We know that many of you were first introduced to GHQ miniatures when you used them as training aids in the military. The US military is one of our biggest customers, and we sell directly to the military of several other nations as well. We hear that our miniatures provide the most cost effective training aids around, and hold people's attention better than anything else. Some of you may occasionally see our miniatures when you see footage on TV of Desert Storm, action in Afghanistan, and the War in Iraq. GHQ miniatures are regularly used in sand tables set up in the classroom and in the field.
Does anyone have any stories or anecdotes about using GHQ miniatures while in the military? When you first saw them? Where you saw them? How they were used? How effective they are as training aids? Also, does anyone have any suggestions for what GHQ can do to improve our line for use within the military? Any contributions, or suggestions, are appreciated.
Thanks,
GHQ
GHQ miniatures used in the military
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
GHQ
- Site Admin
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:50 am
- Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
-
1ComOpsCtr
- E5
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:03 am
- Location: Midwest
- Contact:
We have worked with several military units using 1/285th-1/300th scale miniatures for training purposes. One of the areas I believe that needs to be improved has to do with convoy training. Most drivers do not get to see further than the vehicle in front or the vehicle behind them so using miniatures helps the whole unit practice their craft under simulated combat situations.
The picture above is from a simulation with the Warrior Brigade at Fort Polk from last year. Members of one of the Combat Support Brigade's transportation units participated in several simulations conducted by ComOpsCtr.
This picture illustrates some of the equipment GHQ needs to produce to make the representation of real combat convoy conditions more accurate. A truck chassis was modified to produce the 5 ton trailer, and parts from a GHQ competitor were used for the gun/crew to make the representation more accurate.
The Hummer Gun Truck above was converted to accurately represent the SOF modified Hummers that are part of the aggressive front line "mounted infantry" patrol vehicles in use daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. From an SOF point of view, this vehicle in miniature would help with training and planning right now if it were available, as would more of the support equipment every fighting unit can not function/live without.
The tractors seen in the refugee convoy above were converted from charms, the wagons are from GHQ and H&R. The civilian vehicles are from a variety of manufacturers and in scales from 1/220 to 1/300, but they work well together.
Allowing a junior NCO the opportunity to view the potential battlefield from above during a simulation is extremely valuable. Using the scale of 3mm equals 1 meter works well for table simulations allowing a very large area to be represented, even in the most difficult terrain as illustrated below from a recent convention venue.
Using miniature simulation during training, in my view, provides something computer interaction cannot: real human interaction. Other members of this forum have helped us make our interactive training session very successful. Thank you for your hard work.
Will
ComOpsCtr
The picture above is from a simulation with the Warrior Brigade at Fort Polk from last year. Members of one of the Combat Support Brigade's transportation units participated in several simulations conducted by ComOpsCtr.
This picture illustrates some of the equipment GHQ needs to produce to make the representation of real combat convoy conditions more accurate. A truck chassis was modified to produce the 5 ton trailer, and parts from a GHQ competitor were used for the gun/crew to make the representation more accurate.
The Hummer Gun Truck above was converted to accurately represent the SOF modified Hummers that are part of the aggressive front line "mounted infantry" patrol vehicles in use daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. From an SOF point of view, this vehicle in miniature would help with training and planning right now if it were available, as would more of the support equipment every fighting unit can not function/live without.
The tractors seen in the refugee convoy above were converted from charms, the wagons are from GHQ and H&R. The civilian vehicles are from a variety of manufacturers and in scales from 1/220 to 1/300, but they work well together.
Allowing a junior NCO the opportunity to view the potential battlefield from above during a simulation is extremely valuable. Using the scale of 3mm equals 1 meter works well for table simulations allowing a very large area to be represented, even in the most difficult terrain as illustrated below from a recent convention venue.
Using miniature simulation during training, in my view, provides something computer interaction cannot: real human interaction. Other members of this forum have helped us make our interactive training session very successful. Thank you for your hard work.
Will
ComOpsCtr
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900
-
armypainter
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:19 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
Amazing! 
-
voltigeur
- E5
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:26 am
- Location: Dallas Texas
I used my miniatures to teach a class on Soviet tactics and company tactics. We didn't play a game I just moved them thru their Primaryand , Alternate positions. Of course teh Soviets all died and every American made it home. 
The best part was I was given time off to paint my own figures so they would be ready for the class!
