Flashpoint Germany - Revisiting Wargames

Does it happen to you that sometimes you try a wargame/simulator and go "meh!" and then some time later you re-try them and go "whoa!".

A German Panzer Brigade (grey counters) finds the first Soviet mechanized units.

Flashpoint Germany, by Simulations Canada and published by Matrix Games: I bought this one in January 2005, played it quite a bit and moved to something else. Yesterday I was pondering what game to fire up for some grand-tactical NATO vs Warsaw Pact action and remembered about this one.

Plotting the first waypoints for the reconnaissance units.

From the game's manual:


FLASHPOINT GERMANY (FPG) is a fast paced, command-orientated game of modern grand tactical combat. You are the officer commanding a Soviet, American, British or West German unit ranging from battalion to regiment / brigade. You will achieve victory by taking or holding a defined geographic local within the combat area while minimizing casualties to your forces and maximizing those of the enemy. Air strikes, helicopters, off-map artillery and even nuclear attacks may be on call.
This is a command-oriented game! This is not a simulator where you must perform every individual soldier’s job. As the commander you will observe and evaluate the tactical situation as it is revealed to you, plan your response in light of the victory conditions set out in the mission briefing, and issue the orders necessary to get the results you want. From there your subordinates will take over and do their best in the circumstances to make your intentions happen. This being the military, there will be areas of ambiguity, time lags and setbacks. You must adjust your plans accordingly and allow time for your intentions to be disseminated down the chain of command. This is represented by giving you the opportunity to issue orders only every 30 game minutes during a stop-time orders phase. When issuance is complete the game clock is started and the turn is resolved for both sides together. The planning process is then repeated. The game ends when one side achieves victory, or drops below 20% of its starting line strength (“sudden death”), or after 4-14 hours (depending on scenario settings) if victory has not been otherwise obtained.
Don’t panic! Modern combat can be a complex affair but you can assume that you have an able staff officer at your elbow to make your orders a reality - a trusted subordinate to take care of the actual implementation details. Relax, concentrate on the big picture, and learn by doing. If you make a mistake then start over and try a different approach - there is no one right way to any given situation. Experiment, think out of the box, and learn from the lessons that you receive. Start with some of the easier scenarios to develop a feel for the game. Finally, enjoy!

The British are to hold this town at all costs!

Cheers,

Ironclads: Chincha Islands - Naval Misadventures in the Age of Ironclads

The game: Ironclads - Chincha Islands
The purpose: Washing off a Harpoon post-game frustration. Naval combat in the 19th century is supposed to be easier. Ain't it?

Ironclads Chincha Islands is a game about an appealing war fought over bird shit-covered islands.

The Spanish Queen needed money and, oh well, she decided to try some luck in South America ... Again.

Argentina was a no go: even when the country was at war with Paraguay and shooting the last shots of an almost eternal civil war, the only shit available was from cows. And if there is one thing you don't mess with an Argentine is with his cows or anything that comes out of them. A sour memory about an Argentine bad-ass general that steamrolled the Spanish forces from half the continent some fifty years before may have played a role too.

So the Spanish crossed to the Pacific and found the perfect casus belli in a bar-brawl in Peru. In a genius strategic move, the Spanish blocked the Peruvians from the sea. It worked for the Argentine general fifty years back, didn't it? To the Spanish astonishment, the Peruvian's felt little inclination for bargaining because the sea was one very important mean of trade and communication. Slash that. The sea was the only mean of trade and communication for the Peruvians. With the Andes at their back, the Peruvians must have felt between the gun and a very tall rock

Wars start for the most strange reasons. But this one beats all records. To my readers from Spain: please don't take offense on my comments. They are all made with a tongue in cheek tone. I am from Argentina and ... ahem ... we have an illustrious record of starting wars for the most stupid of reasons.

Fortunately, Ironclads is a game that puts the war so much in the background that the inglorious cause of (literally) getting your shit back is easily forgotten. So here I am, in command of a Spanish flotilla composed of two corvettes and two gunboats, outnumbered and out-gunned in high seas.

Taking advantage of the high speed of the Sirena and Ligera gunboats (right) I lured the entire Peruvian flotilla (left) to turn back and shadow my nimble ships. My two corvettes (Africa and Vencedora), in the far background are starting to maneuver towards the Peruvian column.

