JMFC

That many TOWs would mean there's no room in the back for the guys that have to reload it.

Bloodworth, I think you have to keep in mind scale and range. Considering those, CMSF does a pretty good job in realism. The video you referenced is from VBS2 (sigh) showing Battle Drill 1A (Squad Attack). It's a single squad against a two man OP. With a 3:1 ratio, that's something a squad can easily handle. If you can see the enemy, and he is in range, you can kill him. Given the right conditions, a good fire team leader on point can end the engagement in seconds. Take is a step up to Platoon Attack (BD1), and it will take a little bit longer when it's one platoon against one squad. Reference US Army doctrine, once the PL decides to attack, one of his first actions is to bring up his M240s (his most casualty producing weapon). These MGs will set up in the SBF. Once the guns start going, if an ENY is hit, it's probably from an MG. Soldiers' accuracy will be better from the prone in a SBF than bounding in 3-5sec rushes. When the assault element actually throws grenades and assaults, there should be very few ENY still in the fight. Now add Bradleys and tanks in, if they make first contact, they will inflict most of your casualties. Concerning range, squad maneuver is less than 300m, and platoon maneuver is less than 500. Don't think weapon ranges, think the ability of a platoon leader to control his element in an ambiguous situation over dense terrain. Platoons train to maneuver, but really maneuver in a near peer environment is done at the company level. A mechanized infantry platoon in a SBF or a tank platoon in an ABF will inflict a lot of casualties on an enemy that sticks around. Try to conduct Company Attack in the game on a platoon battle position. You'll do fire and maneuver then. Check out some current books from Iraq and Afghanistan. Most platoon level engagements last less than 10 minutes once the shooting actually starts. Fighting in the woods of Eastern Europe for CMSF2 might allow for more small unit maneuver. Regardless of the terrain, the ENY isn't going to just hunker down and let you suppress him. He's going to shoot back and suppress you, or he'll just run back to another position. Doctrine is the science. How you apply doctrine to a unique situation is the art.

A throw back to CM1, displaying individual unit kills at the end of a battle. Being able to see that one machine gun killed an entire platoon or one forward observer called for fire and inflicted a quarter of the enemy's casualties. Plus it might help players realize that their victory wasn't so much superior tactics as it was over reliance on the 25mm Bushmaster. Also, something I liked from Theater of War, being able to move leaders around in between battles in a campaign. TOW was probably a little too much detail. For CMSF2, it would be nice to move a SGT to a SQD that only has a specialist from a full squad. Better would be the ability to reorganize within in same platoon or company, so you don't end up with a squad of 3 and a squad of 9 in the same platoon. "Consolidate and Reorganize" is part of every operation.

"Roger, en route to I.P." From what I remember from my untrained observer class a couple years ago, IP is Initial Point. It's a general point on a map (sometimes a landmark) to give the pilot a place to loiter and vague direction of attack. I was told JTACs can dictate IPs. For untrained observers, the pilot will go to the IP he chooses.

Having to conduct casualty evacuation would add to complexity for the Blue side. Successful evacuation of wounded Soldiers would take casualty points away from the Red side. This would put the First Sergeant's and medic M113s in the game. Since M113s are lightly armored, the player would have to choose between taking combat power away from the fight to escort them or risk letting them travel alone.

The short distance from observer to target requires even more accuracy and target processing time. A bad direction of attack is not realistic (though it is possible). It would require errors from both the observer and the pilot (that is required to know the location of all friendly troops). Support coming much, much faster depends on the mission. In a troops in contact (TIC), yeah, it might take 15-30min. For a deliberate attack with dedicated assets in a holding patter, support time could be a few minutes away. I would definitely like to designate heavy or light. It would be nice to tell an Apache to strafe a rooftop or use a hellfire to bring the building down. Ground to air would be interesting, but we'd have to make some equipment assumptions for US mechanized forces. Bradley Linebackers are no longer in the inventory, and most Avengers are in the National Guard. Do tactical level forces only get dismount Stinger teams? Air guard planning range is 4km which would cover most maps if the shooter is in the open. For stuff that might be a bridge too far, the ability to conduct a combined arms breach would be excellent. M1s with tank plows followed by a firing MCLIC would be a cool sight.

Calling for air support was a problem I had with the basic module (don't know if it was fixed later). Too often, I would request air support that would result in friendly troops being engaged in the line of the firing unit. This is unrealistic given modern request for CAS procedures. One of the request lines is a direction of attack. Pilots want to be sure they fire parallel to friendly troops, not intersecting. Easy fix is that CAS requests are always linear targets (indicating direction of attack).

