Why We SHOULD ‘Play Army’!
Force-on-Force Training
Training vs Simulation : Authenticity vs Realism
Ever had meaningful small unit tactics training with Nerf guns? I have.
Being highly involved in putting together the small unit training that One Shepherd provides and a war gamer, I’ve seen confusion and struggle when putting together something under either of these banners. Gamers often say they want realism in their war games when they usually mean authenticity, and vice-versa with trainers. Gamer’s ogle over realism when it’s not actually provided, and trainers strive too much for realism when then just need authenticity. Add in a factor of peoples desire for entertainment and it gets even more complicated.
Let me explain. First, we have to settle on terminology. We’ll define simulation and training, and then authenticity and realism.
In this context when I use the term simulation, it can basically be defined as a war game. According to Merriam-Webster, a war game is a simulated battle or campaign to test military concepts and usually conducted in conferences by officers acting as the opposing staffs : a two-sided umpired training maneuver with actual elements of the armed forces participating. This understanding automatically puts the focus on the testing and verification of military concepts. In other words, it’s just not built to being intentionally entertaining. It’s not really training either.
In the entertainment industry, there are more than a few games (board, video, or otherwise) that claim to do war gaming. Only a hand full actually do. I don’t begrudge them for that, because who wants to simulate walking land nav for three hours before hitting your objective of watching an empty valley all night – all while sitting at a computer screen. At the same time I say that, I can’t ignore game platforms like ARMA (which is the commercial version of Virtual Battle Space or VBS used by the US and forces around the world). It’s on its third iteration and has a worldwide following of over three million players. When employed under the banner of war gaming, ARMA/VBS becomes a valuable tool for anything from small unit tactics or as part of the Military Decision Making Process and everything in between. Here the Premack Principal applies though – very few people engage in a game marketed as entertaining for the specific purposes of training. They will endure training but only as long as that brings them a more entertaining experience.
Training on the other hand is defined as the act, process, or method of one that trains. People train to lift weights, type faster, and win at monopoly. It’s important to note that the objective of training is not necessarily reflected in the training itself. Training in push ups is useful for wrestling but it doesn’t show up in a match ever. What is important here is context provided by a good instructor. Training to shoot shapes and colors on a target as fast as possible on the instructors command doesn’t at all translate to a gunfight whatsoever. When re-framed in context of an exercise used to get the brain thinking about something other than the mechanics of shooting, that training becomes more tolerable.
The second set of terms that are often confused are authenticity and realism. These mean two very different things when it comes to training or war gaming. Authenticity is defined as conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features. Realism, on the other hand, is concerned for fact or reality.
In both training and war gaming, the goal of training or war gaming must be clarified. This will help go a long way to align participants expectations. If you were a reenacting group, you would certainly align yourself with realism, usually down to the stitch. Authenticity has a different approach. Realism says, “That rucksack is the wrong color and doesn’t have the correct buckles!” Authenticity says, “He has a rucksack.”
This works both ways. Authenticity can take things too far as well. “My air-soft rifle holds ammunition” Sure it’s authentic in that it holds ammunition, but realism says, “A single magazine holes 300+ BB’s therefore you won’t need to reload during this CQB scenario and that isn’t realistic.” This is also true.
The best recent example of this was watching a master instructor teach mobile defense to a few squads. Rather than placing their practical exercise in the field with weapons and blanks, he chose to use Nerf guns on the FoB (Forward Operating Base). This constructive exercise was authentic with respect to the terminal learning objective. Due to the short range of the engagements along with a few other stipulated rules, the students were able to grasp all of the working parts of a mobile defense because they could see it. Without that condensed range, the students would have been left in small groups in the field without any situational awareness as to what other units were doing. They would have also wasted a lot of time with some groups not even engaging. They would only learn later through storied conversation as to what happened. By having an exercise that authentically positioned the students in a mobile defense within the confines of the game and associated rules, they were able to reach an real understanding of the lesson very quickly.
The relative assignment of training, simulation, authenticity, realism can be rather subjective. With that in mind, we’ll use the following graphic to summarize these points with a specific outcomes or objectives in mind.