My two corvettes steaming at full speed towards the Peruvian column (right column in the background). My gunboats (left column in the background) are starting to get some serious punishment from the Peruvian column.

The Sirena and the Ligera gunboats managed to inflict some damage on the Peruvian flotilla. But in naval combat all is about the amount of guns and my two gunboats are in the wrong side of the attrition calculus. Note my two corvettes in the background approaching the Peruvian column.

After some nail-bitting twenty minutes, the Africa and the Vencedora reach the Peruvian column. They double onto the helpless gunboat in the Peruvian van. As much as I would have liked to keep pouring shells onto the Peruvian gunboat, my own Ligera and Sirena needed some serious help and I had to move my corvettes towards the Peruvian column's center. 

Keeping the Africa and Vencedora on both sides of the Peruvian column proved to be a task too hard for my Captains. A collision between the Vencedora and the Peruvian corvette Callao disorganized my attack. All went bad from there. In this screenshot, a nightmarish situation with the Vencedora (center) almost surrounded and receiving fire from at least four Peruvian ships.

Defeated, the Africa (foreground) follows the Vencedora (not shown here) back to port. My two gunboats can be seen in the background (right) getting away from the Peruvian flotilla (background, left).

Cheers,

The A-10 Warthog, the USAF's unwanted child that everybody else loved

The A-10 was designed around the GAU-8 Avenger, a heavy automatic cannon which forms the aircraft's primary armament. 
                         From Wikipedia

In our fun-driven and picture-perfect world of combat flight simulators, aircrafts are measured with a single stick that can measure only two parameters: firepower and speed. When speed is not an aircraft's forte, we tend to ignore it as an anomaly and focus on the other feature that we love, firepower. The quote above is taken from Wikipedia and is a "fun fact" that is ubiquitous in flight sims forum discussions. That "fact" is actually a half-truth.

What is the measure of great combat aircraft?

Continuing with the measuring stick analogy mentioned above, in the real world there are as many types of sticks as types of missions doctrine can conceive. Furthermore, these many sticks may measure the same parameters in completely different scales. High speed may be great for a fighter flying an interception mission but will be a a handicap for a close air support pilot trying to drop bombs on the enemy who, according to the tactical air controller, is located in "the field north of the house with a red roof". The real measure of a combat aircraft is how well it can accomplish the mission for which it was designed.

It is rather odd that a great aircraft like the A-10 was conceived in times where the existence of its intended mission (close air support) was being debated in the USAF.

I've just finished a re-read of  The Warthog and the Close Air Support Debate by Douglas N. Campbell, and I wanted to put this book on your radar.

For all practical purposes, this is the best history of the conception of the A-10 available to the general public. I can't find any other book that comes close to the level of detail and quality of presentation offered by Douglas Campbell. This is not a book that I can recommend to people who are interested in combat stories or aeronautical design. This book is rather a close-up at how the A-10 came to existence despite ferocious inter-service rivalry, the US Congress and the bipolar attitude that the USAF historically had for close air support. Great weapons and their delivery means follow a rather tortuous path and Campbell's book is a rare glimpse into a world that most people haven't heard of.

As for the opening quote above, the original "concept formulation package" (CFP, dated around 1968) for the competition that the A-10 eventually won, specified a requirement for a to-be-developed 30 mm tank-killing gun. This CFP assumed very short development times and forced competitors to a schedule where both the cannon and the aircraft had to be worked simultaneously (instead of sequentially). When the time for the competition fly-offs arrived, the GAU-8 was not even ready to be mounted in the aircraft. On the meantime, the A-10 was sporting the M61A1 “Vulcan” 20mm cannon. I reckon this issue has "chicken or the egg" written all over it, but certainly nobody took a GAU-8 and built an aircraft around it.


Cheers,

Normandy AAR - Guess the game (blast from the past)

I wrote this AAR years ago .

“The damndest country I’ve ever saw”

Many of you guys know that the hedgerow countryside of France imposed a formidable tactical challenge to the American troops after the Normandy landings. The title of this AAR is a phrase presumably said by Gen. Bradley, referring to the difficulties this kind of terrain presented to the advance of the liberation forces.

This AAR is inspired in recent readings. The book “Closing with the Enemy” by Michael Doubler has an entire chapter describing both the problems and the solutions the American GIs came out with for hedgerow fighting. 

