With the rapid advancements and growth as well as availability in technology it has
permitted foreign enemies to develop advanced countermeasures to American military tactical
systems. Therefore, it is critical that the USA develop advanced systems for response to those
countermeasures. “As such, technology roadmapping should be a critical activity in the acquisition
of defense systems (Mittal, V. and Davidson, A., 2021). These roadmaps provide a strategy for
systems and puts them in an operational context. This includes the evolving needs of
countermeasure response in addition to advancements in technology. However, this operational
context can be a challenge to predict. Computer assisted wargaming requires soldiers to deploy
friendly troops and enemy combatants to evaluate how each side responds to the deployment of
new military systems. By using computer-based simulations soldiers can analyze qualitative
information that can be converted into quantitative data to further the development of
roadmapping. By implementing wargames, soldiers can forecast countermeasures utilized by
enemy combatants and their implemented responses. The results of the wargame are then
compared with the quantitative forecasts regarding soldiers’ lethality and their ability to survive on
the battlefield.
Military wargaming is a critical component of armed forces training. “Because the
simulation training system has achieved a good training effect, the U.S. Army has developed the
“army combat simulation training system (Huang, S. et al, 2020). The United States has many
small-unit ground force operations. There is a common term used by the military “No plan survives
first contact”. The saying was developed from three critical components of assessing the enemy.
They are their position, deployment and their capabilities. It is a challenge for the U.S. military to
predict every possible counter response of the enemy. As a result, military ground troop leadership
must make battlefield adjustments during the execution of their strategy. For example, if enemy
combatants are engaged while they are patrolling a road, they are not likely to continue down that
path. They will seek cover for protection from enemy fire, they may possibly retreat to a position
conducive for setting up an ambush, or they could advance through the ambush and in retaliation
call in field artillery fire on the ambush location. These are just three examples. There are numerous
options available and ground commanders must adjust on the fly.
While ground force commanders adjust their tactical strategies as a counterattack to enemy
tactics, this provides uncertainty that is not desirable for the implementation of higher-level
operational tactics. Wargames are typically conducted to assist in the development of military
decision making. These wargames generate analysis of the different actions the U.S. military could
take and compares each potential result. During the wargame, the military staff officers separate
each course of action into phases. After each actionable phase, the intelligence officer role-plays as
the enemy and evaluates what action the enemy could take in each phase. This reaction is then
compared to each phase until the simulation is ended. This process is continued until the best
course of action is identified. The wargame simulation also provides insightful data in relation to
the original tactical strategy. This uncovers optimal strategies that were not taken into
consideration. “Military education is becoming more multidisciplinary – involving weapons
training tactics, organization, leadership, negotiations, and cultural awareness – to name a few.
(Estrada, J. et al, 2024)
A typical scenario used by the military is an infantry battalion assaulting an enemy fortified
position. The wargame simulation would assess possible counter attackes of the enemy in response
to the assault. A typical response for the enemy is to call in reinforcements. It is critical for U.S.
troops that the military battalion block the reinforcements from reaching the enemy’s fortified
position. They would also have to be prepared to respond to artillery attacks as part of their
response. The U.S. would respond in like kind with its own artillery shells. This scenario would
continue until one of the military units gain control of the position. By studying this simulation
military leadership would know what they need to keep combat troops on the ground with a counter
offensive of artillery platoons.
Technology roadmaps are useful in accurately predicting the future needs of the military
and their capabilities. “Reinforcement learning has been a key area in machine learning (ML)
demonstrating its ability to master a variety of tasks, learning through interaction with the
environment (Dimitriu, A., et al, 2024). Using these technologies are difficult since the battlefield
is rapidly changing. Wargames used by the military provide an approach for accounting for
battlefield changes and predicting what strategies should be implemented. A three-pronged
approach is used with three subcategories. Phase one is the initial roadmap. Its subcategories
include (1) identifying the technical requirements relational to the operational challenges (2)
Determining the technology available based on needs and (3) determining the possible methods for
developing technology needs. Phase two is the wargame. (1) changes in the context of
operational needs after the implementation of new technology (2) new technologies quantitative
impact after insertion on the battlefield (3) Phase three is redefining the roadmap. (1) an
update of troops needs (2) new technological requirements (3) updated requirements for
technology deployment. Military wargaming is a long-term process implemented throughout the
department of defense from strategic to tactical levels. It is a process for military decision-makers
that they are familiar with. “At the same time, there has been a push to bring computer assistance to
such wargaming, especially to support umpire adjudication and move more generally towards full
automation of human elements in wargames. (Hodicky, J., et al, 2020).
The recommended process for the implementation of military wargames to test and refine
their technology roadmap that comes in three phases. The first phase is built upon the initial
technological roadmap following traditional methods. The second phase conducts wargames to
uncover changes on the battlefield. The simulation of wargames quantifies these changes. The third
phase incorporates receiving the output of the wargames simulation and updating the technological
roadmap.
Once the technological roadmap is developed, a series of wargames are conducted with the
intention of delivering insight into the dynamics of the battlefield. The intent is to stress test the
effectiveness of new technology incorporation into the roadmap. The teams of the wargame are to
be made of members of the roadmapping force. The superior aspect of their deployment is that
there are no pre-defined roles based on your “multiple operational system” (MOS) role, which
defines your duty position. For example, when a United States infantryman goes to the home of the
infantry training ground in Fort Benning, GA they are labelled as 11X, which is 11 X-ray. That is
where every infantryman goes to train.
