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.

Greetings,

In other threads, I have seen the results of the Millenium Challenge in 2002 come up often.

This was a simulated wargame between US forces and the OpFor was Iran. it took place in 2002. In the mock engagement, US Carriers were sunk or sidelines by swarms of anti-ship missiles, attack boats, and other factors. It was deemed as an ominous sign, and arguably generated the "Carrier is Obsolete" mindset and argument going forward.

It could also be argued that other nations took careful note of the results of the Millenium Challenge and are using it as the basis of their Naval doctrines and defense strategies going forward.

Let's talk about our opinions on the results and methodology of the Millenium Challenge 2002.

You can find some info here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

https://www.newsweek.com/us-defeat-iran-war-navy-1429348

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/that-time-a-marine-general-led-a-fictional-iran-against-the-us-military-and-won

That was not the start of the "Carriers are obsolete" mindset. There have been numerous wargames where wild things happening (tiny diesel submarines sinking mainline carriers, etc.). My father took part in live wargames back int he 70's where their carriers were frequently sunk by the British, etc. They've been a juicy target for decades. While we have large and more powerful carriers now, we do have fewer than decades past.

There's been a legitimate danger to carriers and other surface ships since the advent of modern long-range ASMs.

The Falklands conflict was a good example. You had an old ex-US battleship sunk by a modern submarine. You had small carriers desperately trying to fend off ground-based aircraft. You had a situation where one or two more ships sunk and the British would have been forced to retreat and re-consider their options (if one carrier or large tender had been sunk it would have crippled their retaking of the islands) etc. It highlighted the complex nature of modern warfare carried out by a naval task force.

Carriers are still a useful tool, but they're just a big risk if caught in the wrong place. Because of how a carrier operates it would only take one successful ASM to put it out of action, even if it didn't sink. Mess up the catapult, or the capture gear, the elevators, or the stores and it's out of the fight for good. Because of this, swarm tactics are a good and cheap option.

Modern ASMs (luckily not in the hands of a lot of countries we'd have an argument with) have some pretty ingenious swarm software. A group of six or seven missiles will actively register where each one is, adjust their elevation and approach patterns to be different from each other (with some bizarre missiles even passing around behind a target and turning back to hit it from the opposite direction). You have some fancy hypersonic missiles as well, though they're probably rare and expensive. Ideally a large destroyer screen would counter most of these, but it only takes one. And if the ASMs firing at you have more range and ammo than your Destroyers or your CIWS, then you're probably in trouble.

The most likely instance where a carrier is destroyed is in a surprise attack, i.e. the sudden onset of hostilities where everyone is in full peace-time "is this really happening!?" mode. A routine deployment to the gulf or the med where someone seizes and opportunity. In a proper war footing, they'll be looked after and less likely to be destroyed immediately.

 Easy E wrote:

Let's talk about our opinions on the results and methodology of the Millenium Challenge 2002.

The games themselves don't deliver any useful results to discuss. The first action which proved so 'devastating' to the navel assets involved the appearance of an improbable number of improbably small boats carrying anti-ship missiles. It was gaming the rules like, 'the codex said I pay 5 pts to add a storm bolter to my rhino and it doesn't state a limit, and that's why this rhino costs 300 pts and is made out storm bolters.' Sure, if you can alpha strike enough missiles to literally overwhelm a ship's capability to respond, it's toast. But that stuff doesn't just appear on the battlefield. You have to get the weapons and the delivery platforms into place and in real life, that little boat zerg rush just wouldn't cut it.

Of course the response of "allright, call a do over, bring back the dead ships, and now the opposition is following the script we give them," made it just as useless in the other direction.

People generally misunderstand the point of those exercises.

Yes, the Millenium Challenge posited a number of highly unlikely scenarios, and capabilities Iran patently doesn't have.

But that's the point. It's all a bunch of "what ifs." The carrier results have gotten a lot of attention. What has gotten less attention is the activation of groups throughout the Middle East in response to a US attack.

Iran has no delusions that it could beat the US in conventional warfare. That's why their focus has largely been on expanding their geopolitical reach (something they're much better at than the Saudis) and establishing a scenario where even if they lose in conventional terms the cost of victory is rampant unrest and disaster throughout the region.

Americans have lost their taste for troop heavy Middle Eastern boondoggles in the last twenty years. No one in their right mind (oh god...) is going to engage Iran in an armed conflict when there is no one in a good position, or with the political will, to deal with the aftermath.

