Wargaming & Operations��Wargaming’s Impact on Mission Planning;�Past, Present and Future

Matthew B. Caffrey Jr.

Chief, Wargame Development and Education

Air Force Research Laboratory

​

AFRL 06-0055

Distribution A: Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this briefing are those of the speaker and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air Force Research Laboratory or the United States Air Force.

My Bio

• DoD Civil Servant – previous positions
• Professor of Wargaming, ACSC
• Research Associate, SAAS
• Col USAFR (ret.) - USAFR Assignments
• Senior Reservist, AFRL, Info Directorate
• Chief Wargaming, AF/XOOC (Checkmate)
• Author/speaker
• Co-author Gulf War Fact Book
• Many articles, chapters, hundreds of talks

My Thesis

Done right, wargaming can help

produce more effective plans – plans

more likely to produce military victory at

a lower cost in lives, time and treasure

– hence increasing the odds of a just

and lasting peace.

​

Key words: “done right”

How Can We Know – in advance if Wargames are “done right?”

I know of no way of judging of the

future but by the past.

​

Patrick Henry

23 March 1775

Outline

• What is a wargame
• Origins, evolutions and results of past uses of wargaming in planning
• An overview of US use of wargaming in planning today
• My views on how wargames can best contribute to planning in the future.

What is a Wargame

Reality

Simulation

Model

Simulation Game

Wargame

Proportional Representation

Over Time

Multiple Sides

Armed Conflict

Elements

WG

Mediums

Mediums

Methods of Adjudication

BOGSAT

Umpires

Computerized

M&S

Constructive

​

​

Miniatures

(Terrain Table)

Print� (Map & Chart Ex)

Computer

Origin of 2^nd Generation Wargaming

1811 - Herr von Reisswitz - a base of sand

1824 - Lt Reisswitz - the expanding circle

Origin of Planning Use of Wargaming

Moltke’s Process

• Offsite
• Brain Storming
• Wargame
• Exercise
• Deliberate Planning

Worldwide Wargaming

Austro-Hungarian

England

Italy

France

Russia

Secondary diffusion

1820 / 1875 / 1905

1874 / 1889

1873

1872 / 1883

1866

Japan, Turkey, Latin Am.

Coming to America

• 1886 - US Naval War College

• 1883 - Major Livermore

• 1900 - US Army War College

Innovation & Decline in Germany

Wargaming the Great War

• Pre-war Wargaming

● 1905 The wargames that shaped the world

● 1910s Moltke the Younger and the return� of rigor

● 1914 The wg that didn’t change history

​

• Wargaming & the Great War

● The Peace offensive - the limits of� "force on force" wargaming

World War II - Axis

Germany

Mannstein makes his case

Barbarossa - an accurate mistake

Victory at Normandy, twice

World War II - Axis

​

Japan

Both attacks on Pearl Harbor

Both battles of Midway

Why did Japan keep on fighting

World War II - Allies

USSR

Exceptionally detailed, cumbersome

UK

Both extremes

US

USMC "eerie" success, then..

Navy success - but ...

Wargaming - The Vietnam War

​

​

​

​

​

United States

• Wargame predicted

stalemate -- NOT

continued to conflict resolution

• Limited in theater use

Wargaming, 90-91 Gulf War

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

• United States

• Exercise in the Desert - Patriots accelerated
• Internal Look 90 - a reason we moved so fast?
• Wargamers at war - the road not taken
• Wargames in the field
• The US training edge

Wargaming, 03 – 0? Gulf War

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

• United States

• Multiple wargames helped US to anticipate �“pre-act” to Iraqi forces unconventional tactics
• The US conventional training edge

Wargaming & Planning Today

OSD

Svs

JCS

Comb.Cdr

NSS

I

INITIATION

II

CONCEPT

DEVELOPMENT

III

PLAN

DEVELOPMENT

IV

PLAN

REVIEW

V

SUPPORT

PLANS

JOPES

CPG

JSCP

PDMs

BESs

PBDs

PLANNING

BUDGETING

PPBS

President’s

Budget

FYDP

DPG

CPA

CPR

JPD

JSR

Annual

Report

CPR

CPA

JV 20xx

NMS

JSCP

JPD

JSPS

JQRR

IPLs

POMs

PROGRAMMING

DP

CAP

CRS

JROC

JWCA

QDR

Defense Planning Systems

ACRONYM�SOUP

Defense Planning Systems

Strategic Planning

National Strategy

Ops Planning

Theater Strategy

Force Planning

“National ATO”

Defense Planning Systems

Strategic Planning

National Strategy

Ops Planning

Theater Strategy

Force Planning

“National ATO”

Contingency Wargaming

Title 10 Wargaming

Pol/Mil Wargaming

Vice

President

Operational Responsibilities

Support Responsibilities

• Combatant Command
• Directive Authority

DAF

DON

DA

Secretary

Of State

Specified

Command

Unified Command

Commander

Functional

Component

Command

Commander

Joint

Task

Force

Commander

Sub-

Unified

Command

Commander

Service

Component

Command

• Operations Planning
• Strategic Direction

• Military Advice

• Organize
• Train

• Equip
• Maintain

• Assign
• Support

Secretary

ARMY

CSA

USA

Secretary

Air Force

CSAF

USAF

CMC

USMC

CNO

USN

Secretary

NAVY

JCS

Vice

Chairman

Joint Staff

Chairman

JCS

Organization For�National Security

Secretary

Of Defense

President

Vice

President

Secretary of Treasury

National Security Advisor

Chain of Command

Defense Planning Systems

Strategic Planning

National Strategy

Ops Planning

Theater Strategy

Force Planning

“National ATO”