Civil War Re-enacting, when taken completely seriously, is very realistic. It’s also very much a simulation in that they are testing (or in this case re-testing) specific military concepts. MDMP war gaming on the other had doesn’t necessarily care to have a completely realistic realm by which to test a concept. It might be entirely software based or quite often hashed out through dialogue among the battle staff in a room somewhere. ARMA based land nav is fun considering you can do it in an air conditioned room while eating a pizza. More fun than actually walking for hours on end through rough terrain. It’s authentic in that it can drive home the major points of land nav. It’s not very realistic in the sense that your pace count is always perfect regardless of slope or fatigue and you don’t have to worry about magnetic declination or interference. An F/A-18 Flight simulator is a 1:1 replica of all the working functions of its real counterpart and is therefore appropriate for most training oriented towards the operation of the aircraft controls and functions. It would not be appropriate for G-force training or how to fly inverted as these platforms are often motionless.
Whatever camp you are in, make sure you define your objectives clearly for all parties involved. This goes for instructors and participants. Training objectives should be clearly defined as an instructor and should be communicated somehow to the students. This can be done directly, or culturally through community expectations like the example found in kids sports teams that don’t keep score. Participants should also clarify their expectations and desires. Are you there to experience a realistic simulation or would you be better off framing your experience as authentic training for what you are wanting to accomplish? Be honest with yourself, but don’t be surprised when authentic training means you put down your rifle and pick up Nerf guns every once in a while.
Know Your Gear: Sticks & Stones – Force-on-Force Platforms
The phrase “practice makes perfect” has become commonplace and for good reason. There is no better way to improve a skill than by actually doing it. This mantra also rings true when it comes to armed combatives. Throughout history warriors have used “force on force” sparring to train for battle. It’s no surprise that well-practiced warriors have proven infinitely superior.
Today battles are fought with modern firearms – pistol, carbine, rifle and various crew-served weapon systems like the venerable machine gun. Warriors still train with their weapons, and weapon facsimile just as warriors such as the Samurai used wooden sticks to practice swordsmanship.
There are a handful of weapon simulation platforms available for force-on-force training. I have been lucky enough to train extensively with each of the major simulation platforms over the years, and will offer an assessment of each system. This includes Paintball, Airsoft, Simunition®, MILES and Nerf. Yep, even Nerf.
To assess any system we need to establish our metrics. We’ll use a rating system of ten points. Our five metrics include cost, realism, range, feedback, and safety.
(1.) Cost of the system is pretty self-explanatory, but we’ll try to include information regarding the purchase, operation, and upkeep expenses. (2.) Realism includes both the look and feel of the weapon simulation platform, but also the level of stress induced. (3.) Range includes the distance a shooter can expect a 50/50 chance of hitting a human-sized torso while under fire. (4.) Feedback involves how the simulation platform indicates a hit on an opponent. (5.) Safety, our last but arguably most important category explores the inherent risks to the users.
Nerf = 3.5 Rating
I started wargaming at a young age when my mom bought me my first Nerf guns. Large sofa forts were constructed and neighborhood kids gathered for epic dart wars in the trenches of La-Z Boys. Now at the time, I definitely did not consider my Nerf battles to be a representation of battle. However as I recollect, if it wasn’t force-on-force training then what was it?
As a simulation platform Nerf is overall quite lousy. The realism is poor and Nerf is clearly a flimsy toy with no stress value. The effective range is about 5 meters, tops. There is virtually no feedback as the Nerf dart leaves no mark and inflicts no pain. Yet given those obvious shortcomings, Nerf guns are very affordable to purchase and maintain, and are a hellacious amount of fun! Nerf is quite safe when used with any pair of sunglasses and it allows junior warriors hours of trigger time.
Paintball = 5.5 Rating
As I grew older I yearned for a new and more exciting game of war. This came to me in the form of my first job at a local Paintball field, where I quickly became a proficient and regular player. I was able to play so much Paintball that in just a couple years’ time I was playing at a professional level and was sponsored in national tournaments around the country with the KC Impact, Explicit Content, and Diesel teams. I really enjoyed the small unit micro-tactics of “shoot, move, and communicate” that were so essential to Paintball.
The cost of Paintball is middle of the road at several hundred dollars for the marker and protective gear, plus up to $100 for a single day’s game. The realism of the marker is low, but the stress induced is very high because a Paintball hit leaves a painful bruised welt. Range is also midland with an effective range of about 60 meters. Feedback receives a high rating because the Paintball breaks on the opponent leaving a mark. And when used properly with the required protective equipment, safety receives a middle score as well – although there have been rare cases of eye injury due to improper use.