The best part was I was given time off to paint my own figures so they would be ready for the class!
-
groundlber
- E5
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:13 am
Military Use
A friend of mine was(is? Do those guys ever retire?) in the Special Forces. He used GHQ miniatures for training his people in vehicle identification. He preferred microarmor over 1/87th models due to weight and surviving the 'drop test'. I didn't ask. There are some questions that I don't want answered.
Groundlber
Groundlber
-
jb
- E5
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
- Location: Antananarivo
I first got into GHQ minis in 1975 at Ft Hood, Texas. I was already a Tanker for 4 years.
I noticed some of the NCOs "playing" with the GHQ minis,using a ruleset "Angrief". All my life I was interested in models and in previous years Avalon Hill games-especially Panzerblitz. So these guys with the tanks interested me. They actually had all german WWII tanks(GHQ didn't make anything but WWII at the time),so another new guy and me went to downtown Killeen to the Checker Flag hobby store and bought a slew of Soviet tanks. We were now the official Soviets. We used to play whenever we were not actually "Tanking" Even when we were going to go to the field for a weeek we would be playing until it was time to leave. Whenever new people were assigned a bunch of them were always interested. We had Officers,NCOs,and EM always playing.
I've always felt that our wargaming attributed to our real "Tanking". The ones who never operated at HQs actually got to see what it was all about. I know this because all the privates that wargamed were all Tank Commanders or Platoon Sgts when I left.
Thanks GHQ ,a salute from Bco 2/5th Arm Cav.
Now as for what can be done in the future,I think more TO&E friendly packaging should be in the forefront. Also some info on the vehicles such as stats and histories would really be nice(That might put Mk1 out of business though).
The Infantry is nice especially the mods,but that TO&E,well what can I say-again.
I noticed some of the NCOs "playing" with the GHQ minis,using a ruleset "Angrief". All my life I was interested in models and in previous years Avalon Hill games-especially Panzerblitz. So these guys with the tanks interested me. They actually had all german WWII tanks(GHQ didn't make anything but WWII at the time),so another new guy and me went to downtown Killeen to the Checker Flag hobby store and bought a slew of Soviet tanks. We were now the official Soviets. We used to play whenever we were not actually "Tanking" Even when we were going to go to the field for a weeek we would be playing until it was time to leave. Whenever new people were assigned a bunch of them were always interested. We had Officers,NCOs,and EM always playing.
I've always felt that our wargaming attributed to our real "Tanking". The ones who never operated at HQs actually got to see what it was all about. I know this because all the privates that wargamed were all Tank Commanders or Platoon Sgts when I left.
Thanks GHQ ,a salute from Bco 2/5th Arm Cav.
Now as for what can be done in the future,I think more TO&E friendly packaging should be in the forefront. Also some info on the vehicles such as stats and histories would really be nice(That might put Mk1 out of business though).
The Infantry is nice especially the mods,but that TO&E,well what can I say-again.
John
-
redleg
- E5
- Posts: 3809
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:02 am
- Location: Riverside, CA
When I got to Iraq I began ordering micro armor and paint online so I could paint them as a way to relax and decompress after missions. I suck at painting minis, but it's always been relaxing to me. When the battalion commander caught me painting some minis in the S3 shop he thought it was cool and he had me order the entire task force 1:1 in miniature. They arrived okay, but then they sat in the TOC in motor pool formation for the rest of the deployment.
As an FSO, however, I used them quite a bit. The maneuver guys at battalion level all use them for the wargaming phase of MDMP (military decision making process). I spent some time in the G3 plans shop of 1ID too, but we rarely used them there. Too bad, I would have loved to order the entire divisio on a government credit card!
As an FSO, however, I used them quite a bit. The maneuver guys at battalion level all use them for the wargaming phase of MDMP (military decision making process). I spent some time in the G3 plans shop of 1ID too, but we rarely used them there. Too bad, I would have loved to order the entire divisio on a government credit card!
-
mlcolbert
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:39 am
- Contact:
on the advice of the guys at GHQ I'm posting this here to see what other input can be generated from the suggestions. If anyone wishes to take this further on the forum then I'm also happy to participate.
Hi!
this is going to be challenging as I don't know the extent of your contacts etc however,
1. look to Janes and publications of that type to produce models of weapons which possibly haven't seen wide use as yet. Given the lead time in production then you may find that the model release coincides with training or world events.