It's a big part of why the current game of chicken being played is so fething stupid. Iran knows the West will blink first. They've built themselves their own version of MAD, no WMD's required.

 Elbows wrote:
That was not the start of the "Carriers are obsolete" mindset. There have been numerous wargames where wild things happening (tiny diesel submarines sinking mainline carriers, etc.). My father took part in live wargames back int he 70's where their carriers were frequently sunk by the British, etc. They've been a juicy target for decades. While we have large and more powerful carriers now, we do have fewer than decades past.

Okay, it did not "start it" but it is often cited as a "modern" version for the argument that "Carriers are Obsolete".

Regarding criticism of the wargame rules themselves....

There was also a question about the speed of motorcycle runners to deliver messages during the conflict as a criticism of the OpFor gaming the system as well.

General Belgrano was a Brooklyn-class light cruiser, not a battleship. My inner naval buff compelled me to point that out.

Point is, declaring war on Iran would be WW3

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Point is, declaring war on Iran would be WW3

Only if someone who can attack the U.S. directly joins in on Iran's side.

Don't get me wrong. A U.S-Iran war would be the worst thing to happen to America since Vietnam... for much the same reasons. But Iran simply does not have the capacity to bring the war to America except in the very limited sense of some terror attacks... and higher gasoline prices.

China and Russia wouldn't let their strategically important ally be invaded.

That depends on what America offers them in return for staying out of it.

Case in point, I bet China would sit back and do nothing if America offered to pull all support for Taiwan. Russia likely would do the same in exchange for a free hand in the Baltic states and the Ukraine.

Russia already basically has a free hand in the Baltic. The West has done a lot of handwringing and some halfhearted sanctions, but Russia got away with invading and annexing Crimea with no real attempt to stop it.

China also couldn't stop a war with Iran even if they wanted to. They don't have the ability to directly participate in, or support, any conflict that far away from their borders. They'd need India and Pakistan to allow Chinese forces to move across their borders, which will never ever happen.

The most China could do is cease trade activity and shoot anything that came in range of their borders. Yes, loss of trade would hurt the entire world. But it would kill China. They are held hostage by their own reliance on exports to have an economy at all. If they got cut off, living standards would quickly fall and the citizens would not tolerate that one bit.

 LordofHats wrote:
People generally misunderstand the point of those exercises.

Yes, the Millenium Challenge posited a number of highly unlikely scenarios, and capabilities Iran patently doesn't have.

But that's the point. It's all a bunch of "what ifs." The carrier results have gotten a lot of attention. What has gotten less attention is the activation of groups throughout the Middle East in response to a US attack.

Iran has no delusions that it could beat the US in conventional warfare. That's why their focus has largely been on expanding their geopolitical reach (something they're much better at than the Saudis) and establishing a scenario where even if they lose in conventional terms the cost of victory is rampant unrest and disaster throughout the region.

Americans have lost their taste for troop heavy Middle Eastern boondoggles in the last twenty years. No one in their right mind (oh god...) is going to engage Iran in an armed conflict when there is no one in a good position, or with the political will, to deal with the aftermath.

It's a big part of why the current game of chicken being played is so fething stupid. Iran knows the West will blink first. They've built themselves their own version of MAD, no WMD's required.

Those patently unlikely options though were really just insurgent tactics with a fully developped military though.
So not unlikely.Additionally, Iran is playing the game off "let's become local hegemon" with saudi arabia, and it is precisly in these battlefield of insurgents of the middle east that Iran has gained it's knowledge and most combat experience.



Secondly: A wargame is a specific training excercise, invented by a german btw, to simulate battles and in some cases whole campaigns to anticipate and plan ahead.
Handing a side afterwards a script is basically like the most slowed thing ever, and should've lead to some serious questioning into leadership.

Thirdly: MAD, Iran by itself has not achieved not yet atleast. For MAD to really get into effect you need enough pwer to destroy your opponent completely.
So far that only really can be done by USA, Russia, and potentially china and France.

Fourth: Take a look at a Map.
Then tell me how the US would win a conventional war.
Vietnam would be babys first garden trip compared to an invasion off Iran.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
China and Russia wouldn't let their strategically important ally be invaded.

Neither Russia nor China would spark any kind of serious conflict over Iran. I doubt China would see it as anything more than an economic opportunity, if anything.

 Ketara wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
China and Russia wouldn't let their strategically important ally be invaded.

Neither Russia nor China would spark any kind of serious conflict over Iran. I doubt China would see it as anything more than an economic opportunity, if anything.