Airsoft = 6 Rating
I continued to develop into even more of a “war nerd.” I started looking for something that was more realistic than Paintball so I joined the Kansas City Airsoft Association, a military simulation (MilSim) community. It was through Airsoft MilSim that I was finally able to sink my teeth into the fire and maneuver of battlefield tactics.
An Airsoft gun runs several hundred dollars and there is a slight amount of maintenance involved. Cost savings come in the very affordable ammunition of 6mm plastic BBs – making a daylong game very affordable. The realism of Airsoft is superior as most guns are 1:1 replicas in size and nearly the same weight. Airsoft hit produces a more modest sting than Paintball, but is still stress inducing. Yet the weakness of Airsoft in realism is that it sounds like a racecar toy when it fires. Very disappointing. Range is also limited at an effective distance of just 60 meters. And there is virtually no feedback to the shooter because the plastic BB leaves no mark. Safety is good if the proper protective goggles are used, although there has been an occasional eye or tooth injury when improperly protected.
Simunition® = 6.5 Rating
As my experience expanded into “real steel” firearms and tactical training I joined Summit Tactical, a community of law enforcement and security professionals that focused on the tactical use of firearms. Through this community I was afforded the opportunity to use Simunition® – a sort of hybrid between Paintball and blank ammunition. Simunition® rounds use gunpowder to project a plastic paint filled bullet from a simulated firearm upper attached to an actual firearm. Military, law enforcement and security teams often use Simunition® for force-on-force engagement training.
The Simunition® system is prohibitively expensive, costing as much as an actual firearm. They are relatively affordable to maintain, however the real expense is in the ammunition with can run $1.75 per round. That said, Simunition® receives top scores for realism because it employs the lower half of the firearm it is simulating. And painful hits on target create a stressful training situation. Ranges of 45 meters are acceptable for pistols, but lackluster for rifles and carbines. Simunition® does leave a mark on the target, offering good feedback. But it is known to sometimes over-penetrate. Given the relatively small numbers of professionals using this platform, it has produced a small but worrisome number of injuries.
MILES 2000/IWS = 8 Rating
My path through gaming and toward more serious training led me eventually to One Shepherd. This training institution uses immersive tactical gaming in military simulation to teach the constructs and processes of leadership. This struck me as a strange approach, and although I was initially hesitant I participated in my first event and I was hooked for life.
One Shepherd employs the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System in its fourth generation (MILES 2000/IWS). MILES gear is an eye-safe laser that is fastened to an actual firearm. The firearm uses blank ammunition and a blank firing adaptor. The laser is activated by a combination of light from the muzzle blast plus an internal mercury switch that detects the recoil of the weapon.
Yet the purchase and maintenance of MILES is so excessive that it is the only simulation platform to receive a flat zero for costs. The blank ammunition keeps operational costs similar to paintball expenses. Realism receives high marks because MILES is used in conjunction with real firearms, including the flash and recoil of blank ammunition. And while there is no pain involved, experienced warriors still find themselves under considerable stress when the “near miss” tone beeps during the chaotic noise of battle. Engagement ranges are phenomenally good, easily engaging targets at 400 meters and even out to 800 meters (a half mile) with small arms weapons. Feedback provides not only “near miss” and “kill” shots, but identifies who shot whom and with what weapon system. Even hit/miss statistics are available. Finally, safety is very good because MILES emits nothing more than an eye-safe beam of light.
MILES deserves a further mention in this article because it is the only integrated system on our list. That means tanks, helicopters, rocket launchers and crew served weapons are fitted with MILES to engage targets at realistic ranges – even miles away. No other simulation platform can accomplish this because they all involve projectiles, and the energy necessary to achieve such ranges would be consistently lethal to exposed warriors at close range.
Keep in mind that no simulation platform is perfect. When firearm simulation behaves exactly like a bullet, it is fatal. So imperfection is the price we pay for safe, non-lethal force-on-force simulation.
I am reminded of the childhood taunt “sticks and stones may break my bones” – yes, but bullets usually kill. And harm is not the intent of weapon simulation. The purpose of any force-on-force simulation platform is to offer as realistic combative experiences as we can afford. When taken seriously any of the aforesaid platforms can be beneficial to warrior training.
Beyond the Square Range
I find myself watching videos on YouTube again. Most of the time it points me towards videos of firearms training or competition. Not surprising since that is one of my interests. I’m always amazed how proficient the top competitors are. Whether it’s IDPA, IPSC, or 3-Gun, I usually end up finding videos where my jaw hits the floor. The speed and accuracy they are able to achieve is absolutely mind-boggling. As an occasional competitor myself, I can certainly appreciate the level of training and dedication it took to get where they are.
