Project: terrain model and GHQ miniatures for Army training
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:59 am
Hello GHQ forum members,
I am an officer in the U.S. Army, branched armor, and currently serving as an instructor in one of our officer development schools. In this role, I instruct groups of 16-20 young officers in army doctrine and tactics. I am currently concluding my “first teach†in this next month. After the conclusion of the cycle, I have decided to create a series of terrain models to assist with my instruction. As a young lieutenant at Fort Knox I recall using GHQ microarmor on terrain models as part of our tactical instruction. I feel these “hands on†training tools were definitely value added in my professional development, and I believe that students can benefit from similar instructional methods.
Specifically, I believe my students have difficulty initially with terrain ** CENSORED **, ** CENSORED ** and arraying forces both friendly and enemy, and employing company sized formations in doctrinally sound manner. One specific example we often observe is the difficulty officers with a “light†background (i.e. service in the 101st or 82nd Airborne divisions for example) have envisioning large mounted elements moving in formation across the deserts of the national training center. Though we incorporate simulations to reinforce training objectives, I believe the use of a terrain model with miniature 1:1 scale military units will assist with instruction. We’ll see how it turns out beginning in January of 2013 when I will begin teaching a new class and will have my training aids complete.
At endstate, I intend to create three to four modular terrain models that will be approximately 9’x9’ in size. Students will use GHQ miniatures to practice enemy course of action development and friendly scheme of maneuver using 1:1 scale units (i.e. a Mech Infantry company team will consist of 10x M2A3 Bradleys, 4x M1A2 Abrams, etc. all with their own painted miniatures). Students will then translate their “hands on†application onto their maneuver graphics prior to briefing operations orders for evaluation. I think I should note at this point that I’ve been a miniature/modeling fan for my whole life. Part of my reasons for taking up this project is also for personal enjoyment, and part of the reason I haven’t requested tax payer dollars to fund it is so I can keep the fruits of my labor when I move on!
I recently sent a message to GHQ providing feedback from an American military perspective. These recommendations were based on requirements for our classes. I fully acknowledge that implementation of the recommendations may not be viable under GHQ’s business model, and are only based on facilitating our needs. These recommendations were based purely on filling the unit requirements in the several operations orders students must execute in the course curriculum. I figured these recommendations might promote some interesting discussion. My recommendations were:
-Addition of Russian/Soviet/Former Warsaw pact engineer breaching and possibly assault bridging assets. Our current classes include the “MTK-2†(UR-77 under Russian nomenclature I believe) and the “BAT-2†for our scenarios. At present GHQ does not offer similar vehicles. As an interim I will probably use MT-LBs for this purpose. Likewise, I would recommend adding a Soviet era assault bridging vehicle.
-Add the M7 Bradley (Fire Support Vehicle) to product line. Currently I will substitute the M8 Bradley Linebacker. I believe this could be accomplished using existing Bradley hulls with a different turret. This is probably an easy “scratch build†conversion actually.
-Add variants of the HMMWV equipped with LRAS (large scout optic), preferably including up armored HMMWV. I believe this could be accomplished using existing HMMWV castings(unarmored and armored) with a different “turrets†adding the LRAS system.
-Add tanks equipped with mine rollers. For our requirements, we especially need an M1A2 Abrams equipped with mine roller. Russian mine rollers would be a plus as well.
-Replace the current M2 .50 caliber machine gun for the M1A2 Abrams with a “CROWS†system M2 .50 Cal (possibly the same casting as the Stryker infantry carriers) or a “flex mount†M2 .50 caliber MG. Current M1A2 Abrams seems to come with the old mounting used on the M1/M1A1 Abrams.
-Very small recommendation: add an M113 without applique armor with the external fuel cells on the vehicle’s rear. This juice may not be worth the squeeze to GHQ, in my opinion. It is simply a very minor tweak to replicate current army vehicle fieldings. This tweak could also probably be made by a dedicated scratch builder as well.
-Another very minor recommendation: add Soviet T-12 anti-tank gun. Currently I will substitute the “100mm anti-tank gun†in this role. Honestly, I don’t think a new product is worthwhile considering what is already have in GHQ’s existing line, but it is a specific piece of equipment our students interact with that is not “specifically†covered in the GHQ line.
