Wednesday, January 16, 2013

A Really Big Wargame

Saturday last I was fortunate enough to attend a day of lectures by one of our officers, who I will just call Major Jim, on tactics in the attack and defence. This lecture was for a mixed audience of ranks and units, Regular and Reserve, conducted at the armouries of the South Alberta Light Horse (affectionately called the Sally Horse) Squadron in Medicine Hat, AB.

As an aside to military historians out there, the SALH served in the Normandy Campaign as the South Alberta Horse, and one of their officers, Major D.V. Currie, a welder from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan before the war, is the only officer of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps to have won the Victoria Cross for his actions near Falaise in Normandy. That's Currie, below left, holding the revolver, in this famous photograph.

Here is Major Jim, holding forth on the armoury floor, in a photo I sent to him entitled "Master of the Battlefield". Jim wrote back to say "Apparently either I went to mime school, or I was getting ready to meet a female later that day." Jim came up from the ranks, served on nine (maybe more that he can't talk about) deployments, was shot while in Bosnia (his advice, "Don't get shot, it's really painful and it sucks"), and instructed at the infantry training centre at CFB Wainwright. He knows his stuff, and despite his claims that he is merely a dumb infanteer, is easily one of the smartest and nicest guys I've met in the Army, though he could probably kill me three different ways with a coffee stir stick.

The rather unconvincing map, made of a large tarp and three dozen boxes of printer paper, illustrated a ridge line, and the problems discussed were how to attack and defend this ridge using a combined arms force that looked like the Canadian Army plus kit (ATGMs, attack helicopters, mortars and even MLRS systems) that we no longer have or have never had in our order of battle. The OPFOR (opposing force) was a combined arms force using Russian kit (BRDMs, BMPs, T55s and better). When I asked Jim latter why we were still talking about fighting the Warsaw Pact, his answer was that Army doctrine is now shifting back to basics, on the theory that we are at risk of losing key knowledge following ten years of fighting a lightly armed insurgency in Afghanistan. When one considers that our next deployments may be to African hotspots where the bad guys do have armour and aviation, this shift makes sense.

Speaking of gaps in the Canadian Army inventory, I have to say that there was a shocking lack of toys, and what we did have to work with was in pretty rough shape. Unacceptable! Damn these budget cuts and these parsiminous pennypinching parliamentarians!

I have to confess that I spent the day using my wargaming ears more than my chaplain ears, though it was interesting to think of how my trade might be employed in a more mobile, conventional war. In Afghanistan chaplains are mostly confined to bases, but in a force on force war we should go back to our traditional places forward, such as Casualty Collection Stations, but that's another point. As a wargamer there were two things that really stood out for me.

The first was Major Jim's emphasis on recconaissance in the attack, which may have been tailored to his audience since the SALH now have an armoured recce role. To the question, what should recce elements be looking for and noting, his answer, repeatedly, was EVERYTHING. Everything seen on recce is of potential use to the commander planning his attack, from the location of kill zones, of run-ups and gaps in the obstacles on a defensive position (showing the likely moves of the armoured counterforce) to plumes of exhaust seen during engine warm up cycles (how many vehicles are present, in what shape are they, how good is the enemy's training, etc). I got to thinking of how badly recce elements are often represented in wargaming, on the level of, here are your armoured cars, go get them killed and find out what's under those blinds. I would love to see a scneario where the goal was to approach an enemy position, develop as complete picture of it, and safely get back to report. I'm not sure how much fun that would be for two players, but it might work well solitaire or as a team game with a referee playing the enemy.

The second learning for me was the importance of the mobile defense. As Jim explained it, defending the position alone is a good way to lose, as the enemy have the freedom to maneuvre into attack positions without hindrance, can get get good locations for FOOs and FACs, and can coordinate their attacks with artillery designed to suppress and disrupt rear areas, resupply points, and routes for the enemy countermove force. If however the defender has sufficient forces to put a guard force ahead of his main defensive position (MDP), he can trade ground for time, and strip away enemy resources (first recce, then anti-tank, then command and control, etc), this forcing the enemy to attack blind and uncoordinated, or to delay the attack while fresh forces are brought up. Modern wargamers schooled in NATO vs Pact will understand this theory better than I do. In most games I've seen and played in, the constraint of available table space forces one to play a set-piece battle, where the fight happens on or very close to the main defensive position. It would be interesting to have the time to play the defensive battle in several phases, first the battle of the guard, second the withdrawal of the guard through the MDP, and third the fight for the MDP itself. In each successive phase, losses would be deducted and capabilities removed from both side depending on how they fared in the previous phase. This could be more easily done in smaller scales than in big ones, I think.

I could go on, but I think you get the point that it was an interesting day, with much to absorb, and with much food for thought for the wargamer. It leads me to wonder, for those of you who are trained in military operations and tactics, how much of your training to you get to use on the wargames table?

17 comments:

  1. Sadly the link to the picture of major Jim is broken.
    Sounds fascinating. I've discussed a few times with Brian those very issues in wargames and he's tried to build scenarios for them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Never mind, the picture is showing up now.
    That's quite the map!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks James. That would be a good excuse to get together with Brian when I GET BACK TO ONTARIO!!!!! YEAHH!!!!!

      Delete
  3. This is so cool. I really love this blog, it opened up my eyes to like a whole new world. Thanks for sharing it here too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Al. You sound a little like a spammer. Are you interested in wargaming, or in roller blinds, because that's where the link in your name took me. We don't hold with spammers much around here, hoss.