In the old days you have Harmony Church with the old-world war two barracks. In the
modern day you have what is referred to as Sand Hill. If a soldier is an infantryman, they went to
Basic Training and then they went to what they called Advanced Infantry Training (AIT) and it is
all done at Fort Benning, GA. That is where the U.S. Army Rangers are trained and that is also the
home of the Airborne school. Now, Airborne is confusing to most people. In the United States
Military Airborne is really referred to people that jump out of airplanes and their shoot opens.
However, the 101st Airborne is really Air Assault. They are professional jumpers from Black Hawk
helicopters as well as implementers of other strategic operations that utilize the chopper arsenal.
The author of this paper is not only an infantryman, but also an Army Air Assault School Graduate.
Many consider Air Assault to be the toughest training you will ever go through in your entire life
excluding operational training such as Ranger School and the Special Forces Q course. Q means
the qualifications course. What many people do not even stop to think is the training for an
infantryman at Fort Benning, GA is really only the basic skills an American soldier needs to be
absorbed into a permanent party unit. The education is just enough to get that person into an entry
level job. The real training begins once you get absorbed into a permanent party unit. It takes
YEARS to learn how to be an effective ground combat person in the United States military. To get
back to the 11-X received by the new soldier at the Military Processing Station. What that means is
the solder is not classified yet. The soldier gets their designation after the 8-weeks of basic. They
get one of these before AIT: 11 Bravo (ground pounder), 11 Charlie (mortars), 11 Hotel (wire
guided missile operator) and 11 Mike (basically an 11-B that works with tanks). Then there is also
the 11 Delta that has a specialty in recon. They kind of beat to their own drum.
These ground troops rely on the intelligence gathering of their commanders because that
will determine how they are deployed. They depend on trust because their lives are relying on the
wise decisions of leadership and in the modern era their decision making is led by end results that
are influenced by wargame simulations. Key advantages that come from simulations are that they
provide measurable data that allows for an effective comparison between different courses of
action. For example, most models of combat collect the number of enemy and friendly forces
killed. This provides a simple metric of lethality and survivability. It also provides data that can be
used for to developing a logistics strategy.
An additional advantage of running combat simulations is that algorithms can be utilized
converting input data to an output. Algorithms follow a logical path flow rather than they relying on
the judgement of humans. By implementing these wargames simulations, it eliminates much of the
indecisiveness in relation to comparable alternatives.
Another advantage of the combat simulations is that it permits the design team to recognize
secondary and tertiary issues. For example, heavy weapons increase how lethal soldiers are on the
battlefield. However, they also increase the weight to be transported and may possibly increase the
area of conflict leading to inaccuracies when attempting to engage the enemy. These simulations
provide statistical data to be analyzed for evaluating the consequences between two decisions and
eliminate speculation.
Technology roadmaps are a vital tool for military operations in determining the future
development of technologies. However, the ability to roadmap military applications has become
increasingly difficult and it has led to inaccuracies in commercial electronics and sensors. Those
technologies are used by foreign enemies, which they need to quickly develop new applications for
responding to the U.S. However, when inaccuracies are limited, it could result in the military losing
it tactical advantage. So, monitoring commercial electronics and sensors development is critical to
the U.S. military.
Wargame simulations are the optimal method for determining the military’s future needs
technologically thus permitting improvements in roadmapping. The initial roadmap is developed
so that the military can create new capabilities. A wargame team is put into the enemy’s position to
determine the enemy’s response to their capabilities, while another team responds to the enemy.
This process is repeated multiple times. Eventually the simulation creates of model for that
scenario, which can be extrapolated into quantitative data. The final product of the wargame
simulation provides a better understanding of future military needs, which leads to a better
understanding that can be incorporated into technological roadmapping. In conclusion, computer-
based wargame simulations are a vital educational tool used by military leadership that ultimately
makes decisions regarding troop movements on the ground. They are making life and death
decisions and their ability to make informed choices based on the results of those computer-based
wargame simulations have become an invaluable tool for higher ranking officers of the United
States armed forces.
References
Hodicky, J., Prochazka, D., Baxa, F., Melichar, J., Krejcik, M., Krizek, P., Stodola, P., and Drozd,
J. Computer Assisted Wargame for Military Capability-Based Planning. Entropy 2020, 22, 861.
Doi: 10.3390/e22080861
Mittal, V. and Davidson, A. Combining Wargaming With Modeling and Simulation to Project
Future Military Technology Requirements. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 68, No. 4, August 2021. Doi: 10.1109/TEM.2020.3017459
Estrada, J., Prasolova-Forland, E., Kjeksrud, S, Themelis, C., Lindqvist, Pl, Kvam, K., Midthun,
Ol, Sverre, K., Hokstad, L., Mohamed, S., Grassini, S. and Ricci, S. The Visual Computer (2024)
40:7249-7278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-024-03339-w
Huang, S., Li, S, Meng, S., Wu, W., Wang, H., Su, K. and Peng, R. Research on simulation
training method based on computer simulation technology. Journal of Physics. Doi:
10:1088/1742-6596/1676/1/012192
Dimitriu, A., Michaletzky, T., Remelo, V. and Tihanyi, V. A Reinforcement Learning Approach
to Military Simulations in Command: Modern Operations. IEEE Access. Doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3406148
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
