Simply put, lets not get ahead of ourselves here, if anything research by people much more intelligent than me illustrates the short falls in using a single approach to deliver training. Yes, simulation is a step in the right direction for relating military training to the modern junior soldier who has grown up with his XBOX and PC. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see this is the case, relate the training to the soldier's interests, improve effectiveness of the stimulus and his retention of the key points. I don't need to say this, as it was illustrated in a paper from I/ITSEC that I linked to in a previous post (experiental learning and a blended approach).
The shortfall with purely game-based virtual training and using that solely for pre-deployment is lack of focus on some skills that will keep soldiers alive. Yes we can shoot a pixel at 300m at the WTSS and watch him fall down, and maybe one day it'll be a high definition pixel courtesy of Laser Shot. But unless we're training to fight in an air conditioned building, or purely focused on MOUT during deployment, we're coming up short. The enemy aren't stupid, they do revise their tactics and attempt to exploit weaknesses, if they find we've failed to prepare in the sticks, that's where they'll hit us.
VBS is simply a procedural model and a virtual simulation, depending on the application. It cannot possibly replicate everything involved in an attack, fighting withdrawal or ambush, it would be ok if wars were massively multiplayer battles fought online to "level up" and achieve world wide noteriety for being such an awesome geek. Unfortunately in war, people die, no desktop trainer or shoot house will have a massive effect on that, and as long as that remains a constant, our preparation must be a combination of mental as well as physical.
In addition to this we're fighting resistance in the form of the old-school, post-cold war soldiers who see efficiency in the class room as being more important. To suggest at this stage we'll replace blanks or simunition with ballistics models and also physical models in the virtual environment that they assure us are correct is nothing but a dream. Maybe if we could train with actual SOPs in the desktop environment rather than modified simulation SOPs or even "notionally" performing our task in the team in some cases, we'd have a chance.
Case in point, the M113AS4, I'm not interested in the fact the ADF may not have funded this content, it's an inaccurate representation. The reason I say this simply is, the cargo hatch on top cannot be opened, and diggers can't peek out the top, something we do on a regular basis, some unit SOPs may even dictate that the passengers provide rear security. This isn't exactly an unfair example as it has been proven possible in other physical models in VBS2. Without substantial development and intensive communication between SMEs and the modellers, VBS2 wont go much further than a part-task trainer.
Comments?
Jamie.
Excellent points, Jamie! I definitely think that VBS2 (or any mil sim platform) should never be sold, and absolutely, positively NEVER be purchased to replace field training. My point being that it's fine for anybody to hawk whatever product they want: it's a free country/world (your mileage may vary....), but it's up to the military's of the world to ensure that they don't buy the shiny, all-singing, all-dancing Gucci kit out there, unless it has a place in the soldiers fighting order (real or virtual).
ReplyDeleteIt [mil sims] should be used to AUGMENT training, not replace it. I find that VBS2 can be used on many levels, and at risk of breaking my arm at patting myself on the back, I was proud to help introduce VBS1 (and later on, VBS2) into the classroom at my previous place of employment (the Canadian Army Armour School). We initially created some TTP videos to illustrate key drills, and then brought a computer and projector into the classroom to assist with terrain visualization. We then evolved into an Instructor Standardization venue, helping instructors get up to speed on drills, TTPs, etc in a controlled environment, prior to going out to the field either to carry on with field standardization, or to teach these same things to students whilst in the field. Then we started doing a certain number of practice "traces" (during crew and patrol commanding courses) in the sim center prior to deploying to the field.
One thing that "they" (the infamous "They" being people more interested in saving money than actually ensuring that soldiers were trained to the highest level (i.e real, hard, field training)) glommed onto was that you could get results (at the cognitive level granted, but wars aren't fought strictly at the cognitive level...) without spending money on fuel, rations, spare parts for vehicles, field operations allowance (for the soldiers involved in the trg), etc. This is where I got scared/frustrated/annoyed that I created a monster. I am sure many other people have witnessed these same things when other forms of technology were first implemented (I have heard second hand stories of Annual Weapons Qualifications being conducted on simulators, rather than the open range, due to lack of funds (I think it was more of a case of not allocating available funds to the right area, but I digress).
I would relish the day when a given simulator can replace field training. We must be careful with the word simulator, as it, like technology, gets a bad rap..... a blank round being fired is a simulator, as is a field exercise (you are only simulating a war, not conducting one.... "All but war is a simulation"), and likewise I have heard many long in the tooth "dinosaurs" saying that they hate "technology". I usually retort with something like "So you much more prefer the stylus and stone tablet [old tech] to paper and pencil [newer tech], or muskets to assault rifles, or horses to tanks.....????". The key thing is that some people FEAR the new(er) technology, as they don't understand it, and/or feel that they will be replaced by it. Thankfully, based on what I have heard from my brothers in arms still in uniform, those types are disappearing (retiring, getting forced out, giving in, etc), and things are moving forward. That said, there will always be RTC: Resistance to Change. It is usually misguided, and blame will be placed on a given technology or technique for not being a "Silver Bullet" to all that ails us. I heard an interesting story about someone near and dear to my old army heart (a former boss, but no names, no pack drill....) related to me by someone in the biz (again, no names....): While viewing a VBS2 demo/presentation said "dinosaur" complained that VBS2 wasn't helping "his" soldiers become better shots (be it small arms, or main armament (Leopard or LAV25) I'm not sure, but there is no real difference. The VBS2 person said: "That's not my [or VBS2's] job, sir, that's your job!" Zing!!! We (society as a whole, I'm afraid) has become complacent, and we all want a magic pill, or wonder device, that makes us slimmer, makes us smarter, grows more hair (or less), etc, without wanting to do the hard miles (eat less, read more, workout, do real field training, etc). And with budget dollars getting tighter, I think that mil sim will be one area that will grow, rather than shrink, as it is still a very efficient/effective way of accelerating the training of soldiers. As long as it isn't touted as a Silver Bullet that can replace the training that really matters: field training in general, and live fire training, in particular.
Thanks for the chance to rant, Jamie, I had that one bottled up in me for a while, and not too many venues to release it. At work we used to have a lunch-hour "5 minutes of hate" (Lanny H and I were the originators of that one), and we would vent on whatever stupid subject came up (sensitivity training, International Womans Day, etc). We scared a few people (we had civilians working with us) with our vehemence, but I think it helped us work out the world's problems (and reduce our stress levels). Maybe you could have a daily/weekly/monthly "5 minutes (or 500 words) of hate" with VBS2 related issues: when is this bug going to be fixed? When are they going to release the latest build? Why won't BIA pay for all the trainers and assorted geeks to hang out in Vegas for a week, all expense paid???? You get the idea :)
Allan