CONOPS that is then instantiated in a closed‐loop simulation for quantitative analysis, or it can be far more complex. The analysis done for the US Army’s Future Combat Systems used over 50 different wargames and simulations.38 As Kline et al. describe: “We concurrently select a model or series of models to represent the campaign environment. Broadly speaking, models bound the campaign in either a series of engagements (pulses of power) or a continuous operation where many small engagements create a larger effect (cumulative warfare).”39 “Model categories range from closed‐form probabilistic equations, computer simulations, optimization, and wargames to field experiments and operational rehearsals.”40 “For example, a wargame may help to develop concepts of operation and employment for the opposing sides. The wargame’s interactions may be adjudicated by tactical simulations, equations, historic engagements or professional judgment. Once an employment concept or course of action is generated, it may be programmed in a larger campaign simulation to conduct analysis on many model variations.”41
The realization that a campaign is a series of engagements or many small engagements that create a larger effect reinforces the realization that Lanchester made studying the battle of Trafalgar, and the conclusion that the CARMONETTE mathematical modelers came to about half a century after Lanchester: applying a closed‐form computer simulation to combat should only be done for small, short engagements, because the human decision‐making is such an important element of combat that to ignore it and presume that algorithms alone could accurately model the complexity of a campaign of modern combat’s decision processes is pure folly.
Conclusion
Both wargames and closed‐loop combat simulations will continue to have roles in analysis. Wargames will continue to help us understand trade‐offs in CONOPS and courses of action development and will play a major role in the creation and development of new employment concepts and new tactics, techniques, and procedures as new weapon systems and capabilities are integrated into our fighting forces. Closed‐loop combat simulations will continue to provide the capability to assess the physics‐based qualities of our forces and will allow us to tabulate, in the absence of any human input, the relative technological merits of new weapon systems and new formations.
Notes
1 1 DoDI 5000.61 “DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (VV&A)” December 9, 2009 w/Change 1, October 15, 2018, p.10.
2 2 2DoDI 5000.61 “DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (VV&A)” December 9, 2009 w/Change 1, October 15, 2018, p.10.
3 3 US DoD Joint Publication 5‐0, “Joint Planning” 16 June 2017, p. V‐31.
4 4 Box, G. E. P. (1979), "Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building", in Launer, R. L. ; Wilkinson, G. N. (eds.), Robustness in Statistics, Academic Press, pp. 201–236
5 5 Vego, “German War Gaming,” p. 108.
6 6 Vego, “German War Gaming,” p. 110.
7 7 Lanchester F.W., Mathematics in Warfare in The World of Mathematics, Vol. 4 (1956) Ed. Newman J.R., Simon and Schuster, 2138–2157
8 8 Perry, Nigel . “Verification and Validation of the Fractal Attrition Equation,” Defence Systems Analysis Division, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, DSTO‐TR‐1822, PO Box 1500 Edinburgh South Australia 5111, Australia, January 2006.
9 9 Appleget, J. “The combat simulation of Desert Storm with applications for contingency operations” Naval Research Logistics (NRL) , Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 710–711, 1995.
10 10 Edward Miller. War Plan Orange: the U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan 1897–1945 (Annapolis. MD: Naval Institute Press, 1991), 156.
11 11 Donald C. Winter, remarks at Naval War College Current Strategy Forum, Newport, RI, 13 June 2006.
12 12 “A History of Serious Games” powerpoint presentation, Roger Smith, Chief Technology Officer, US Army PEO STRI.
13 13 John Hanley, Changing DoD’s Analysis Paradigm,” Naval War College Review, 70, 1 (2017): Article 5. pp. 65‐66,
14 14 CARMONETTE, A Concept of Tactical War Games, Operations Research Office TACSPIEL Group, Department of the Army, Staff Paper ORO‐SP‐33 , November 1957, p.1.
15 15 CARMONETTE, A Concept of Tactical War Games, Operations Research Office TACSPIEL Group, Department of the Army, Staff Paper ORO‐SP‐33 , November 1957, p.1.
16 16 CARMONETTE Volume I General Description Prepared By General Research Corporation Operations Analysis Division Westgate Research Park Mclean, Virginia 22101 Under Contract DAAG 39‐74‐C‐0128 For US Army Concepts Analysis Agency 8120 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20014, November 1974 p 1.
17 17 TRADOC Systems Analysis Activity. (undated). Battle Analyzer and Tactical Trainer for Local Engagements, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico (development of the BATTLE simulation was initiated in August 1976).
18 18 Jeff Appleget and Fred Cameron,” Analytic Wargaming on the Rise,” Phalanx 48, No.1, (March 2015): 28–32
19 19 Jeff Applegte, Robert Burks, Fred Cameron, The Craft of Wargaming: A Detailed Planning Guide for Defense Planners and Analysts. (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2020): 17–18.
20 20 Appleget and Cameron, 30–31.
21 21 Appleget, J., C. Blais and M. Jaye, “Best practices for US Department of Defense model validation: lessons learned from irregular warfare models,” Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology , 10(4) 395–410, 2013.
22 22 http://www.pacific‐science.com/ad7/sites/default/files/HSCB%20Project%20Summary_13Mar12_0.pdf, referenced 06/27/2019.
23 23 Body, H. and C. Marston “The Peace Support Operations Model: Origins, Development, Philosophy and Use,” Journal of Defense Modeling