The tactical trainers are just as impressive. The biggest difference of course, is they generally demonstrate their skill while wearing more practical and tactical equipment. There are no race guns; no special shot shell loaders – just practical firearms and equipment.
There is something amazing about watching a Steel Challenge shooter hit 5 plates scattered about in just a few seconds. Watching guys decked out in full armor punch out of a vehicle blasting an array of steel targets while flash-bangs go off is just down right cool.
However, what I like about these videos is also what I despise. Is this what the peak of firearms training looks like? Well, why shouldn’t it be? These people are international champions – quite literally Grand Masters at what they do. The tactical trainers are often combat veterans, guys who have been there and done that. Of course we can learn something from them. But to what end?
If competition is your bag, then its obvious that path of training will lead you to a level of marksmanship and speed unlike any other game in firearms. Yes – game. I don’t mean that as a pejorative. Not at all. Really. It’s perfectly okay to be a professional baseball player. Why shouldn’t it be okay to be good at a game involving firearms?
I know what some of you are thinking. I agree that there are skills that can be learned from competition that can apply to a real world gunfighting situation. However, it’s not difficult to see that its a game. First, there are rules. The targets don’t shoot back. They behave predictably. The majority of the time, the competitor is allowed to walk the course. They get to know where all the targets are, where to stand, what target activates movement on another target. They get to plan their round count and at exactly which moment they will reload. It’s fairly clear this a game.
Now the tactical trainers seem to approach things a bit differently. Most of what I’ve seen focuses around a series of drills. Drills aren’t bad. Drills are good. They allow us to refine those tactile skills necessary to become a good shooter. But again to what end? It seems as though most trainers would have you believe that their culmination exercise or evolution is the moment where the purpose of their training becomes clear. Is it? By no fault of their own, most customers are led to believe so.
I’ve seen too many videos in which a shooting skill is applied by placing the shooter in a scenario where they are told to conduct a battle drill – without ever explaining the purpose of the battle drill. Neither do they explain the decision matrix. In short, they don’t tell the shooter why they are there or what they must assess.
Unfortunately, the result is a shooter who has a warped understanding of gunfighting and patrolling. No one second guesses why they are to engage and advance towards an overwhelming force of paper and steel targets in the middle of an open field all the while transitioning to pistols and clearing malfunctions with only the non-dominate hand. That is a poor tactical decision and is not an accurate representation of a gunfight at all.
I’ll suggest that is analogous to teaching someone who knows nothing of baseball how to hit a grand slam one-handed in the last inning of the World Series. It’s absurd.
In the shooting scenario above, wounded and hopelessly outgunned, my battle buddy and I would break contact and seek a new angle of attack. Anyone who would think otherwise is a grossly irresponsible leader that I wouldn’t follow. Don’t try to sell me a highly specialized skill as if it were a standard skill set of gunfighting.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not implying that instructors are intentionally negligent or malicious. For them, I imagine it is the best way they know to push shooting skills to the point of failure. It makes sense to create a high stress environment to test student manipulation skills and marksmanship. Yet unknowingly these instructors are providing a severe disservice. Students may walk away with unreasonable expectations of such unorthodox skills.
What is needed is a better contextual understanding of where and how these skills might apply. In order for that to happen battle drills need to be taught and understood – immediate action battle drills like hasty attack, break contact, and react to ambush. The problem is, that doesn’t sell.
People come to shoot their rifles. Most of the training is done in a classroom setting and square, one-directional range. In the “wowee” appeal of stress shooting, students are left with a unrealistic idea of gunfighting and tactics in general.
It is said that amateurs worry about tactics, while professionals worry about logistics. I think there is something to that sentiment.
Allow me to stretch that model into the current topic to suggest that amateur shooters worry about hitting the mark, while professional shooters worry about training objectives.
If we concern ourselves only with weapon manipulation and shooting skills, an admittedly a small percentage of warrior tasks and competencies, then we’re fooling ourselves. We’re putting people in scenarios without any regard for contextual understanding. As instructors we’ve then failed our students because we’ve established unrealistic gunfighting expectations for our students without teaching the warrior competencies of situational awareness and decision-making.
Always ask why. If your instructor cannot explain the context of the problem and its decision points – its time to find a new instructor.
This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.