War Games: the art of convincing yourself you will win

Dear all,

Having read the latest thread on Japanese preparations and war gaming, I got to wonder:

The objective of war gaming is of course to play realistically but maybe also a bit conservative.

Well, Japan didn't exactly do that, did they?

Do we have other examples of war gaming getting into just supporting your own perceptions and desire to win?

I have a book on war gaming which does not really get into that area.

Falklands?
Vietnam?
GW 2.0

How well was war gaming developed WWII?

Ivan
 
I'd say that most of cases you quoted can't be realistically wargamed. Japanese wargaming can't take into account US reaction and buildup after attacks so everything beyond that is pure speculation. Vietnam and GW2 (I take it that's 2003 war) can't take into account guerilla war since that operates on different basis. In Iraq US could wargame stuff up to May but after that it's pure speculation based on so many variables you can't say with any certanty how it will turn out. Same for Vietnam.
 
But isn't that just the case? Of course you should be able to war game GW 2.0

Would have Franks have allowed somebody to tell him that it could be a bit different war?

Without getting too much into GW 2.0, it could be argued that the signs were there (arming of the civilian Ba'th members, etc etc). Also the British experiences in occupied territories could be taken into account.

What is then "realistic" war gaming? the best case for me winning? it should be more like the worst case for me.

I wonder if the Norway invasion had been war gamed?

Ivan
 
But isn't that just the case? Of course you should be able to war game GW 2.0

Would have Franks have allowed somebody to tell him that it could be a bit different war?

Without getting too much into GW 2.0, it could be argued that the signs were there (arming of the civilian Ba'th members, etc etc). Also the British experiences in occupied territories could be taken into account.

But you can't wargame post-invasion events simply because you can't predict how people will react. You can wargame conventional conflict because you can say "division X is located here, if they want to move here they'll need Y hours, burn Z ammount of fuel..." It's harder for

What is then "realistic" war gaming? the best case for me winning? it should be more like the worst case for me.

As I said, you can wargame conventional conflict. Once political events start to play a role it goes downhill since you can't predict what will happen and how will that influence conflict.

I wonder if the Norway invasion had been war gamed?

Ivan

I'd say so.
 
its called risk management

Yes you can wargame most events and in fact make a nice living doing it. See the ISO31000 definition

Most of the military wargame concepts/practices overlap into risk management. For example anything following the invasion of Iraq should have included an analysis of several intifada's, Algeria (both versions), soviet Afganistan and post GW1 Iraq, amongst others.

Thats no more subjective than factoring in performance data for the enemy's latest model fighter you have only seen at an air show.

The problem generally as the initial post says is confirmation bias. And the quick answer is that it cant be avoided, people will find a way to convince themselves that it will not happen to them.

The best position to be in when that happens is to be walking away from the counter after cashing the idiot’s cheque.
 
You all who have been in the military can answer this.

How well do US war games simulate real potential conflicts? For example I've read where at every battle every tank starts out full of gas and ammo. Why does everyone have to be fully prepared?

If they suddenly yanked a bunch of troops off a base, handed them some weapons which might or might not work, and made them fight a battle, how well would they do?
 
Do you guys know any good books on wargaming, modern military tactics, modern weapons, basicaly anything military... I could really use some titles so I can find them and read them
 

b12ox

Banned
But you can't wargame post-invasion events simply because you can't predict how people will react.
There is usually limited number of events that will occur. Then you can infuence the probaility of desired outcome in many ways, both political and military. The invasion of France is a good example.
You can wargame conventional conflict because you can say "division X is located here, if they want to move here they'll need Y hours, burn Z ammount of fuel..." It's harder for
That's more like planning.
 
There is usually limited number of events that will occur. Then you can infuence the probaility of desired outcome in many ways, both political and military. The invasion of France is a good example.

Invasion of fRance was a conventional conflict. Can you wargame post invasion Iraq? Can you predict how embers of disbanded Iraqi army will act? How bad will sunni-shi'ia split be? etc. That's political thing, soething you can't wargame.

That's more like planning.

For you yes. For other side you can predict how they will move and how to counter that move.
 
The book I have is:

War games by Thomas B. Allen. ISBN 0-7493-0011-6

It goes into great detail on the mechanics, but not much else.

Winston Churchill said abut The Times: The paper, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read. The same with this book.