Aye. If anything, they might be interested in joining in the dogpile so they could have a hand in the rebuilding efforts. IE: Try and turn whatever country replaced Iran into a puppet.

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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Those patently unlikely options though were really just insurgent tactics with a fully developped military though.

So not unlikely.

I have no idea what this is supposed to say. Iran actually has 10x as many boats as they have? 10x as many munitions? An air and sea dominance capability they patently lack, and arguably isn't even trying to develop due to the obvious futility of trying?

Additionally, Iran is playing the game off "let's become local hegemon" with saudi arabia, and it is precisly in these battlefield of insurgents of the middle east that Iran has gained it's knowledge and most combat experience.

Arguably they've already won that fight. The Saudi's have been getting kicked in the nuts subtly a lot the past year. The pull out of the conflict in Yemen by the UAE is a much more devastating development than people give it credit for.

EDIT: Arguably, this is less the Saudi's losing and more America losing on their behalf.

Secondly: A wargame is a specific training excercise, invented by a german btw, to simulate battles and in some cases whole campaigns to anticipate and plan ahead.
Handing a side afterwards a script is basically like the most slowed thing ever, and should've lead to some serious questioning into leadership.

It's pretty typical to release highly redacted results of wargame outcomes. Why? IDK. They do it. Maybe to try and influence Congress.

Thirdly: MAD, Iran by itself has not achieved not yet atleast. For MAD to really get into effect you need enough pwer to destroy your opponent completely.
So far that only really can be done by USA, Russia, and potentially china and France

You're taking my line too literally, and underestimate the devastating effect tripling gas prices would have on the global economy. People don't get their panties in a bunch every time Iran talks about mining the Strait just because it would be a minor inconvenience. There's a standing logic that much of the world economy is pinned to the price of oil (EDIT: Certainly, this' standing logic that American power is pinned to the energy economy and the US' ability to manipulate it). Cause rampant unrest, something Iran could potentially do, in every Middle Eastern country and you potentially topple the world economy.

It's not everyone "dies in nuclear fire," sure. " That's not the point though.

Fourth: Take a look at a Map.

You know people made this argument about Iraq too, in 2004, after a US coalition already achieved total victory at shocking speed a decade earlier. It was nonsensical then too.

Iran is less of a pushover, but the standing Iranian military isn't that great. The IRGC is pretty well trained, but they also don't train in conventional warfare outside of showboating. Iran does not win a conventional armed conflict. That's why they aren't even trying.

Vietnam would be babys first garden trip compared to an invasion off Iran.

If you ignore the distribution of the population and industry, sure. Realistically, Iran is much easier to "beat" in a conventional sense. Everything important is in the western half of the country. Iran is surrounded by countries that are basically waiting to see who wins the game of chicken being played and will jump onto the US' bandwagon if it actually tried, and they're economy is strained as it is, and couldn't hold out under an actual assault.

Iran loses conventionally, but they know that and it's not the real problem.

Then tell me how the US would win a conventional war.

The same way it's won most other conventional wars it's fought. The problem isn't winning the war, but the peace (we suck at winning the peace, like really really really suck). The American public has little stomach for the price of peace. It's less bloody than the price of victory, but it's also less flashy and Americans are short attention spanning morons who are all on board to blow up some terrorists but lose interest when it comes time to suck it up and keep hanging on. Asymmetrical warfare is warefare of will. The American public has the will of an 80 year old man on alzhiemer meds when it comes to this kind of thing. We'll win land wars on every continent only to render all the blood and suffering of both sides worthless by backing out because it doesn't end in a storybook fashion. That's how we lost Vietnam. It's how we lost Iraq (twice). It's how we're losing Afghanistan and Syria right now. It's probably how we'd lose Iran if it ever happened.

 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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You know people made this argument about Iraq too, in 2004, after a US coalition already achieved total victory at shocking speed a decade earlier. It was nonsensical then too.

Iran is less of a pushover, but the standing Iranian military isn't that great. The IRGC is pretty well trained, but they also don't train in conventional warfare outside of showboating. Iran does not win a conventional armed conflict. That's why they aren't even trying.

Honest question, were you ever in the military? Or can you read maps.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Secondly: A wargame is a specific training excercise, invented by a german btw, to simulate battles and in some cases whole campaigns to anticipate and plan ahead.
Handing a side afterwards a script is basically like the most slowed thing ever, and should've lead to some serious questioning into leadership.

