British Army Recruits to Train with 'Call of Duty' Games

[vonGarvin]

The FNG's need the drills over and over. Now if the "hardship" drills are done physically and then computer wise, I would more agree more over. Better teaching aid for them to understand the situation.

I would offer that teaching them the lessons in a comfortable setting first (eg: via computer), followed up by repetition in a variety of settings would hammer home the lesson, no matter what that lesson was. 

It goes along the line with understanding how people learn.  And also understanding that no matter how good a computer game is at replicating "x" (no matter what "x" is), it is nothing like the real thing.

As an example, suppose the lesson objective is to teach soldiers the indicators.  The game may then be set in a driving circuit, with plenty of false clues, and maybe even some diversions.  So, the student drives along, fails to notice the actual indicator, and his truck hits the IED.  The beauty is that the instructor could go back and using the playback get everyone to see how the attention was diverted by deliberately set fakers.  That's just one lesson, and the key to this is that the lesson isn't on driving or how to manipulate the game as a player, but to get out of it whatever you need out of it.

But I agree totally: there is a time and place for it, and it's not a be-all, end-all solution for training.

 

[brihard]

I remember using VBS for convoy drills training prior to 3-08. I could see this being used in similar applications; the training objective isn't to shoot people in the face and then digitally teabag them, but rather to teach drills at level 2 or 3 with all the moving parts in place. A digital sand table, as it were.

The Operation Flashpoint engine wasn't bad at all for this; I see no reason not to modernize into a more modern game engine acquired COTS. Something like the Battlefield series allows for vehicles to be in play, and there can be value there. Call it an electronic sand table, a digital rehearsal, or a tactical exercise with swivel chairs- if the purpose is for troops to become acquainted with how the larger picture looks there's merit there. After action replays can be generated and shown, and so on.

The idea of IED lanes is a good one too- watching for indicators, watching for the running car sitting in the alley, or what have you.

Another thing I can see of value is in practising command, control and communication.

Does it *substitute* for live or dry field training? Absolutely not. Can it *augment* it? Absolutely.

 

[Good2Golf]

Having used simulation extensively for both flight and tactical operations, and remembering that simulation does just that - simulate (not replicate) - I see a reasonable amount of merit to this approach.  This is particularly true as combat operations involve more and more data-based systems, even at the lowest tactical levels.  One need only look at the use of systems such as Virtual Battlespace 2 (w/link) in combat simulation and mission rehearsal to see the potential value of using such systems in future recruiting and force development and generation activities.  As others have noted as well, the selection/training context within which such systems are used is very important.  By no means do I think there is any expectation that CoD, VBS2, ArmA, etc... would replace (or significantly reduce the need for) physical individual and collective training.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Timmy!]

Also let's think of the funds.. Ammo vs Computer. In the long run, the computer wins. Just like the SAT system. As long as it's a time and place for such training. I would love to see something online for our troops, someday.

And to refer to condition training with "On Killing" Grossman special, this electronic training, might benefits us also. 

 

[brihard]

Also let's think of the funds.. Ammo vs Computer. In the long run, the computer wins. Just like the SAT system. As long as it's a time and place for such training. I would love to see something online for our troops, someday.

I can see the future of the reserves already.

Sept - Apr training year:
EX IBTS 1
EX IBTS 2
EX LAN Party 1
EX LAN Party 2
EX Chilled Nipples
EX LAN Party 3

;D

 

[Timmy!]

I can see the future of the reserves already.

Never know, may be they can get half a day pay for going online to DNDLearn.ca and do some simulated Pl attacks on their own. Or some other simulation.

Regards,
TN2IC

 

[McG]

I don't think this is really anything shocking or new - the USMC used the original Doom way back in the early nineties, and helped pioneer VBS1 (which was a heavily modified version of the commercial game. Operation Flashpoint).

It is not even new in Commonwealth armies.  As far back as 2006 the Canadian Army was developing this training capability at the Army sim centre in Kingston ON.  I think SWAT was the sim engine, but it was infantry scenarios with CF weapons.

 

[BDTyre]

MCG - absolutely correct. Thanks for reminding me! There was a CF "game" based on the SWAT engine. At one point, it was downloadable/playable by the greater public. I actually had it awhile go, and played around with it for about 15 minutes or so.

 

[aesop081]

Simulations and synthetic environment training has been a reality for me for the last 7 years. I have found it a very useful tool ( It was a god-send at CFANS) to learn something before going out there and doing it for real. That being said, fidelity is key. You must do things in the "sim" exactly how they will be done in the real world, otherwise it is negative training (at best, the value is very limited).

 

[dogger1936]

I was very dissapointed in the amount of money spent on simulation training during one of my senior combat courses.  regardless of what we reported on course critiques we found it useless and a waste of time that could have been better lent to fine tuning things IRT orders. The simulation portion only wasted a good two hours playing a video game that had no practice purpose.

Yet snr crse after snr crse said the same thing....

It's being pushed and there is no stopping it.

Gunnery simulation is an example of excellent use of simulation. SME's can be Cpl's within the regiment to run and set up gear. Excellent aide in between dry firing board shoots; and the live range.

Games to do tactics on the ground IMHO don't work any better than a sandbox talk.