Ivan
 

BlondieBC

Banned
It is easy to explain conceptually, but for a lot of people to believe it, they would need to read a full TL. I have thought about writing the TL, and I might in the future. But to get away from Japanese biases, lets use what the US Army official assessment was in late 1941. If you want to read, it is available on online. I will try to do a brief outline, and it may be easier to see what he Japanese THOUGHT would happen. Please avoid ASB garbage, because beliefs not reality drives human actions.

1) By January 1942, the Germans hold Moscow and Volga river. Russia is cutoff from oil, supplies from Persia. Leningrad starved to death, literally. Murmansk and other Northern routes have been cutoff. German has achieved victory and now switches the majority of its resources west.

2) February 1942, German begins to occupy French West Africa. It takes six weeks and it is uneventful. The Med is totally shut to all Merchant traffic. Presumably Malta and Gibraltar are conquered/neutralize, but the reports don't cover this item. Starting at the Equator, a naval war begins. All Allied convoys must stay outside of bomber range of West Africa. U-boat pens are built in Africa, and the U-boats have more time on station. Now people like to scream ASB, but this is what the US Army official intelligence appraisal indicates is likely to happen.

3) Now lets get back to Japan. For simplicity sake, lets say the battles go much like OTL through March 42. Japan likely does better because the Allies will have pulled out resources compared to OTL, but lets skip the benefit, because it does not impact the negotiations too much.

4) The carriers in the Pacific will be desperately need to fight in the Middle Atlantic against German airpower in West Africa. Germany likely has begun making naval projects a higher priority, and Western Intel has detected it. Doolittle raid is cancel. I know this is a call, but it decisions have to be made in ATL's. Japan sets back and begins to fortify. So does the Allies, but with substantially fewer forces than OTL.

5) Japan makes a peace offer to the USA. Wake comes back. Philippines will be allow independence but no military (Think Belgiumish). Some concessions thrown UK way such as Thailand is allowed to be neutral again, some symbolic payments for Singapore and Hong Kong.

Now in this scenario, where FDR is facing a war in Europe that will last at least a decade, he has a tough choice. Fight a war much like OTL, but slower with Japan. Or make a counter peace offer. As losses pile up, and if there are additional major defeats, the Japanese offer becomes more tempting. And since the war is going slower, Truman will also have a chance to accept a peace offer or make one of his own. Or whoever the next president happens to be.

It is key to remember that a Germany who defeats the Soviets puts a lot more pressure on the RN and USN. It is not that German wins at sea, or even come close. It is that the larger the battle front, the more naval units will be needed. The higher % of the German war economy focused on the UK means more naval units will be needed. Even if the USA does not send any carrier or battleships to the South Atlantic, the cruisers, submarines and destroyers sent will have a noticeable impact. And IMO, the counter West African fleet/army will have at least one carrier, 1 battleships, and 4 land divisions that would have been used in the Pacific in OTL. And likely much more. The Germans will be initially weak in West African and there is a lot of merit in early and aggressive counter invasions by the USA at major ports and bases. Since the Germans have room to retreat, it likely ties up the divisions used for years. The Naval units will be largely sent to the Pacific once the ports are secured, but this might be a year or two later than OTL.
 
How well was war gaming developed WWII?

Ivan

one of my books on board wargaming has a story about the western front in Europe... one of the German staffs was wargaming about an expected allied attack in one of their sectors, when the allies obliged them by actually attacking. The wargame was continued on, with the pieces being updated as reports from the real front were phoned in...
 
Blondie: where did you find that? reference? link?

It is a bit controversial at best.

Dave: I have also heard that one, but I do believe it is "urban myth".

Cold war time was apparantly the big days for war gaming, both with RAND coming into play and the good ol' mainframes so it all looked very scientific.

But before that? The book I have is suficciently vague on certain aspects.

Ivan
 
Just flipping through some of the chapters.

Apparantly, the different computer models also developed into looking at counter-insurgence models -> Vietnam

There were millions spent on computer simulations, but with the technology available I am not sure whether it was more fascinating to do computers than really beneficial.

Some of the 1960's and 1970's Vietnam war games spanned 2 weeks!

Apparantly, some of the 'blue tea questioned the 'patriotism' of the 'red team' because they had them embarrassed!

Again, war gaming: the justification for failure

Especially if in the 1960's, you could have real computers, spinning tape decks, whirring hard drives, blinking lights, humming electronics, to tell you that yo are RIGHT!

damn, those days..

Ivan
 
Top