|
RAM Power and Warp Speed, the Future Now: Army Simulation Supported Training - Thirty Years in Ten Minutes
Robert Snedden LTC (Ret)
What does the commander want to achieve? Simulation support training is based on the same two things as every other training event-the training audience and the training objectives.
A model is an approximation of reality. A simulation is a model run over time.
The simulation is the training aid, not the training.
May, 1975. Kriegspiel to Dunn-Kempf
Young officers in combat units participated in tactical war games played out on scaled terrain board using miniature vehicle models and dice rolls to adjudicate conflicts. Red and Blue moved pieces, rolled the dice, removed the losers and then considered their movements for the next turn. This was not much different from what you could buy in a local hobby store. Umpires unsorted disputes, enforced artificial terrain and obstacle effects and generally made the participants play nice. Weapons effects (probabilities of hits and kills), fire support, logistics, air support, intelligence and environmental effects were nonexistent. "Real time" and the fog of war were also missing. The US Army was doing business the way the Imperial Japanese Navy war gamed the battle of Midway in the '30s and the German High Command looked at Channel invasion scenarios in the '40s. It's just that not much funding and development had been devoted to simulation development during Vietnam. It took a while to get the wheels moving and for technology to be adapted to our needs.
May, 1978. CAMMS and CAMMS Evolution
Young officers in combat units participated in tactical war games played out on scaled terrain board using miniature vehicle models and a machine called a computer to adjudicate conflicts. In reality, the computer was closer to a high end calculator but it kept the random dice rolls out of sight and it did attempt to factor in pH and pK, possibility of a hit and possibility of a kill. The other limitations were still there but at least a starting developmental framework was found.
May, 1984. Corps staff personnel participated in CPXs that used a computer to model Red and Blue combat operations. A group of role players huddled around DOS based input terminals ready to call information back to the corps staff in the various CPs. It took days to feed the STARTEX data into the computer, logistics was largely ignored, weather effects and terrain were rudimentary at best, the staff had little chance to influence operations in real time but the electronic battlefield had arrived. A hybrid of several "stove-pipe" models had been cobbled together to produce combat operations information for staff training.
Times, they were a-changing and Fort Leavenworth devoted ever more resources to exploring computer driven simulations. Real computers and interactive simulation models were on the way and the virtual battlefield was beginning to emerge. Bulky, temperamental and incredibly limited by today's standards, these early machines could consider weapons effects, weather, line-of-sight, terrain effects and obstacles as they applied algorithms to tactical operations. Platoon and company level simulation models such as ARTBASS and JANUS eliminated the game turn by introducing dynamic real-time interaction. Battlefield awareness, risk assessment and timely decision making started to mean something.
Corps Battle Simulation (CBS) and Brigade and Battalion Simulation (BBS) 1990.
Building on what was learned and ever more capable hardware, the Army began to make simulation supported multi-echelon training a reality. These early legacy simulation models were limited by computer capacity, modeling effects and operator expertise. Work stations were DOS based input terminals coupled with raster map images projected on separate monitors. Simulation development tended to focus on combat unit training requirements, e.g., force-on-force, fire support, air defense, air support, chemical operations and the like. Logistics, medical support, maintenance activities, vertical and horizontal engineering and CSS, combat service support, unit activities in general were glossed over or not included in the models.
As an aside, this "tooth driven development" continues in part today. Efforts to develop CSS oriented simulations have resulted in a number of largely incompatible models developed in isolation and problematic to run in confederation. In other words, logistics simulations modeled for training transport battalions did not necessarily work well with a medical logistics computer model and nothing matched entirely with a Corps level logistics model. The goal is to have all Army simulations seamlessly fit together and totally interactive; we have made good progress with the combat sims, the support and logistics simulations have yet to be fully integrated. A good deal of effort in the last ten years has been devoted to rein in the chaotic development process and control funding to produce a limited family of simulations that will support total Army training requirements. We were fighting the old battle of getting everyone in the simulation business to speak the same language, use the same parameters, use the same rules.