 

[57Chevy]

So, joking aside, no one sees any potential benefits in this?

I can see benefits in this new project about creating robots that will actually do the fighting.

I think though, that we are a long way from having robots fighting on their own without human input.

You must admit that you would be inclined to think that someone who is really good at playing a simulated soldier would
probably be a good candidate to operate one (or more) of the futuristic fighters described in the articles.

Or operating any of the other devices and flying machines that can be operated like an "X" Box.
The possibilities are endless.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/102426.0.html
According to the IsraelDefense website, Israeli defense companies are competing for the nod to develop a robot-based combat solution dubbed "Advance Guard,” which the IDF ground forces are keenly interested in.

"The basic idea is for robots to function as a strike force, leading the way in the first stage of engagement with the enemy, in which there is usually a greater danger of casualties."
         
                                        _____________________________________________________

From israel today magazine and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
Israel eyes futuristic robot army
29 Aug 2011
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/tabid/178/nid/22929/language/en-US/Default.aspx
As effective as Israel is at utilizing its human resources in times of conflict, the Israeli army may be on the verge of fielding the first fully robotic fighting force.
Israel's Ministry of Defense recently issued a call for the creation of an "Advance Guard," a robotic vanguard that will lead the charge in future battles in order to minimize human casualties.
The bi-monthly journal IsraelDefense reported that numerous Israeli defense contractors are working hard to meet the challenge.
Israel already makes extensive use of robotics for the purpose of surveillance. Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are some of the most sophisticated and effective in the world.
But this new project is about creating robots that will actually do the fighting, or at least handle the initial armed push against entrenched enemies.
"The basic idea is for robots to function as a strike force, leading the way in the first stage of engagement with the enemy, which usually results in heavy casualties," explained IsraelDefense.
And Israel is not just talking about remote-controlled weapons systems here. The vision of Advance Guard is on par with any number of science fiction-based descriptions of futuristic warfare.
One of the chief requirements the Israeli military has given to the firms working on Advance Guard is that the robotic warriors (which will NOT look like the image above) be able to autonomously select and engage targets and to coordinate attacks with one another, without human input.
                                      ________________________________________________

 

[GAP]

You would probably initially see something like Unmaned Advance Guard controlled similiar to present day UAV's...It's probably doable with today's technology....

 

[vonGarvin]

Games to do tactics on the ground IMHO don't work any better than a sandbox talk.

I would offer that the sandbox talk would be light years ahead of a FPS to talk tactics.

But imagine if you stand around a sandbox that is really a flat screen on the ground.  It looks the same as the sandbox that you and I know and love.  But no more do we get to play with the mini tanks and BMPs between sessions, because they are all virtual.  We could sit around and talk about left/centre/right and then, in accordance with whatever the training objective was, the computer could then run the simulation based on our plan, with all of us watching.  The units could be as low as a troop and as high as an armoured regiment conducting countermoves, or whatever. 

My point is this: the technology is great, but you have to use it and scale it to the level being instructed.  An FPS could be great for teaching certain lessons to a dismounted infantry section or platoon commander, for example (maybe a 3D world in which they conduct their estimate, or give an all arms call for fire, or a contact report, or whatever), but probably not the greatest for higher level tactics, when most of the time you are using a map to do your plan.

Anyway, computer simulations are just tools, and they deserve, in my opinion, a place in our training system.  They just have to be used as such, and not as the solution to all of life's questions.

 

[dogger1936]

I would offer that the sandbox talk would be light years ahead of a FPS to talk tactics.

But imagine if you stand around a sandbox that is really a flat screen on the ground.  It looks the same as the sandbox that you and I know and love.  But no more do we get to play with the mini tanks and BMPs between sessions, because they are all virtual.  We could sit around and talk about left/centre/right and then, in accordance with whatever the training objective was, the computer could then run the simulation based on our plan, with all of us watching.  The units could be as low as a troop and as high as an armoured regiment conducting countermoves, or whatever. 

My point is this: the technology is great, but you have to use it and scale it to the level being instructed.  An FPS could be great for teaching certain lessons to a dismounted infantry section or platoon commander, for example (maybe a 3D world in which they conduct their estimate, or give an all arms call for fire, or a contact report, or whatever), but probably not the greatest for higher level tactics, when most of the time you are using a map to do your plan.

Anyway, computer simulations are just tools, and they deserve, in my opinion, a place in our training system.  They just have to be used as such, and not as the solution to all of life's questions.

Or not a soultion to trace 1 2 and 3 in lieu of field trg. i do enjoy the thought of sandbox virturalised. Thats a fantastic idea.

 

[Journeyman]

....for going online to DNDLearn.ca and do some simulated Pl attacks....

Now there's a harsh curse -- wishing DNDLearn on anyone...for anything other than a case study in "lowest bidder."


[Just imagine if I was remotely bitter about it  ;D  ]

 

[aesop081]

Not everything on DNDLearn is badly done. I found the Air Force Officer Development program courses to have been pretty well put together. The content was developed by CFSAS but the courseware itself was developed for free by students at Red River college.

 

[Journeyman]

.....CFSAS but the courseware itself was developed for free by students at Red River college.

Ah well, there you go; there's the difference that adult leadership makes.