This throws back to a discussion on the forum from months ago. I'm very excited that someone with some purchasing power is using a commercial off the shelf alternative to VBS2. I hope the Army continues using it at other schools and units. This could be the start of a great relationship between the Army and Battlefront.

Good report. That was a good find. I was not aware that Israelis, Germans and Russians used converted tank chassis. Reminds me of a current BAE project (the makers of the Bradley). They are trying to sell the Army a converted Bradley medical vehicle to replace the outdated and slow M113s. It's relatively cheap, uses the same parts as the M2, and can keep with the Bradleys too. Consensus though is the Army is not interested as we wait years for this next vehicle that's still in the concept stage. I like that they hinted at keeping the 25mm Bushmaster. That thing is a game changer. Not sure if it is feasible with a two man crew that is the goal of the new vehicle.

There are two Blue Force fixes I'd like to see in CMSF2. When a platoon leader gets in his Bradley, he should occupy the vehicle commander (VC) seat. Too often, I've noticed that a HQ inside a Bradley sees a target, but the actual Bradley gunner can't see the same target. This is not realistic since the VC is physically right beside the gunner. Target handoff is even better with the M2A3 with Commander's Independent Viewer (CIV). Now the commander can target designate and slew the turret for the gunner. I have also noticed a Blue-on-Blue problem when calling for airstrikes. Then direction of attack sometimes occurs in line with the observer which can result in strafing friendly units. If using a JTAC or other trained observer, the player should be able to indicate the direction of attack (typically perpendicular to the observer's location) in order to prevent fratricide.

As cutbacks occur, hope comes from reading "Prodigal Soldiers" by James Kitfield. It chronicles how junior and mid-level officers from all four services picked up the armed forces from the ashes of Vietnam. Men like GEN McCaffrey took budget cuts and a hollow army and transformed it into a force that recruited an all volunteer force, developed Air Land Battle, and overwhelmed Iraq in Desert Storm.

I am not very familiar with NDU, but it does seem that the first courses and disciplines to take cuts are part of the “softer sciences” that are difficult to measure progress. At the tactical level, I was just part of a pilot program to incorporate Critical Thinking into military education. My instructors and peers in the program really enjoyed it. We learned to identify the most frequently used biases, traps, and fallacies, and then we discussed ways to work through these with subordinates and superiors. Despite receiving high marks from participants, it seems Critical Thinking will not be incorporated into low level military education. The shortcoming was not Critical Thinking’s usefulness, but the fact that there is no real metric to measure progress. Evaluators that would judge the program needed more than subjectively graded essays. We tried personality and logic tests, but they still lacked hard evidence that Critical Thinking made us better leaders. I am not advocating that the Army should adopt Critical Thinking. I am providing this as an example that during stressful financial constraints, hard evidence through evaluations wins out in terms of curriculum, and the softer, harder to quantify sciences take a back seat. This trend may get us over the next tactical or operational hurdle, but when do we start grooming our strategic leaders? At some point, leaders need to be able to transition to abstract thought in order to plan 10, 20, and 30 years into the future.

CMSF would be better if it could be played cooperatively. Sure VBS2 is cooperative, but watch a room full of Soldiers try to work together. Even with the best intentions, it doesn't happen. Teaching platoon and company level tactics to junior leaders is easier with CMSF. Squads will try to act like squads. In VBS2, subordinate AI just follow behind and do not contribute. Additionally, a steep learning curve is a huge deal. Training time is a commodity and a valuable resource. Let's not waste what little is available. Yes, you can have all the OPFOR you want in VBS2, but CMSF has head to head as do all FPS. To be honest though, a thinking enemy is not a top priority when my goal is to teach tactics. MILES is great, but a live fire is better which has nothing but pop up targets. Too many training events already overuse "curve balls" to catch leaders off their guard. Strong foundations in fundamentals allow our critical and creative thinking leaders to adapt to complex and changing situations. VBS2 has seen a lot of use, but there are much better systems commercially available. Being built from the ground up just meant that a lot of funds were wasted to start from square one, and an inferior product was still produced. Okay, no product is perfect, but why not save resources with commercial off the shelf products when the contracted answer does not work. VBS2 does not work at the intended level. The blame can be placed on the leadership of junior officers and NCOs, but really, shouldn't we design products with the end user in mind?