Uh, no. A wargame like this is not an attempt to find out who wins, the point is to get realistic training for the forces involved and discover problems that only appear once you get real troops and equipment in the field and start trying to use them. Of course the US didn't just say "well, you sank our fleet, guess we'll just sit here doing nothing until the war officially ends". They recorded the initial results for future study and then reset the scenario to give the forces involved the training they were supposed to be doing.

PS: killing a carrier that is limited to a restricted area for a game scenario is much easier than killing one in the open ocean where it is free to constantly move at full speed (because nuclear power never runs out of fuel) across an immense area. Those silent electric subs are slow and have to get into an ambush position before the carrier arrives, good luck ever setting that up when the carrier has so few constraints on where and when it can be.

You're taking my line too literally, and underestimate the devastating effect tripling gas prices would have on the global economy. People don't get their panties in a bunch every time Iran talks about mining the Strait just because it would be a minor inconvenience. There's a standing logic that much of the world economy is pinned to the price of oil (EDIT: Certainly, this' standing logic that American power is pinned to the energy economy and the US' ability to manipulate it). Cause rampant unrest, something Iran could potentially do, in every Middle Eastern country and you potentially topple the world economy.

It's not everyone "dies in nuclear fire," sure. " That's not the point though.

The concept of MAD is mutually assured destruction and works only in the context of weapons of massdestruction and the ability to use them effectively on your enemy.

Mining the strait is a minor inconvenience compared to the concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Secondly: A wargame is a specific training excercise, invented by a german btw, to simulate battles and in some cases whole campaigns to anticipate and plan ahead.
Handing a side afterwards a script is basically like the most slowed thing ever, and should've lead to some serious questioning into leadership.

Uh, no. A wargame like this is not an attempt to find out who wins, the point is to get realistic training for the forces involved and discover problems that only appear once you get real troops and equipment in the field and start trying to use them. Of course the US didn't just say "well, you sank our fleet, guess we'll just sit here doing nothing until the war officially ends". They recorded the initial results for future study and then reset the scenario to give the forces involved the training they were supposed to be doing.

PS: killing a carrier that is limited to a restricted area for a game scenario is much easier than killing one in the open ocean where it is free to constantly move at full speed (because nuclear power never runs out of fuel) across an immense area. Those silent electric subs are slow and have to get into an ambush position before the carrier arrives, good luck ever setting that up when the carrier has so few constraints on where and when it can be.

How is it efficient in training when you handle out a Script afterwards.
That is like the Epitome of useless and swiss army levels of incompetence during the worst off our misshapes.
And we multiple times invaded and shelled neighbouring countries.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arguably they've already won that fight. The Saudi's have been getting kicked in the nuts subtly a lot the past year. The pull out of the conflict in Yemen by the UAE is a much more devastating development than people give it credit for.

EDIT: Arguably, this is less the Saudi's losing and more America losing on their behalf.

Well the saudies lost their influence in Irak due to Bush Junior.
And syria due to a combination of Iran and us support.

Altough the little fight has only just started what with 2 "new" contenders entering the spotlight.

Not Online!!! wrote:
How is it efficient in training when you handle out a Script afterwards.

Because the goal is not to "train" and see who wins like you're practicing your 40k skills, it's to find out things like "our troops were running out of batteries for their radios, we need to make sure the spares are delivered faster" or whatever. You don't get to discover things like that if the troops using those radios are "dead" at the bottom of the ocean, so you reset the scenario and use a script where the landing craft make it to shore.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
How is it efficient in training when you handle out a Script afterwards.

Because the goal is not to "train" and see who wins like you're practicing your 40k skills, it's to find out things like "our troops were running out of batteries for their radios, we need to make sure the spares are delivered faster" or whatever. You don't get to discover things like that if the troops using those radios are "dead" at the bottom of the ocean, so you reset the scenario and use a script where the landing craft make it to shore.

Ain't how i remember it but sure, you 'll know what you are talking about.
Not.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Honest question, were you ever in the military?

It doesn't seem like an honest question. I mean, what if I said yes? Do you actually have a point at that point (and the answer is like, 50% yes, maybe 75% if I felt like stooping to your level of patent obtusness)? Or an argument to make?

The concept of MAD is mutually assured destruction and works only in the context of weapons of massdestruction and the ability to use them effectively on your enemy.

Apparently not.

I'll just leave you to your high horse then.