Finally, I strongly recommended revision of the “combat command†sets to reflect modern “Modified Tables of Organization and Equipment†(MTOEs) of current American line companies. These sets are utterly ideal for military customers, and in my opinion should be kept updated with the current task organizations of the US Military. I recommend consulting the “FKSM 71-8†to update these sets. In addition to bringing the boxes in line with MTOE Off the top of my head, I recommend the following improvements:
-Modern American tank company: 14 M1A2 Abrams, one M7 Fire Support Bradley, two HMMWVs, two M113s (First Sergeant’s vehicle, and the Medic vehicle. Add on armor M113s not required), replace the old trucks with one LMTV truck, and one M88 recovery vehicle.
-Modern American mechanized infantry company: 14 M2A3 Bradleys, two HMMWVs, two M113s as above, one LMTV, and one M88 recovery vehicle. The existing set with original production M2 Bradleys is insufficient “out of the box.â€
-The current Stryker combat command set differs significantly from an “MTOE†Stryker company and requires five additional infantry carrier Strykers as well as a fire support vehicle, a medical evacuation vehicle, two HMMWVs, and two LMTV trucks in order to replicate a complete company.
For added realism, the American company level MTOEs could also benefit from a water trailer, though again this is a small item that might not be worth the production time.
I am utterly enthralled with GHQ’s product line. My above recommendations are rather minor, and were offered “for what they are worth†to GHQ. Our biggest needs are for “OPFOR†(opposing force) breaching assets and roller tanks. Everything else would be a bonus.
In closing to this first post, I want to thank the GHQ forum members for their posts and the sharing of information. I have spent quite some time lurking in the forums researching best practices before execution of my work. I’m used to 1/35 scale tanks, 1/48 scale aircraft, and 1/72 scale soldiers. 1/285 scale is such a delicious challenge!
I’d like to return the effort by posting my progress of my project here. At present I have a 27†square terrain tile complete that replicates one square kilometer of map data used in a student mission, and I will add eleven more for this specific model. I have also completed about half a Combined Arms Battalion’s worth of combat power consisting of a tank company, a mech infantry company (M2 Bradleys, missing the M88 for now), and various HHC/FSC elements. While I am a huge military history/arts and crafts nerd, my work is “good enough for government work†and won’t include the extensive super details some folks place in their pieces, though I think the results are sufficient. I’ll try to get a few pictures posted tonight before I go to bed.
Thanks again all to your contributions to this outstanding knowledge base!
-busboy
I am an officer in the U.S. Army, branched armor, and currently serving as an instructor in one of our officer development schools. In this role, I instruct groups of 16-20 young officers in army doctrine and tactics. I am currently concluding my “first teach†in this next month. After the conclusion of the cycle, I have decided to create a series of terrain models to assist with my instruction. As a young lieutenant at Fort Knox I recall using GHQ microarmor on terrain models as part of our tactical instruction. I feel these “hands on†training tools were definitely value added in my professional development, and I believe that students can benefit from similar instructional methods.
Specifically, I believe my students have difficulty initially with terrain ** CENSORED **, ** CENSORED ** and arraying forces both friendly and enemy, and employing company sized formations in doctrinally sound manner. One specific example we often observe is the difficulty officers with a “light†background (i.e. service in the 101st or 82nd Airborne divisions for example) have envisioning large mounted elements moving in formation across the deserts of the national training center. Though we incorporate simulations to reinforce training objectives, I believe the use of a terrain model with miniature 1:1 scale military units will assist with instruction. We’ll see how it turns out beginning in January of 2013 when I will begin teaching a new class and will have my training aids complete.
At endstate, I intend to create three to four modular terrain models that will be approximately 9’x9’ in size. Students will use GHQ miniatures to practice enemy course of action development and friendly scheme of maneuver using 1:1 scale units (i.e. a Mech Infantry company team will consist of 10x M2A3 Bradleys, 4x M1A2 Abrams, etc. all with their own painted miniatures). Students will then translate their “hands on†application onto their maneuver graphics prior to briefing operations orders for evaluation. I think I should note at this point that I’ve been a miniature/modeling fan for my whole life. Part of my reasons for taking up this project is also for personal enjoyment, and part of the reason I haven’t requested tax payer dollars to fund it is so I can keep the fruits of my labor when I move on!