Defense Planning Systems

Strategic Planning

National Strategy

Pol/Mil Wargaming

Chain of Command

Defense Planning Systems

Strategic Planning

National Strategy

Ops Planning

Theater Strategy

Force Planning

“National ATO”

Defense Planning Systems

Force Planning

“National ATO”

Title 10 Wargaming

Chain of Command

Defense Planning Systems

Strategic Planning

National Strategy

Ops Planning

Theater Strategy

Force Planning

“National ATO”

Defense Planning Systems

Ops Planning

Theater Strategy

Contingency Wargaming

Chain of Command

Unified Commands�Combatant Commanders� Execute Policy

• Direct link to President & Sec Def
• 4 CINCs have geographic responsibility
• 5 CINCs have worldwide responsibility

Secretary of Defense

Deputy Secretary of Defense

European

Command

Central

Command

Southern

Command

Pacific

Command

Joint Forces

Command

Space

Command

Special Operations

Command

Transportation

Command

Strategic

Command

Has some worldwide missions

Types of Joint Operations Plans

Campaign Planning

Deliberate

Planning

Crisis Action

Planning

Functional

Plan

CONPLAN

with/without

TPFDD

​

OPLAN

​

FUNCORD

Deliberate vs. Crisis Action Planning

Event

Deliberate Planning

Crisis Action Planning

Initiation

Time

​

2 years – hence:

• Through coordination
• Long lead time initiatives
• Generic units

​

ASAP – hence

• Less coordination
• Near term initiatives only
• Specific units

Knowledge

​

Projections

​

​

​

​

More Facts

Deliberate vs. Crisis Action Planning

Plan

Development

Plan

Review

Supporting

Plans

OPORD

​

Execution

​

Execution

Planning

Course of

Action

Selection

Course of

Action

Development

Crisis

Assessment

Situation

Development

Event

OPLAN

CONPLAN

FUNCPLAN

No Plan

Deliberate Planning

Crisis Action Planning

Initiation

Concept

Development

Campaign Plan

OPORDs

Develop

Expand

Modify

IPL

MILITARY DECISION MAKING PROCESS

FM 101-5, pg 5-2

How Wargames Can Best Contribute To Planning In The Future

Lessons Noted vs Lessons learned

Lessons Noted

• Speed of Wargame important
• Accuracy important
• Accurate, reactive Red vital
• Non-kinetics increasingly important

Forecasting The Future

How Accurate Is Wargaming?

• Each wargame is one pass through a series of chance events - play many wargames and a range of outcomes will occur:

Casualties

How Accurate Wargaming?

• Each war is one pass through a series of chance events - what actually happened is not necessarily the most likely outcome.

+

How Accurate Is Wargaming?

• At best the outcome distribution of our wargames should match the outcome distribution of reality- then wargames can suggest which outcomes are possible along with relative likelihood.

How Accurate Is Wargaming?

• However BOGSAT adjudicated wargames are so time consuming they typically produce only one outcome. Even if the most likely outcome is determined the range and likelihood of other outcomes is not captured

X

+

How Accurate Wargaming?

Even when there are many runs the outcome distribution of wargames seldom matches the outcome distribution of reality

War

Wargame

WG

Sources of Inaccuracy

Blue does not follow plan

• Heisenberg Effect

Red does not follow plan

• Faulty depiction of Red
• Heisenberg Effect

Situation Never Happens

• Unrealistic Scenario
• Heisenberg Effect

Adjudication Inaccuracies

Factors That Influence Wargaming’s Accuracy

Factor More Accurate Less Accurate

Executions Many Few

Factors Physical Sci Social Sci

Scope Detailed Comprehensive

Level Tactical Strategic

Adversary Symmetric Asymmetric

Doctrinaire / Centralized Decentralized

Technology Old New

Strategy Attrition Effects

Wargaming Today

“Seconds to Hours”

Engineering and Engagement Models

“Hours to Days”

Mission Level Models

“Months to Years”

Conflict Level

“Days to Months”

Campaign Level Models

Existing Models

By

Duration Depicted

What can be done to increase

the utility of wargaming?

We can evolve wargaming toward its

third Generation

Evolve the State of the Art

STRATEGY

ATTRITION

EFFECTS

3^rd Generation Wargaming

• Adjudicates EBO through adding
• Human Factors
• System Effects
• Decision Cycle
• Shrinks warfighter’s Decision Loop
• Expeditionary hardware
• Fast to learn and execute interfaces
• Inherent reach back capability

​

Contribution

3GWG Benefits

Conclusion

• Wargaming can give us an important edge� over our adversaries, or they can give our �adversaries an edge over us
• Today tactical attrition wargames are more �accurate than strategic effects wargames
• Third Generation Wargames can help us �shorten wars – and win the peace