, the combat leaders at battalion and below still do not receive enough combat training and the training they do receive is often in high stress situations with officer evaluation reports on the line.

As previously mentioned, the Army's existing simulators are fantastic training tools. I have always left a simulation with more experience and a new lesson in tactics to digest. However, these simulators have some limitations. The biggest problem is the simulator's location. Often, to use one of the facilities, either the unit or the personnel who operate the facility must go TDY. One example of this is SIMNET. It is a superb tool but unless you are at Fort Knox or Vilseck, it is not readily available to you. To use this trainer requires months of planning and preparation, not to mention transportation costs. Another example is the BBS at Fort Polk. The facility is ready for use by local units, but it is unstaffed. Civilian operators must be flown in to allow its use. Again, this takes an enormous amount of planning and coordination. The overhead planning cost and the monetary cost of the training is certainly worth the experience, but a less painful solution is needed. Another drawback to current simulations is the design cycle. Given the legendary slowness of the procurement system, it is not possible to develop simulations that keep pace with modern PC capabilities. Sure, we occasionally replace simulations with things like the close combat tactical trainer (CCTT), but it has been a long and slow process. The civilian software community is better able to keep pace with technology in this regard. In units, it is well known that small blocks of time are often available in training schedules. These blocks of time could easily be turned into repetitions if a new simulator is developed. Imagine using the four hours during sergeants' time to run your platoon leaders through several iterations of battle drills or fight a company defense. What an opportunity!

So, where do we get this new simulator? The answer is that it must be developed. The first response to this may be that the development and fielding costs are prohibitive. However, we can combine existing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) items with new software. The COTS items are the numerous computers that exist in all units. The Army has done a wonderful job of equipping its units with PCs of all types. Very often these PCs are connected to a local area network (LAN). These PCs are capable of producing much more than briefing slides and memorandums. As existing PC games demonstrate, multiple PCs can be connected over a LAN to allow multiple-player access. This ability is exactly like the abilities of existing simulators and we already have it at battalion and below with no additional cost to the Army. Should a unit not possess a LAN connecting its units, then an Ethernet Hub and its connections can be obtained for less than $100.

The PCs for the new simulator in a unit could be configured in one building or across the unit's footprint. Even more, units connected to the Internet can train together despite geographical distance. Imagine a light infantry company at Fort Drum, NewYork, training with a cavalry unit at Fort Polk, Louisiana, with this simulator. Not only does this technology exist, it is readily available at little cost. Another advantage of this new system is that the PC's are still available to perform their normal functions yet also allow a unit to access the simulator at any time. The only coordination needed is dedicated access to as many PCs as necessary for your unit level. Now imagine the platoon leader who has an hour of downtime and can gain access to the company's two or three PCs to run platoon action on contact drills with his tank commanders.

The most challenging part of this proposal is the development of the software. In the past, some have suggested adopting existing battle simulation games like Steel Panthers III for military use. While these "games" have some merit, no existing game has all of the features desired in a combat trainer. Some features of a new simulator may include, real time and faster simultaneous execution (as opposed to turn based), grid-like battle maps or location translation to allow the use of military maps, realistic equipment and units, head-to-head or human-versus-artificial intelligence capability, and using obstacles and fires. Many of these features currently exist in tactical games. For example, Steel Panthers III uses existing pieces of Army and Marine equipment in realistic unit structures. Games like Red Alert use real-time execution. Therefore, the idea is to define the desired features and create a new simulation/game that incorporates them all.

An example of software already being modified for military needs and currently in use is the game Steel Beasts 2 by eSim Games. This software is a very realistic M 1A1 simulator for both gunnery and maneuver and it incorporates items like obstacles and fire support. The United States Military Academy (USMA) has worked with the manufacturer to incorporate custom scenarios into its game for military science classes, which are used in class during "Ground Maneuver Warfare II." The cadets begin by practicing missions in the classroom to learn the system and gain appreciation for the battlefield operating systems. Next, the cadets develop operations orders in class and then meet in a simulation room consisting of 10 PCs connected via Ethernet and six single channel and ground airborne radio systems to execute their plan. The cadets maneuver as a unit in a realistic scenario incorporating all of the battlefield operating systems without the cost of using real vehicles or traveling to a special simulations center. Once the mission is completed, the cadets use the game's playback feature to create an after-action review. This entire process is done twice during the 2-week course--once with a defensive operation, and once with an offensive operation. The value of this simulation in reinforcing the text-based learning of the classroom is immeasurable.

Another example of simulation use at the USMA is incorporating the game Army Operations into the military science 102 classes, "Ground Maneuver Warfare I." Again, the cadets go through the process of developing operations orders and then executing their orders in a simulations classroom. The valuable lessons of fire and movement and synchronized planning are taught just as effectively in this environment as they are in the training area, and in this case, the cost was zero.

To keep the price tag of this new software low, market powers must be used to reduce expenses. One obvious method of reducing costs is to share the expense with the Marine Corps. Certainly, a simulator of this type would prove just as useful to them. Adding their equipment and littoral terrain to the simulator would not be difficult. The biggest way to reduce cost is to contract with a company and allow them to sell the simulator as a commercial game. The demand for military simulators in the civilian community is evinced by the popularity of games such as Steel Panthers III, Panzer General, and even Army Operations. A commercially available, tactical simulator/game actually used by the Armed Forces would be enormously popular. Armchair generals everywhere would rejoice.

If security concerns exist about simulator access, versions can be created with slight modifications, which are then marketed to civilians. Such an approach would allow the simulator to be developed with less expense since the developer could recoup some of its investment in the civilian market instead of charging the military the full cost. Once obtained, this software could be distributed to each battalion on CD-ROM for local use. This is the approach currently being used by 1st Armored Division and USMA with the Steel Beasts software. To obtain a superb simulator with custom specifications, these units combined spent approximately $130,000. This is far less than the development costs for SIMNET and CCTT, yet is readily useable at battalion and below on existing equipment.

In conclusion, the ability to maneuver in the field most likely will not increase. Our combat leaders need more repetitions in a low-stress environment to gain tactical proficiency. The Army has apparently come to the same conclusion with the reorganization of its military education program for lieutenants through majors. The bottom line here is that units need easier access to realistic tactical simulators. Existing simulators require too much planning overhead to allow convenient access and often cost too much. A battalion commander needs the capability to run his company commanders through a battalion-level attack during an OPD without 3 months of planning. A PC-based simulator can provide this ability and do so at relatively low cost. Such a system can also be readily improved as PCs and LAN technology improves. The time has come to increase our repetitions using existing, low cost technology.

CPT PAUL MAXWELL

USMA

West Point, NY

COPYRIGHT 2003 U.S. Army Armor Center
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group