The GHQ Forums are provided for the discussion of wargaming, and issues that relate to the topic of wargaming. Military history and current events are certainly appropriate and topical. Political history and current events are topical only as they relate to wargaming.
This thread is wandering along the edge of politics. Political discussions often generate very strong fealings, postings, and replies. Such political debates are welcome in many fora, but not this one.
So ... no warnings, no corrections, but a reminder: Please stay on the topic of wargaming. No wandering off into the politics beyond how they may be gamed or affect how the gaming is done.
MODERATOR Mk 1
-Mark 1 Difficile est, saturam non scribere. "It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
After reading the post and MK1’s comments I will be careful how I add to this.
Late last year I read the Army’s COIN manual. What I got from the first 2 Chapters is that when a host government (in this case the Republic of South Vietnam) cannot garner the voluntary support of its own people an insurgency is most likely lost before the first boot hits the ground.
To the post original question yes the weapons of 2010 we would have been more lethal and destructive. But that would not have mattered. The US did not lose any battles of any consequence, we were plenty lethal and the kill ratio shows that we were not militarily defeated.
US troops couldn’t win the people’s willing support for the Vietnamese government. The South Vietnamese government was had to get that support for themselves. Unless they do that there is no victory for the US.
I don’t offer this evaluation to take away from the service of our vets just my take from my study of COIN. Insurgencies are won and lost at the policy table.
I have an interest in gaming this period but not sure how to factor in the political effects of the battles being fought. Insurgencies are wars for opinions. (Hearts and minds)
I just ask that this post be taken in the spirit to which it is offered.
I pray for Peace on Earth Good will toward men. Till then one round HE fire for Effect!
Micro-Armor Wargaming usually falls into two categories, ...at least in my experience.
First Category: Historical games based on known facts with objectives that are pretty easy to figure out with a fairly accurate list of available "tools of the trade" to be used by the opposing sides. The motivation of the combatants is also pretty easy to figure out.
Second Category: What if this happened? A game based on possible scenarios from nearly any period of mechanized warfare that can either be for fun or as an exercise, ...a brain trainer.
Brain Trainers are much more interesting because they force decision makers to think about more than your basic push/pull wargame. They make participants think about the why, who, when, where, what, how much, and how far. The WHY is always the hardest part. Why did Side A defend this bridge, this hill, or why did they run away and not defend anything. If you understand the "why" you have a huge advantage.
Most of the "why" questions have answers that lead decision-makers through the minefield that is politics. Most "why" answers have a political foundation at or near the bottom, or in some cases, the very top of the list of bullet points that illustrate the cause of the battle being fought at that particular time at that particular place...
I tried to push this discussion in that direction when I mentioned the way we used "political will" as part of our North Africa Campaign because it is political will that drives combatants toward their eventual end, ...either victory or defeat.
Our Bosnian training scenarios are perfect for helping a gamer/decision-maker understand that fighting is truly the easiest part of war... Those of you who have participated know a player spends most of their time trying to figure out what's going on. The combat comes easy, ...winning comes hard. Will
"The three most important words when trying to make a decision are: communications, communications, communications, ...in that order" MGen BG Hollingsworth USMC (retired)
