Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vulcan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Fourth: Take a look at a Map.
Then tell me how the US would win a conventional war.

Attrition. Eventually Iran runs out of resources and people... assuming America has the political will to soak up at least that many casualties of their own, which they do not.

Like with nam? Or Afghanistan?

Yep. Exactly like those. America invades, takes the cities... and then suffers small losses indefinitely as they try to fight against the insurgents while politicians dilly-dally and the public loses the will to continue to an actual victory.

Two problems.
You can not really out Attrition a Guerilla force. I'll point to Vietnam again for that.
Secondly there is nothing at stake for the average Joe, only the bill for the ammo. Why would he even be interested in a prolonged Engagement, because Attrition leads to prolonged Engagements.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Fourth: Take a look at a Map.
Then tell me how the US would win a conventional war.

Attrition. Eventually Iran runs out of resources and people... assuming America has the political will to soak up at least that many casualties of their own, which they do not.

Like with nam? Or Afghanistan?

Yep. Exactly like those. America invades, takes the cities... and then suffers small losses indefinitely as they try to fight against the insurgents while politicians dilly-dally and the public loses the will to continue to an actual victory.

Two problems.
You can not really out Attrition a Guerilla force. I'll point to Vietnam again for that.
Secondly there is nothing at stake for the average Joe, only the bill for the ammo. Why would he even be interested in a prolonged Engagement, because Attrition leads to prolonged Engagements.

Two words. Death. Toll. Given that Average Joe's son could well be serving in Iran... and eventually a draft would have to be instituted to make up the bodies involved it starts becoming likely his son WILL become involved.

Vietnam was a war of attrition. That was, indeed, the Pentagon's whole plan. Keep the war going and eventually you wipe out everyone willing to fight back. Unfortunately, this leads back to 'death toll' and the American population didn't have the will to battle to keep it up long enough to work.

A politically-decided bass-akwards target list for the military to bomb didn't help either... hopefully we've learned at least that much.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:



Ideally people who either don't understand the wargame process at all or have no real experience taking part of one should stop sounding off. Armchair Admirals/Generals do no good in a discussion like this.

In addition, those of us that DO have experience need to break it down FAR more layman than we have. Bust out the crayons if you must.

I am in intrigued. Please tell me more.

There are 2 Types generally, the theorethical, see video, or what we call Truppenübung here. Which is basically simulated combat with laser assisted targeting, smoke to simulate gas, etc. According to a scenario which is determined, often by a strategic wargame before.


Is probably the best video on why it was started in the theorethical field.

Thanks but I knew the history, I was more curious about "modern" best practices. I have read a few books on the subject, but am not an expert.

By wargame I meant the training exercises. They are designed with absolute worst case scenarios in mind. You also have the amazing respawn ability as OPFOR, which is highly unrealistic in and of itself.

 Easy E wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:



Ideally people who either don't understand the wargame process at all or have no real experience taking part of one should stop sounding off. Armchair Admirals/Generals do no good in a discussion like this.

In addition, those of us that DO have experience need to break it down FAR more layman than we have. Bust out the crayons if you must.

I am in intrigued. Please tell me more.

There are 2 Types generally, the theorethical, see video, or what we call Truppenübung here. Which is basically simulated combat with laser assisted targeting, smoke to simulate gas, etc. According to a scenario which is determined, often by a strategic wargame before.


Is probably the best video on why it was started in the theorethical field.

Thanks but I knew the history, I was more curious about "modern" best practices. I have read a few books on the subject, but am not an expert.

Again, that depends massively on the ressources and threats the country faces.
Best practices as told to me, was to overcome the training i was given. (Mind you the only such scenarios i was in were Truppenmanöver vs another unit or 2 ) Meaning that your army is your own worst case enemy, due to the fact that general equipment and strategy and counter strategy are basically known to both sides, as is the side of the forces that are in the mockfight.
If we were however to simulate terrorists, we would get suggestions, pointers, other equipment other objectives etc. , most of course forgot to include these pointers in the simulation, which lead to stalemates due to tactics beeing basically played openly.

The rule of thumb for bigger manouvers, especially when you fight an non-equal enemy (outnumbered or outnumbering, outgunned or outgunning etc.) is to put someone in charge that can manage to use his force accordingly to the strategies employed by his to be simulated faction aswell as other unorthodox surprise tactics.
And that bit is the important one, as to why many people, regardless if Van Riper's performance or strategies would be adopted or not irl , leads atleast to questionable objections due to the scripting of the later part.

The correct procedure would've been to basically "rematch" and or lead the follow up as a seperate fight so as to learn what could happen afterwards in a seperate scenario.
Of course that costs money. And that is were these scenarios, as usefull as they would be especially on bigger scales for inter branch coordination and other such capabilites, get seriously diminished.