2. what contacts do you have in China/Russia in so far as what they are manufacturing? I think of the Russian T94? info on that has been around for a while yet no model forthcoming from GHQ( this is NOT a complaint merely an observation, I realise that there is so much to choose from, what will sell, who are the modellers available for design / building etc make this a huge problem area)
3. develop a ultra contemporary line specifically for the military, limited runs etc based upon research for point 1. Then have the military clients say what they need at the time and state that it would be ready in 4 weeks (as an eg)
4. either develop a working group or identify a professional group working on the problem of How tools/machinery/weapons are used, an obvious eg would be the use of civillian vehicles as car bombs outside embassies/military bases. Once this group has identified different strategic uses of objects Then produce the models.
5. WYSIWYG?? create (large) command packs which could reflect the airland battle scenarios of the 80's/90's but for the C21st eg combined arms (air/sea/land) use with each set costing $150+ This would not only create a unit or units in their entirety but possibly get officers/nco's more familiar with co-ord problems.
6. again, have a think tank drawn from modellers on this forum perhaps as well as professionals, to create scenarios for ANY theatre of ops. What would be the problems of sending a ready reaction force to Mongolia? Nepal? Peru? Antarctica?
The qualifier for all of the above is that only you guys know what / who you know, how soon you want to get this started and how practical the ideas are. I am more than happy to continue the converssation if need be, regards to all,
michael
Hi!
this is going to be challenging as I don't know the extent of your contacts etc however,
1. look to Janes and publications of that type to produce models of weapons which possibly haven't seen wide use as yet. Given the lead time in production then you may find that the model release coincides with training or world events.
2. what contacts do you have in China/Russia in so far as what they are manufacturing? I think of the Russian T94? info on that has been around for a while yet no model forthcoming from GHQ( this is NOT a complaint merely an observation, I realise that there is so much to choose from, what will sell, who are the modellers available for design / building etc make this a huge problem area)
3. develop a ultra contemporary line specifically for the military, limited runs etc based upon research for point 1. Then have the military clients say what they need at the time and state that it would be ready in 4 weeks (as an eg)
4. either develop a working group or identify a professional group working on the problem of How tools/machinery/weapons are used, an obvious eg would be the use of civillian vehicles as car bombs outside embassies/military bases. Once this group has identified different strategic uses of objects Then produce the models.
5. WYSIWYG?? create (large) command packs which could reflect the airland battle scenarios of the 80's/90's but for the C21st eg combined arms (air/sea/land) use with each set costing $150+ This would not only create a unit or units in their entirety but possibly get officers/nco's more familiar with co-ord problems.
6. again, have a think tank drawn from modellers on this forum perhaps as well as professionals, to create scenarios for ANY theatre of ops. What would be the problems of sending a ready reaction force to Mongolia? Nepal? Peru? Antarctica?
The qualifier for all of the above is that only you guys know what / who you know, how soon you want to get this started and how practical the ideas are. I am more than happy to continue the converssation if need be, regards to all,
michael
-
1ComOpsCtr
- E5
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:03 am
- Location: Midwest
- Contact:
"the devil's in the details"
Forward looking toward future models is a great idea, however...
Right now there is a need for items that could make a difference in how many CSS drivers, how many SOF operators, or how many infantry commanders safely navigate the minefield that is Iraq and Afghanistan... and how many of their replacements keep those all important body parts functional.
Without CSS frontline units don't function, no matter how many hours the 46's fly. I realize all the tankers and grunts on this forum don't want to hear this, but its true... There are thousands of support man hours for each round that goes down range: get over it all you T90 fanatics... trucks, Hummers, and trailers are the vehicles that really win the war, but get none of the press.
I realize CSS vehicles don't have the glamour of a bright and shiny T-90 and would entail many hours work only to be packaged in a "combat trains" box, but those items are the ones that make the battle move forward.
But what do I know...?
Will
ComOpsCtr
Forward looking toward future models is a great idea, however...
Right now there is a need for items that could make a difference in how many CSS drivers, how many SOF operators, or how many infantry commanders safely navigate the minefield that is Iraq and Afghanistan... and how many of their replacements keep those all important body parts functional.