I recently sent a message to GHQ providing feedback from an American military perspective. These recommendations were based on requirements for our classes. I fully acknowledge that implementation of the recommendations may not be viable under GHQ’s business model, and are only based on facilitating our needs. These recommendations were based purely on filling the unit requirements in the several operations orders students must execute in the course curriculum. I figured these recommendations might promote some interesting discussion. My recommendations were:
-Addition of Russian/Soviet/Former Warsaw pact engineer breaching and possibly assault bridging assets. Our current classes include the “MTK-2†(UR-77 under Russian nomenclature I believe) and the “BAT-2†for our scenarios. At present GHQ does not offer similar vehicles. As an interim I will probably use MT-LBs for this purpose. Likewise, I would recommend adding a Soviet era assault bridging vehicle.
-Add the M7 Bradley (Fire Support Vehicle) to product line. Currently I will substitute the M8 Bradley Linebacker. I believe this could be accomplished using existing Bradley hulls with a different turret. This is probably an easy “scratch build†conversion actually.
-Add variants of the HMMWV equipped with LRAS (large scout optic), preferably including up armored HMMWV. I believe this could be accomplished using existing HMMWV castings(unarmored and armored) with a different “turrets†adding the LRAS system.
-Add tanks equipped with mine rollers. For our requirements, we especially need an M1A2 Abrams equipped with mine roller. Russian mine rollers would be a plus as well.
-Replace the current M2 .50 caliber machine gun for the M1A2 Abrams with a “CROWS†system M2 .50 Cal (possibly the same casting as the Stryker infantry carriers) or a “flex mount†M2 .50 caliber MG. Current M1A2 Abrams seems to come with the old mounting used on the M1/M1A1 Abrams.
-Very small recommendation: add an M113 without applique armor with the external fuel cells on the vehicle’s rear. This juice may not be worth the squeeze to GHQ, in my opinion. It is simply a very minor tweak to replicate current army vehicle fieldings. This tweak could also probably be made by a dedicated scratch builder as well.
-Another very minor recommendation: add Soviet T-12 anti-tank gun. Currently I will substitute the “100mm anti-tank gun†in this role. Honestly, I don’t think a new product is worthwhile considering what is already have in GHQ’s existing line, but it is a specific piece of equipment our students interact with that is not “specifically†covered in the GHQ line.
Finally, I strongly recommended revision of the “combat command†sets to reflect modern “Modified Tables of Organization and Equipment†(MTOEs) of current American line companies. These sets are utterly ideal for military customers, and in my opinion should be kept updated with the current task organizations of the US Military. I recommend consulting the “FKSM 71-8†to update these sets. In addition to bringing the boxes in line with MTOE Off the top of my head, I recommend the following improvements:
-Modern American tank company: 14 M1A2 Abrams, one M7 Fire Support Bradley, two HMMWVs, two M113s (First Sergeant’s vehicle, and the Medic vehicle. Add on armor M113s not required), replace the old trucks with one LMTV truck, and one M88 recovery vehicle.
-Modern American mechanized infantry company: 14 M2A3 Bradleys, two HMMWVs, two M113s as above, one LMTV, and one M88 recovery vehicle. The existing set with original production M2 Bradleys is insufficient “out of the box.â€
-The current Stryker combat command set differs significantly from an “MTOE†Stryker company and requires five additional infantry carrier Strykers as well as a fire support vehicle, a medical evacuation vehicle, two HMMWVs, and two LMTV trucks in order to replicate a complete company.
For added realism, the American company level MTOEs could also benefit from a water trailer, though again this is a small item that might not be worth the production time.
I am utterly enthralled with GHQ’s product line. My above recommendations are rather minor, and were offered “for what they are worth†to GHQ. Our biggest needs are for “OPFOR†(opposing force) breaching assets and roller tanks. Everything else would be a bonus.
In closing to this first post, I want to thank the GHQ forum members for their posts and the sharing of information. I have spent quite some time lurking in the forums researching best practices before execution of my work. I’m used to 1/35 scale tanks, 1/48 scale aircraft, and 1/72 scale soldiers. 1/285 scale is such a delicious challenge!
I’d like to return the effort by posting my progress of my project here. At present I have a 27†square terrain tile complete that replicates one square kilometer of map data used in a student mission, and I will add eleven more for this specific model. I have also completed about half a Combined Arms Battalion’s worth of combat power consisting of a tank company, a mech infantry company (M2 Bradleys, missing the M88 for now), and various HHC/FSC elements. While I am a huge military history/arts and crafts nerd, my work is “good enough for government work†and won’t include the extensive super details some folks place in their pieces, though I think the results are sufficient. I’ll try to get a few pictures posted tonight before I go to bed.
Thanks again all to your contributions to this outstanding knowledge base!
-busboy
GASP 
. 
