Following are the first three parts of an article that appeared in the February 1978 issue of "Wargamer's Digest," a publication that developed a relationship with the U.S. military that was up to that point, and has since been, unprecedented. It was, in any event, a very odd period in the history of the U.S. military, which had just lost the first of several conflicts it would fail to prevail in over the following three-and-a-half decades and which was operating under a number of fundamental misconceptions about its primary opponent, the Soviet Union, and all that should be borne in mind when reading period pieces like this one.
Following are the first three parts of an article that appeared in the February 1978 issue of "Wargamer's Digest," a publication that developed a relationship with the U.S. military that was up to that point, and has since, been unprecedented; this piece was written by Richard P. Fulton, Command Information Officer, Public Affairs Office Headquarters, Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth. This was, in any event, a very odd period in the history of the U.S. military, which had just lost the first of several conflicts it would fail to prevail in over the following three-and-a-half decades and which was operating under a number of fundamental misconceptions about its primary opponent, the Soviet Union, and all that should be borne in mind when reading period pieces like this one. For better or worse, however, articles like this do hold some nostalgia for those of us who were affiliated with the service in that era.
A "Threat" motorized rifle division, not knowing the size, composition, and disposition of of NATO forces, and attacking on an 8-10 kilometer front, has sent a motorized company of BMP infantry tracks reinforced by a T-62 tank platoon and a section of BRDM vehicles mounting antitank guided missiles forward to probe. The ingredients of a classic meeting engagement using modern weaponry, tactics, and support systems are present -- and the "Threat" commander soon finds his opponent.
The battle is joined, massed artillery comes into play, smoke rounds scream in and blanket the battle area. U.S. commanders worry about ammunition supplies and ponder key terrain decisions that were made prior to the engagement.
The "Threat" commander, on the other hand, discovers obstacles and road barriers and channelizing his forward elements into long-range wireguided missile kills zones, and the TOWs are highly effective. Atempting to break right or left throws him into air delivered minefields of varying intensity and size.
The issue is in doubt on both sides but the outcome of this battle will be decided by computer in the Command and General Staff College's (CSGC) Classroom Seven in Bell Hall.
The action described illustrates but a few of the problems faced by colonels, lieutenant colonels, and majors attending the week-long BATTLE CAPTAINS course taught here.
As part of the curriculum, these men actually fight battalion-sized engagements using 1/285th scale model tanks, vehicles, and infantry squads on a terrain board model of actual European geography measuring 18 by 32 feet in size. These officers, who will soon command maneuver elements -- battalions and brigades -- or combat support units throughout the Army, by virtue of the game, are getting an eagle's eye view of problems encountered in modern combat and, more than that, by making command decisions themselves, are learning strengths and weaknesses not only of NATO capabilities but also of "Threat" tactical doctrine, force design, and equipment.
The BATTLE CAPTAINS course idea originated early in 1977 when high Army officials urged a command refresher program for maneuver and artillery commanders. It was decided in February to add commanders of the other combat arms, name air defense artillery and engineers. The idea was approved in principle and the go-ahead to implement was April 15, with a target date of July 1 to have the refresher program operational. The first actual BATTLE CAPTAINS course started at Ft. Leavenworth the first week of August, according to three senior officers here involved with the project.
One of the officers, Lieutenant Colonel Richard B. Washburn, whose CGSC job is to monitor, schedule, and evaluate training stated, "If we at the Command and General Staff College can sharpen skills of the men going out to command the combat arm battalions and brigades of the Army, we feel we can have the greatest immediate impact on the readiness of the Army. For this reason, we view BATTLE CAPTAINS as our 'Premier' course."
Washburn continued, "The students are going directly from this course to sensitive command positions. This is why we feel there will be great impact on the readiness of the Army because of it, and why were are devoting so much time to it. It's our number one priority course at this time and we are making an extra effort to insure [sic] it is done well and done right."
Although geared specifically to the needs of officers commanding maneuver elements, slots have also been made available to artillery, air defense, and combat engineer officers on a space available basis. During one recent session, an Air Force lieutenant colonel took part; a situation encouraged by the BATTLE CAPTAINS staff here in light of tactical air strike capabilities on the modern battlefield. Washburn said participation by USAF personnel allows interface during the exercise, and encourages interservice cooperation and understanding both ways.
Regarding the BATTLE CAPTAINS curriculum at Ft. Leavenworth, according to the project director, Colonel G.J. Carlson, assistant deputy commandant of CGSC, students projected to take part in the course receive an advance packet of materials, which involves extensive reading on their part.
The primary item of business on the day of arrival is a diagnostic examination covering that readings list, designed to show the officers' specific areas of weakness, and to show each man where he is at from a tactical point of view. The first day and a half is devoted to the study of Army Field Manual 100-5, "Operations," the tactics of the FM as outlined, as well as instructions in "Threat" force tactics and equipment.
The afternoon of the second day the students prepare for the BATTLE portion of the course, the use of the terrain board and miniatures. The colonel said BATTLE is an acronym for Battalion Analyzer and Tactical Trainer for Local Engagements. The officers taking part -- eight is the magic number, Carlson said -- divide into opposing forces and make a tactical plan of battle.
Colonel Robert J. Washer, Chief of Committee Two, CGSC Department of Tactics, and BATTLE chief controller, discussed the planning phase of the wargame in detail.
Stressing the importance of the planning phase, Washer said, "BATTLE is a high resolution, individual weapons system simulation which takes into consideration unit weapons organic to the battalion as well as mines, smoke, electronic countermeasures, command and control, suppression, and use of terrain -- and we stress terrain! In short, all the dynamics of the modern battlefield."
Washer said in the planning phase that the two opposing teams place their pieces on the terrain model, physically locating each item on the ground according to their tactical plans. Ammunition loads of each vehicle by type and by numbers of rounds per type is determined and fed to the computer.
"Mines, obstacles, and other combat engineer tasks are studied for optimum utilization, and these features are also emplaced during this time," he said. "Supply is planned and re-supply points are determined. Indirect fire is plotted." The colonel indicated the students spend a great amount of time considering the use of these combat multipliers in the plan they are making, and also take into consideration the time and effort actually needed for accomplishment of the various jobs.
Washer emphatically stressed, "The planning of the battle is critical to the outcome of the battle. The better the planning, the better our chance of success. The modern battlefield with its tremendous lethality requires detailed planning at all levels. There is no margin for error."
Colonel Carlson, the assistant deputy commandant, summarized the planning activities of the second day as the " ... nitty gritty of preparing for armed engagement." He added that the evening of the second night, after the students have left, the course faculty fires the indirect fire artillery "prep" missions that had been indicated by "Threat" team for their initial bombardments.
Talking about the game itself, played on the third and fourth days of the course, Colonel Carlson stressed the value of using a computer for the bookkeeping aspects of the engagement."
"The philosophy is to use the computer to do those things a computer does best," he said. "I'm talking about storage and retention of information, but the bottom line on this thing is that people will still make all the tactical decisions."
Colonel Washer of the CGSC Department of Tactics added, about play of the game itself, "Using a computer in a wargame of this nature is of great benefit to us in a number of ways. It speeds up play, provides analytical data, and gives the faculty controllers a way to critique student activities."
