• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

TREND 3

SUBJECT: Course of Action Development and Wargaming

3-4QFY97

OBSERVATION 1: Most task forces use poor wargaming techniques and procedures. (TA.4.3.4)

DISCUSSION:

1. Critical events, such as results of the deep operations and the current R&S plan, are not posted/set on the wargaming board.

2. Battalion staffs are often unaware of the most current situation.

3. S2s are usually dominated by S3s. A lack of S2 input results in wargaming a more "cooperative OPFOR" and an unrealistic arbitration of losses by the XO.

4. The staff begins the wargame before the course of action is fully developed. The staff then wastes time trying to understand and develop the course of action during the wargame.

OBSERVATION 2: Task force (TF) synchronization is a problem at every level. (TA.4.3.4)

DISCUSSION:

1. Synchronization problems are seldom addressed because task force (TF) staffs do not understand the mechanisms of the planning process that provide synchronization.

2. Most TF staffs are not effective at wargaming and avoid wargaming in depth because of a lack of experienced personnel on the staff who understand how to wargame properly. As a result, critical operational issues are not surfaced, the wargame fails, and synchronization is not achieved.

OBSERVATION 3: The brigade targeting team does not properly focus the commander on high-payoff targets during the wargaming process to assist in the development of essential fire support tasks (EFST) during various phases of the fight. (TA.4.3.4)

DISCUSSION:

1. Normally, the targeting team does not convene during the planning process and does not participate in wargaming.

2. High-value targets (HVTs) are not selected or are only briefly discussed but not defined sufficiently to allow an observer to know when and where to attack a target.

3. Observers cannot focus on what the commander wants to kill by priority/by phase. This has a direct impact on the maneuver brigade's ability to execute the battle.

OBSERVATION 4: The breach tenets are overlooked during mission analysis and COA development. (TA.4.4.5)

DISCUSSION:

1. Task force (TF) planners tend to misunderstand and incorrectly apply the breach tenets (intelligence, breaching fundamentals, breaching organization, mass, and synchronization).

2. Generally, units do not reverse plan actions on the objective. There is no specified, clearly defined end-state of what the TF should look like on the objective. As a result, the TF does not synchronize breaching operations as part of the overall scheme of maneuver.

OBSERVATION 5: Task force (TF) staffs continue to have difficulty achieving synchronization. (TA.4.4.5)

DISCUSSION:

1. Most staffs believe that there is a single planning event that results in a fully synchronized operation.

2. No TF staff attending LTP this quarter created a synchronization matrix.

3. Most staffs discount the effort of synchronizing the plan as being too time-consuming and difficult for what they perceive as a limited benefit.

4. During after-action reviews (AARs), commanders assert their desire to produce synchronization, but staffs are unwilling to dedicate the time needed to lay the framework for it to occur.

1-2QFY98

OBSERVATION 1: Task force S3s do not understand how to develop COAs based on the commander's decisive point. (TA.4.3.2)

DISCUSSION:

1. TF S3s are not able to define in doctrinal terms what they want the company/teams to do.

2. COAs are frequently not developed with the S2's SITEMP or on a map where the terrain can be visualized.

OBSERVATION 2: Units at all levels have the most difficulty with the wargaming phase of the military decision-making process (MDMP). (TA.4.3.3)

DISCUSSION:

1. Units have limited time training as a complete staff on the MDMP. During their rotation, most units improve their performance with the various phases of the process, with wargaming being the one exception.

2. Units attempt to wargame before fully developing a complete COA. Units develop a COA from a vague concept directed by the task force commander.

3. Units seldom wargame against several enemy COAs.

4. Wargaming methods detailed in FM 101-5 are seldom incorporated into the process because the incomplete COA will not allow the unit to select a method outlined in the manual.

5. Units have difficulty recording wargame results. Units have not trained adequately on the methods outlined in FM 101-5 or developed SOPs to record and display the results.

OBSERVATION 3: Wargaming is not focused and rarely synchronizes the task force plan. (TA.4.3.3)

DISCUSSION:

1. The task force XO does not facilitate the process. The battle staff loses its focus on the critical events to be wargamed and the relationship between events and the decisive point.

2. The timeline is not managed effectively, and the wargame ends up using more than half of the available time.

OBSERVATION 4: The wargaming phase of the military decision-making process (MDMP) is habitually a weakness for the task force staff. (TA.4.3.3)

DISCUSSION: Most task force XOs and task force S3s have had little experience wargaming, and few have had experience wargaming in their current duty positions. This lack of experience results in an inability to organize an effective task force wargaming effort.

OBSERVATION 5: Wargaming continues to be the most difficult step in the military decision-making process (MDMP) for units to complete successfully. (TA.4.3.4)

DISCUSSION: Units have struggled with wargaming as a training issue for the past 10 years.

TASK FORCE WARGAMING:

1. Successful wargaming depends on the staff's ability to complete a course of action (COA). If the staff is spending a lot of wargaming time developing BOS task/purpose issues to support the COA, then they are not wargaming. Rather, they are still in the COA development step. The staff must support the COA with the BOS "how, what and where" before it can determine the "when" in wargaming.

2. Answer the following questions prior to wargaming to dramatically improve overall wargaming efficiency:

b. FM 101-5-1 provides the correct doctrinal definitions that should be used when assigning company/team tasks and purposes.

THE WARGAMING PHASE OF THE MDMP:

1. Units must train on the MDMP with emphasis on wargaming. The wargame is a disciplined process with rules and steps that attempt to visualize the flow of the battle.

2. Units must become familiar with the wargaming techniques and recording methods outlined in FM 101-5, Staff Organization and Operations. A unit SOP can be developed to enhance the process.

3. A complete COA must be developed prior to wargaming. If one friendly COA is developed in an effort to save time, the unit should wargame against several enemy COAs in order to develop branches to the base plan.

4. Adhering to the established timeline allows the staff to remain focused during the process and forces the staff to prioritize the amount of detail given to the effort.

5. The wargame should result in refining or modifying the COA, to include identifying branches and sequels that become on-order or be-prepared missions. It should refine location and timing of the decision point.

6. A synchronization matrix and decision support template (DST) should also be a result of the process. It should project the percentage of total enemy forces defeated in each critical event.

7. The task force XO or S3 should take charge of the wargaming process to ensure that the battle staff stays focused on the critical events and the decisive point.

8. Use a synchronization matrix to help facilitate and record events that are being wargamed by phase and synchronized by BOS.

9. Staffs should take a few minutes prior to initiating the wargame (while "plans CPTs" are gathering tools for the wargame) to ensure each BOS representative understands the concept for his piece of the fight.

---

Section IV - Needs Emphasis Trends: Command and Control BOS, Part 2
Section IV - Needs Emphasis Trends: Command and Control BOS, Part 4

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Enter Your Email Address