Without CSS frontline units don't function, no matter how many hours the 46's fly. I realize all the tankers and grunts on this forum don't want to hear this, but its true... There are thousands of support man hours for each round that goes down range: get over it all you T90 fanatics... trucks, Hummers, and trailers are the vehicles that really win the war, but get none of the press.
I realize CSS vehicles don't have the glamour of a bright and shiny T-90 and would entail many hours work only to be packaged in a "combat trains" box, but those items are the ones that make the battle move forward.
But what do I know...?
Will
ComOpsCtr
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900
-
mlcolbert
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:39 am
- Contact:
Will,
maybe what would be better is if there are several groups looking at making recommendations in different areas such as current conflicts, those 'foreseeable' or possible in the next decade and those beyond that?
Each group could then address the specific requirements / problems of each deployment / theatre?
Or possibly, these are the types or range of details which need to be looked at in a dedicated group???
michael
maybe what would be better is if there are several groups looking at making recommendations in different areas such as current conflicts, those 'foreseeable' or possible in the next decade and those beyond that?
Each group could then address the specific requirements / problems of each deployment / theatre?
Or possibly, these are the types or range of details which need to be looked at in a dedicated group???
michael
-
1ComOpsCtr
- E5
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:03 am
- Location: Midwest
- Contact:
OK, lets talk about what could be useful...
Combat Battalion level decision-making:
In reality there are two basic archetypes of battlefield commanders...
A. The Commander who has a good staff that he trusts to run scenarios based on their mission (s), develop branch plans, and wargame those plans that appear to fulfill the needs of the mission... all between the time they get their warning order and the time to "jump off".
B. The Commander who has a poor staff that he lets put together a plan with some interesting alternatives that he knows he isn't going to follow, and besides, no plan survives contact with the enemy... so they will "wing it" basically at the direction of the commander, "come hell or high water", following SOP and trusting to luck and the skill of adjacent/supporting units.
These are the two extremes of the command curve, but they focus our attention on one of the areas where the miniatures provided by GHQ could be useful.
Wargaming the Plan
OK, so what do we need to wargame the plan.
Friendly forces, a representation of the Battalion Commander's available forces...
OPFOR, what the enemy uses...
Locals, civilians, militias or local regular military...
Allies, which of our friends will stick their neck out next time we go off to war
And it all depends on where and when, and who and why...
What kind of package could be put together that would work to allow the staff to wargame a couple of alternative plans in a couple of hours... with "a couple of hours" being the "operative words"? Miniatures? Rules? Packaging? Carrying case?
Suggestions
Will
Combat Battalion level decision-making:
In reality there are two basic archetypes of battlefield commanders...
A. The Commander who has a good staff that he trusts to run scenarios based on their mission (s), develop branch plans, and wargame those plans that appear to fulfill the needs of the mission... all between the time they get their warning order and the time to "jump off".
B. The Commander who has a poor staff that he lets put together a plan with some interesting alternatives that he knows he isn't going to follow, and besides, no plan survives contact with the enemy... so they will "wing it" basically at the direction of the commander, "come hell or high water", following SOP and trusting to luck and the skill of adjacent/supporting units.
These are the two extremes of the command curve, but they focus our attention on one of the areas where the miniatures provided by GHQ could be useful.
Wargaming the Plan
OK, so what do we need to wargame the plan.
Friendly forces, a representation of the Battalion Commander's available forces...
OPFOR, what the enemy uses...
Locals, civilians, militias or local regular military...
Allies, which of our friends will stick their neck out next time we go off to war
And it all depends on where and when, and who and why...
What kind of package could be put together that would work to allow the staff to wargame a couple of alternative plans in a couple of hours... with "a couple of hours" being the "operative words"? Miniatures? Rules? Packaging? Carrying case?
Suggestions
Will
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900
-
Marc-Andre
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:14 pm
- Location: Germany
Hi all,
having never served in a military force, I just have to sheepishly ask, did any of you ever witness a wargame during training with a specific 'ruleset' used ? Is any such ruleset commercially available ?
I have asked a german army officer once, if the Bundeswehr uses some hard and fast rules on their sand tables but he could only answer that they used some 'charts'.
1ComOpsCtr, what kind of ruleset do you use for training purposes ? Do you host simulations on a contract basis to the US army ?