      Delete
  4. Sound like a very interesting presentation. Wish i could have been there, and I'm not a military man at all!

    Leaving aside my uneasy feeling that 'real war' is not really wargameable (I'm not just talking about the idealising and sanitising effects), I have always felt that recon was the hardest to 'do' well. I gather in real life reconnaissance was a difficult and dangerous undertaking anyhow: gingerly approaching where the enemy might be, and bugging out J.Fast when the whole bunch of hate coming your way suggests you might have found him.

    As a wargamer, I long ago developed a taste for attack. Aside from a tendency to aggression as a chess player (defence was my short suit there), my earliest wargames experiences were with dude who was very capable, but preferred (it seemed to me) to absorb his opponent's early pressure then counter-attack from there. As defence never really suited me I developed a tendency long ago to look in defensive situations for opportunities to attack. Or to create such opportunities...

    So even your brief observations on Major Jim's presentation has tended to confirm some of the impressions I have developed about wargames, and, by extension, warfare in general.
    Cheers,
    Ion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Ion:
      I think you have it right when you say that the recce role is the "hardest" - I am sure that the good Col. S would agree. Recce requires agility, initiative, discipline, and intelligence, so it's not a role for Johnny Plodder.
      I tend to favour the defence myself, as I have trouble seeing possibilities for the attack. We should play head to head sometime. :)

      Delete
  5. That really is a sorry collection of toys. Curse those penny-pinching bureaucrats and politicos!

    Weirdly, I recall reading somewhere in the last week about a participation game someone did where the objective was to recce the enemy positions and report back. Apparently only one gamer actually did that, the rest simply attacked (and paid a heavy price for the most part).

    The question then is are wargamers just not interested in that aspect of warfare or do the rules skew their decisions against it?

    I think that it is a combination of the two. Rules like Force on Force where games are scenario based are probably best for recce missions - you simply give victory points for location of enemy positions (Q. and for any prisoners taken?) whilst deducting points for any assets lost. The defender's victory points would be the opposite - for positions not detected and for enemy assets neutralised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Tamsin.
      Yes, such a pity, sending good lads up to play and die with those lousy toys. Good men, I tell you, wasted! Oh, the horror and futility of it all!
      I liked your comments. I think you're right, wargamers' conceptions of what they have to do and should do in a game are part of the problem, coupled with the game design. Think of a DBA/DBM or even a W40K game where all the forces are on the field from the start. A quick play game of that type doesn't allow for time consuming and frustrating recce.
      I would agree that contemporary-oriented games like FonF are more likely to scratch this itch.

      Delete
  6. Good post Mike and some welcome food for thought. I'm a defence man myself and while out and about and travelling am always terrain gazing, looking for natural features for defence and avenues of advance .

    Try it one day, it drives the wife nuts!

    Model on!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much obliged, Paul. I am sure that my wife has learned to tune me out as we drive around and I pontificate on ground and terrain. You remind me of the Duke of Wellington, who said on the night before Waterloo that when he saw the field he put it in his pocket and hung on to it in case of need.

      Delete
    2. Napoleon used to do the same kind of thing, I believe. Travelling over the Pratzen Heights west of Austerlitz, he remarked to his staff and accompanying generals: 'Take note of this ground, Messieurs: you will be fighting a battle over it in less than three months!' I think it was Austerlitz... :-)

      Delete
  7. Mike, all your posts are interesting but that one rocked my world. Very very interesting, particularly since recce is my line of work. There's a lot of concern everywhere I reckon that all the good and costly work we've done in Afghan will make everyone forget about how to fight a good ol' fashioned war. There are a few 'Major Jims' this side of the pond I think, pushing people to dust off their T-series recognition manuals, and remember how many BTRs in a platoon etc.

    As for wargaming, Force on Force is the best simulation of 'real war' I've ever come across and the rules handle things like suppression really really well. I've only tried it with Afghanistan missions but I'd love to do things like Cold War Gone Hot etc.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks, my dear Col. Good to learn you're a recce man, that trade runs in my family. My dad loved to say "time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted" and I often say it myself. I'm attracted to contemporary rules sets, but haven't got the faintest inclination to paint the toys for them. Would much rather watch chaps like you paint them and play with them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've been poking through figure lists trying to see how to represent Cdn inf and LAVIIIs in Afghanistan a lot these past months... this discussion isn't helping!

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I would love to see a scenario where the goal was to approach an enemy position, develop as complete picture of it, and safely get back to report. I'm not sure how much fun that would be for two players, but it might work well solitaire or as a team game with a referee playing the enemy."

    That's a damn fine point and a challenge to take up :)

    "It would be interesting to have the time to play the defensive battle in several phases, first the battle of the guard, second the withdrawal of the guard through the MDP, and third the fight for the MDP itself. In each successive phase, losses would be deducted and capabilities removed from both side depending on how they fared in the previous phase."

    And so is that one, a game I too would like to see and I also think that because of this point you raised ...

    "In Afghanistan chaplains are mostly confined to bases, but in a force on force war we should go back to our traditional places forward, such as Casualty Collection Stations, but that's another point."

    You are a very brave man and care deeply for the people you work and live with. Best wishes.


    ReplyDelete
  11. Very, very intersting stuff sir. Currie seems to be a good name in Canadian military history...

    ReplyDelete

Blog Archive

Followers