 LordofHats wrote:


The same way it's won most other conventional wars it's fought. The problem isn't winning the war, but the peace (we suck at winning the peace, like really really really suck). The American public has little stomach for the price of peace. It's less bloody than the price of victory, but it's also less flashy and Americans are short attention spanning morons who are all on board to blow up some terrorists but lose interest when it comes time to suck it up and keep hanging on. Asymmetrical warfare is warefare of will. The American public has the will of an 80 year old man on alzhiemer meds when it comes to this kind of thing. We'll win land wars on every continent only to render all the blood and suffering of both sides worthless by backing out because it doesn't end in a storybook fashion. That's how we lost Vietnam. It's how we lost Iraq (twice). It's how we're losing Afghanistan and Syria right now. It's probably how we'd lose Iran if it ever happened.

Which is why I think that, if we ever did do this again, we should win, give the locals a message that if they cause trouble for us again we will rinse and repeat, but as long as they don't cause us trouble we won't cause them trouble, and then we leave. No rebuilding, no aid. Let them deal with it. Let them have whatever government they want, as long as they don't generate terrorists or have a government that pokes the US.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No rebuilding, no aid. Let them deal with it. Let them have whatever government they want, as long as they don't generate terrorists or have a government that pokes the US.

EDIT: I'm just going to delete this, because you know I'm not actually disgruntled with you and you don't deserve the outcome of my momentary frustration.

 LordofHats wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Honest question, were you ever in the military?

It doesn't seem like an honest question. I mean, what if I said yes? Do you actually have a point at that point (and the answer is like, 50% yes, maybe 75% if I felt like stooping to your level of patent obtusness)? Or an argument to make?

The concept of MAD is mutually assured destruction and works only in the context of weapons of massdestruction and the ability to use them effectively on your enemy.

Apparently not.

I'll just leave you to your high horse then.

there's no point. You stated MAD:
I stated MAD as aconcept only works with Total anahilation as prospect.MAD is the ultimate escalation fear. Nobody is risking MAD conflicts.economical tough, are very much still easily stomachable.
Only answer i got is Snark and basically non workable BS.


Here let me explain it to you a bit more extensively.

Iran is 2/3rds Mountains.
One range conveniently froms a curve.Along it's cost.
Theran and most of the important cities sit behind or in them.
Mountains are also full off natural chokepoints.
And lead to massive hight advantage. Just ask luigi cadorna to what that leads. Or any italian or AH person that had some insight in history.

Am i still on a high horse now ? Or will you propperly answer?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Am i still on a high horse now ?

Actually, it looks a little higher. Maybe you can talk down to everyone else a bit better now?

Or will you properly answer?

Not Online!!! wrote:
there's no point.

Removed, rule #1 please - BrookM

There's an amusing analogy here for US-Iranian relations but I'm too lazy to put it together.

When I did OPFOR in Hoenfels against 1st Armored, we straight up slaughtered them. When 1st Armored went to Iraq, facing numerically superior forces with equipment better suited to the job than what the OPFOR was using in the box, they straight rolled up the enemy. It wasn't even close.

The difference? The OPFOR mission was there SPECIFICALLY to monopolize on weaknesses or deficiencies whereas the actual combat simply had two forces meeting and a decided victor. Even after the battle tactics switched to the insurgency and ambush tactics the enemy couldn't dole out the level of destruction we did in our wargames.


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.

 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.

 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.


The theorethical is basically the first part, it assumes strength, strategic and overall expected terrain. Normally it happens before a Truppenübung. It is how general warplanes are first developped, by assuming strength, preferable as accurately as posibble, reaction times of units etc. These first Wargames then serve as then as the basic expected outline for a conflict. A simulation of actio reactio basically.
Is probably the best video on why it was started in the theorethical field.

Differing is the Truppenmanöver. Think of it as a training excercise (atleast for the swiss army it is, mostly due to the militia structure). Sometimes you just pit two units against each other with objectives and switch it around and look which unit performs up to expectation, which Soldiers show skill or unusual thinking,etc.
Then there are the full blown Volltruppenübungen. These are atleast here Brigade level. You get a overall scenario, (often determined due to a theorethical first run on a table) and then Test combat ability, coordination of branches, chances etc.

Switzerland rarely goes further than that. Mostly because were would we, we allready invaded in such excercises Lichtenstein. (How these morons managed to do so remains a mistery to me.)

Then there are these full blown scenario campaigns that was the Millenium challange. These are massive in scale, and are there to get results on performance and expected behaviour from enemy units aswell as tacics.
These have to be unscrippted in order to give usefull results beyond the baseline scenario.

And that is the problem with the millenium challange. It failed basically to stomach a negative result ans squandered according to the Marine general, the lessons it had to learn.

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.