Greetings,
Marc-Andre
having never served in a military force, I just have to sheepishly ask, did any of you ever witness a wargame during training with a specific 'ruleset' used ? Is any such ruleset commercially available ?
I have asked a german army officer once, if the Bundeswehr uses some hard and fast rules on their sand tables but he could only answer that they used some 'charts'.
1ComOpsCtr, what kind of ruleset do you use for training purposes ? Do you host simulations on a contract basis to the US army ?
Greetings,
Marc-Andre
-
1ComOpsCtr
- E5
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:03 am
- Location: Midwest
- Contact:
Marc-Andre
We use a rules set developed around the individual capabilities of the commanders participating in our simulations. Those capabilities are related to time usage on the battlefield, which usually directly determines which commander is most successful based on their plan and mission. Detailed planning is also a requirement, as it is in any military action, so the work required prior to a simulation doesn't make our system popular with civilian gamers. They usually prefer to flop stuff on a table and start shooting without the detailed pre-action logistical and deployment plans necessary to every successful military operation around the world.
Almost all of our simulations operate within the "almost automatic" kill zones of modern weapons where mental and physical mistakes, plus the occasional misfire, cause the failure to achieve an objective, not weapon firepower, speed, or round penetration.
http://commandoperationscenter.com/serv0111.htm
If you would like a little more detail visit the link above. I will mention one interesting item regarding our convention games... they are very popular, primarily because they bring much more than just a knowledge of weapons capabilities and general military knowledge to the table. Our games provide a real challenge to many of the participants who get just as much out of the game as they put in...
Thanks for your interest.
Will
ComOpsCtr
We use a rules set developed around the individual capabilities of the commanders participating in our simulations. Those capabilities are related to time usage on the battlefield, which usually directly determines which commander is most successful based on their plan and mission. Detailed planning is also a requirement, as it is in any military action, so the work required prior to a simulation doesn't make our system popular with civilian gamers. They usually prefer to flop stuff on a table and start shooting without the detailed pre-action logistical and deployment plans necessary to every successful military operation around the world.
Almost all of our simulations operate within the "almost automatic" kill zones of modern weapons where mental and physical mistakes, plus the occasional misfire, cause the failure to achieve an objective, not weapon firepower, speed, or round penetration.
http://commandoperationscenter.com/serv0111.htm
If you would like a little more detail visit the link above. I will mention one interesting item regarding our convention games... they are very popular, primarily because they bring much more than just a knowledge of weapons capabilities and general military knowledge to the table. Our games provide a real challenge to many of the participants who get just as much out of the game as they put in...
Thanks for your interest.
Will
ComOpsCtr
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900
-
Marc-Andre
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:14 pm
- Location: Germany
ComOpsCtr, thanks for posting the link to your site. Explains alot. If I was a bit more clever I would have just looked in the memberlist for your name to find the link.... ...narf!
I like the 'instant action idea' for the participants. Not much fun for the host/umpire, but surely for the participent. Especially the cönvoy scenario looks like a nervecracking snakepit for poor young NCOs and drivers.
On a half-related side-note. Being from germany I cannot help but notice german ambulance either from Mercedes or VW Buses running on incident scenes in the whole middle-east whenever some documentaries come up in the TV. These could surely be interesting 'civilian' models for GHQ to make.
Marc-Andre
...narf! I like the 'instant action idea' for the participants. Not much fun for the host/umpire, but surely for the participent. Especially the cönvoy scenario looks like a nervecracking snakepit for poor young NCOs and drivers.
On a half-related side-note. Being from germany I cannot help but notice german ambulance either from Mercedes or VW Buses running on incident scenes in the whole middle-east whenever some documentaries come up in the TV. These could surely be interesting 'civilian' models for GHQ to make.
Marc-Andre
-
1ComOpsCtr
- E5
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:03 am
- Location: Midwest
- Contact:
revised/edited
Gentlemen,
I completely understand the need for the latest and greatest, plus all the information on "future wars" and future equipment is great, however...
In my view, and this is only one man's opinion mind you, GHQ can't pursue those items barely off the drawing board, or in the minds eye of the latest technocrat, because the economics involved just doesn't justify the expense. Neither can they be cutting edge on the "force make-up" side of the equation because that is changing daily on an "as needed" basis.