Strategic deployments and tactical employment began changing in the early 1990s as the simulations evolved to match the current threat. The Contemporary Operating Environment (COE) replaced the conventional Warsaw Pact threat and the Fulda Gap. COE postulated an asymmetrical battlefield populated by a bewildering mix of conventionally trained forces, partisan activities, local militia, criminal bands and individual nutcases. Improved C2, command and control, systems were being fielded. Offense and defense gave way to raids, sweeps, patrols, searches and other aspects of Security and Stability Operations (SASO). Form followed function and US Army training support requirements changed to meet the new tactical environment. Simulations began to incorporate aspects of the non-linear battlefield and the presence of digital C2 in units. Two sided scenarios (Blue versus Red) were being replaced by multi-sided forces on the simulation battlefield. Technology was being used to network virtual trainers into Synthetic Theater of War (STOW).
Synthetic Theater of War: STOW
By 1998, Windows operating systems and point-and-click menus were replacing the DOS menu screens and commercial off the shelf (COTS) products were replacing proprietary hardware and software. Digital terrain and larger zones of conflict (play boxes) were being added. Improved CSS requirements (expenditures, maintenance, medical evacuation and treatment, etc.) had been fully incorporated and were being improved with every version.
Simulation development addressed training needs at all levels, starting with the individual soldier. Increasing training demands required a hierarchy of simulations, each with capabilities and limitations and each designed to support selected training audiences. Databases for high resolution entity based models such as JANUS, JCATS and the neophyte OneSAF can portray tactical activities at the individual level (soldiers, vehicles, weapons systems, sensors, communications devices, etc.). Aggregate simulation databases such as BBS and CBS are used to support staff training exercises and are generally used portray the "normative" unit size (squad, platoon, etc.) being tracked by the primary training audience.
It's almost 2005 and as computers have improved, so has the ability to replicate the myriad military activities faced by the current generation of warriors. Graphical user interface (GUI) has improved, making it easier to run the simulation and keep it from detracting from training. Software exists that more closely approximates "ground truth". Simulation stimulation of digital C4I (colloquially known as Run Time Manager-RTM) is a reality.
Sophisticated simulation models interfaced with digital C2 and running on complex networks requires dedicated Battle Simulation Centers (BSCs) with the appropriate technical support. All Active Duty installations and many Reserve and National Guard posts now have a BSC. FORCOM has a program that utilizes Battle Projection Centers (BPCs) to provide distributed simulation supported training to Reserve Component units throughout the US. Some Active Duty posts now have Battle Command Training Centers (BCTC) with the capability to provide full integration of the Live, Virtual and Constructive (L-V-C) training venues. Technical expertise at these BSC's and BPC's is provided by full time civilian contractors. Since my retirement from active duty, I have been involved with the staffing of these training venues as a civilian contractor.
Operational requirements have resulted in highly detailed interactive simulations that can support multi-sided training events that include traditional combat operations as well as digital C2 stimulation, urban operations, insurgents, civilian riots and a host of other combat, combat support and combat service support activities. Having said all this, however, an interesting lesson can be learned from the current situation in Iraq. If your simulation is sufficiently detailed, you can model and present as a training environment any of hundreds of variable scenarios. For the training to be truly useful to the troops, the variables must match the realities the soldiers face on the ground.
It is most assuredly not your father's Oldsmobile anymore, the Fulda Gap may have disappeared as an active simulation model for commanders, however, if required, the scenario could be quickly resurrected, updated and integrated into the most advanced simulation programs. Having trained with CAMMS as a the H Company commander in 1978 and now professionally involved with simulation support for the active and reserve force, the level of change and sophistication is amazing. In 1978, we were horse and buggy, today, we are as robust as a Humvee and faster than a 2005 Porsche. |