I'm at Fort Benning right now, and simulations are the new buzz word for training low level tactical leaders. Simulations (computer games) are really being pushed with current fiscal constraints. Everyone is careful never to say that simulations will replace actual field exercises, but they are used as an alternative to no training at all. There is definitely utility in teaching mission command to squad leaders (limited), platoon leaders, company commanders, and battalion staffs. In my opinion though, the Army is failing in making useful simulations for two reasons: 1) wanting a magic bullet simulation and 2) reliance on expensive contractors to run the simulations. I will reference my personal experiences with Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2), the most common simulation readily available to Infantry companies. When I say the Army wants a magic bullet, I'm referencing their attempt to make a do-all simulation with VBS2. The developers wanted a "Call of Duty"-esque first person shooter to involve individual Soldiers, and they also wanted a simulation that allowed low level leaders to practice mission command through directing subordinates and reporting to superiors. VBS2 fell well short of both marks in my opinion. As a FPS, the simulation's controls are overly complicated when the learning curve should be as shallow as possible to maximize valuable and limited training time. The one feature that seems to convince commanders that a simulation is realistic is a key stroke for the malfunction drill "SPORTS." This feature is often useless, as indicated on the screens HUD that reads "WEAPON JAM" that can only be corrected by pressing a single key teaches a Soldier nothing. As an Infantryman, you learn to correct malfunctions by drilling "SPORTS" over and over again. VBS2 also prevents Soldiers from receiving commands from their team/squad leader. In VBS2, a rifle squad scenario devolves into a "Call of Duty" mission where every man is for himself, or the leader becomes frustrated with the difficulty of command. He then resorts to "follow me, do as I do." Neither of which are realistic in the contemporary operating environment. As a tactical simulation, VBS2 fails again due to difficulty in giving orders and poor quality friendly AI. Map checks require a separate loading screen that takes the leader out of the fight. Once on the map, there is no way to determine the difference between subordinate and adjacent units. To use a Ranger School adage, unit locations are pointed on the map with a finger rather than a stick. In an attempt to keep the simulation realistic, the end user gets no added training value but has a significant increase in frustration. Subordinate AI is so poor to the point that they are useless. After watching his AI squads get killed trying to clear the first floor of a building, a frustrated platoon leader will resort to clearing the single enemy shooter on his own. Trying to command large units from a first person perspective is also extremely difficult compounded by the unavailability of mini-maps or waypoints. In the end, any attempt at tactical mission command results in a FPS with twenty AI blindly running behind their leader. A huge problem that fiscally negates the use of simulations is the need for contractors that run the simluations and need to maintain a reason for their continued employment. While I have faith in the intentions of the Army's senior leaders, they are not familiar with computer games. Their generation took classes in high school and college on personal computing which shapes their view of learning how to use a simulation. On the other hand, the current generation of junior officers and Soldiers grew up with computers. Give them a fifteen minute tutorial on basic controls, and they will figure the rest out as they play a game. Despite the target audience's learning curve, they are forced to sit through a three hour block of instruction on how to use VBS2 taught by a contracted civilian. As a side note to my personal experience, one of my contractors was significantly older with a IT degree (seemingly qualified), but had no actual experience playing games or simulations. Her answer to every glitch or issue was "that's the way the simulation is. There's nothing we can do about it." A single or multiple contractors are then needed to run the scenario. I believe the simulations are kept complex to validate the need for contractors. Everyday, thousands of online games are hosted and administered by unqualified, anonymous gamers. I guarantee a young NCO could administer a simulation at no additional cost to the Army. Contractors are needed, but not in their current numbers. I cannot vent all these complaints without offering a solution. My solution is the Army use commercial off the shelf (COS) computer games to get more bang for the buck. If a game is a commercial success, there is probably a reason behind it (ease of use, quick learning curve, realism, adaptive AI). In the areas that VBS2 fails as a simulation, I can think of two games that succeed, Brothers in Arms (BIA) and Combat Mission: Shock Force (CMSF). BIA is a tactical FPS that incorporates some factors of battlefield leadership with simple commands and interface. A squad leader can shoot, but he can also give simple commands to subordinates (suppress, assault, etc.). Put a squad in the same room so that they can also talk to each other, and the intent of reinforcing team work at the squad level is met. Plus, there is no SPORTS command. CMSF should be the Army's tactics simulation. It is realistic and could be made even more so with modifications. CMSF actually teaches fire and maneuver. The game lets the player focus on the big picture rather than keeping his character alive like in VBS2. CMSF's friendly AI is not perfect, but it is generations in front of VBS2. Seeing fire teams bound or a squad use the appropriate weapons system for a threat is a concept that VBS2 cannot grasp. Additionally, CMSF takes minutes to learn but has a greater depth of commands than VBS2. CMSF would be near perfect if it were possible to use multiple friendly players. A company commander can only give broad commands to platoon leaders (and can only see PLT HQs or units in his LOS). Then the platoon leader is responsible to execute the commander's orders. The Army can keep spending money on systems that do not work and have only been tested in a vacuum, or we can spend a little more on systems that have been validated by the toughest critics (civilian gamers). Soap box dismounted.

Thanks, that makes sense. I'll go back and try it again.