What GHQ can do is provide "basic packages" of fighting and support equipment for the major combatives, as well as allied front line and support equipment based on the "area of conflict". If members of this forum have, or can find ways to, access to the latest battlefield technology and battle plans I would be somewhat concerned due to the confidential nature of "new stuff".
Unless someone from the forum has access to that information any decisions made would be primarily speculation akin to SWAG and I would again point out the cost of making a master, producing a mold, packaging, etc., lead time, is prohibitive enough that adding to the line without good information regarding usage would not make a good business decision. However, as I am not connected to GHQ's decision making system I can do nothing more than speculate at this point.
There could be a justified need for more civilian type vehicles and more support equipment since so much of the action now, and in the foreseeable future, revolves around the built-up civilian areas that presently dominate battlefields. I think it is safe to say a Kursk type battle will be a thing of the past, and small MOUT actions and reactions will remain key for the next 10 - 15 years. Those of you who are thinking Syria or Iran will be large mass armor engagements need to get a life, though smaller sharp exchanges are possible I don't believe mass armor battle lines will exist outside the minds of the arm chair generals again, but as always I could be wrong.
More and more actions are taking place within the rear and support areas, behind the front lines, away from the heavy weapons, armor, and air assets. Wargamers don't want to hear this... they want to reenact the glory days of the massed metal cavalry charges, which most doubt will ever happen again, but those of us that have to deal with training current military operatives must work with what we have... and where the fighting is right now isn't where most of you on this forum want it to be.
In addition... There are people at DOD whose sole job is to try to plan for what future wars will look like. While it is a wonderful thought to believe the participants on this forum could join the ranks of those individuals I don't believe I qualify, but thanks for the vote of confidence in the rest of forum users who may very well qualify. I sincerely look forward to their comments and leadership in this area.
Will
ComOpsCtr
PS... One last point. I am not sure an open forum is the place to discuss some of what has been suggested in the detail necessary to produce a usable product. I may be too concerned about the security of confidential information, but having to deal with that on a regular basis tends to make one so... WTN
I completely understand the need for the latest and greatest, plus all the information on "future wars" and future equipment is great, however...
In my view, and this is only one man's opinion mind you, GHQ can't pursue those items barely off the drawing board, or in the minds eye of the latest technocrat, because the economics involved just doesn't justify the expense. Neither can they be cutting edge on the "force make-up" side of the equation because that is changing daily on an "as needed" basis.
What GHQ can do is provide "basic packages" of fighting and support equipment for the major combatives, as well as allied front line and support equipment based on the "area of conflict". If members of this forum have, or can find ways to, access to the latest battlefield technology and battle plans I would be somewhat concerned due to the confidential nature of "new stuff".
Unless someone from the forum has access to that information any decisions made would be primarily speculation akin to SWAG and I would again point out the cost of making a master, producing a mold, packaging, etc., lead time, is prohibitive enough that adding to the line without good information regarding usage would not make a good business decision. However, as I am not connected to GHQ's decision making system I can do nothing more than speculate at this point.
There could be a justified need for more civilian type vehicles and more support equipment since so much of the action now, and in the foreseeable future, revolves around the built-up civilian areas that presently dominate battlefields. I think it is safe to say a Kursk type battle will be a thing of the past, and small MOUT actions and reactions will remain key for the next 10 - 15 years. Those of you who are thinking Syria or Iran will be large mass armor engagements need to get a life, though smaller sharp exchanges are possible I don't believe mass armor battle lines will exist outside the minds of the arm chair generals again, but as always I could be wrong.
More and more actions are taking place within the rear and support areas, behind the front lines, away from the heavy weapons, armor, and air assets. Wargamers don't want to hear this... they want to reenact the glory days of the massed metal cavalry charges, which most doubt will ever happen again, but those of us that have to deal with training current military operatives must work with what we have... and where the fighting is right now isn't where most of you on this forum want it to be.
In addition... There are people at DOD whose sole job is to try to plan for what future wars will look like. While it is a wonderful thought to believe the participants on this forum could join the ranks of those individuals I don't believe I qualify, but thanks for the vote of confidence in the rest of forum users who may very well qualify. I sincerely look forward to their comments and leadership in this area.
Will
ComOpsCtr
PS... One last point. I am not sure an open forum is the place to discuss some of what has been suggested in the detail necessary to produce a usable product. I may be too concerned about the security of confidential information, but having to deal with that on a regular basis tends to make one so... WTN
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900