The challenge of taking out an enemy defensive position in the hedgerow countryside is obvious. You have to drive your forces in an open field, offering an easy target to defensive positions located in the hedges in front of you. You have to be aware that in [this unknown game], the hedgerows are not modeled accurately. The real-life hedges were taller and harder to cross. Regular tanks were not able to cross them until later times (more on this in the next installment). So, during the first days after the Normandy landings, company commanders had to advance in across this type of terrain without tank support. In this AAR, I describe the outcome of a scenario I made to re-create and analyze the early tactics in hedgerow fighting.

The map used is shown in the figure, the hedgerow in the foreground is the point from which the Americans will attack a German defensive position located in the hedges of the background.

If you take a look to the map, there is a road in the left flank. For this AAR, we are going to ignore this inviting tactical alternative. I am only interested in portraying the terrible thing that should have been to advance in the hedgerow country without tank support.

As described in Doubler’s book, I will use the “early” infantry tactics, this is the tactics used before a device was attached to the tanks to allow hedgerow crossing. The plan is as follows: 1^st Squad and 2^nd Squad will assault the enemy defenses across the open field. A weapons team (mortar and heavy MG) will provide fire support and smoke. Just before the 1^st and 2^nd Squads reach the hedges, the 3^rd Squad will follow alongside with the weapons team.

In this figure, you see the 1^st and 2^nd Squads (foreground). The weapons team is deployed in the hedges, awaiting orders.

After the weapons team start their jobs (support fire and smoke), the 1^st and 2^nd Sqds. run across the open field. I was surprised to see how effective the smoke screen resulted: the two squads advanced untouched by bullets all the way.

But when the two squads cross the smoke screen, hell breaks loose. My fault, now I realize that the smoke screen should have been targeted just over the enemy defense line.

The 1^st and 2^nd  Squads reach the hedgerows in bad shape (5 KIAs, 2 wounded in the 1^st Squad; 2 KIA, 1 wounded and 1 incapacitated in the 2^nd Squad). They manage, though, to spread destruction and confusion in the enemy defense line. Note the German AT gun in the background, they don’t know that the Americans have crossed the defense line.

It is time to bring the 3^rd Squad and the weapons team to the gap created by the 1^st and 2^nd Squads. In the next figure, they are seen advancing towards the enemy.

As happened just minutes ago, they cross the smoke screen to meet a horrible welcome party.

At the time the last picture was taken, the 1^st Squad was routed and the 2^nd Squad was broken. The 3^rd Squad will have the job to clean up this mess until the rest of the company is called upon.

Luckily, the German defensive line started to loose morale and several MG42s cannot be heard firing. They must have routed. In this picture, two German soldiers debate where to rally (the Americans are advancing from the left, perpendicular to the road). Look at those tracers!

By the time the 3^rd Squad has cleared this road, the Americans have suffered horrible losses (only one survivor from 1^st, 2^nd and weapons team). The 3^rd Squad itself has 2 wounded.

In this other picture, a German soldier has decided to live another day and runs away from the destruction.

Just when the 3^rd Squad has consolidated itself in the hedges, a counter attack from the left flank is mounting. The MGs that I thought have routed have intentions of reorganizing a counter attack.

However, they cower as soon the 3^rd Squad fires the first shoots. Mission accomplished at last!

Conclusion: this was a horrible slaughter. 23 Americans have been killed. This is too much compared to the German losses (12 KIAs). Without any doubt, this “early” type of tactic had to be changed to preserve lives and material.

Do you remember this game?

Cheers,

Your game will know your thoughts ...

 

This article appeared in both the print and online version of Training and Simulation Journal.

The US Army experimenting with brain control sounds like a plot for a cheap techno-thriller. The general public having access to this technology was a what-the-hell moment for me.

Emotiv is selling a device named Epoc that can read the tiny currents on your skull and convert them into an input to a computer. Epoc is $300 and the computer applications that can be controlled with your brain (gah! it feels weird to write this) is apparently unlimited (the EmoKey software converts the Epoc output into keystrokes).

I thought my TrackIR was cool. I'm feeling old already. :)

Cheers,

Image above is from Emotiv, used here without authorization but without monetary gain. Please contact me if you want it removed.

The SMAW II in action ... sorta

I didn't know that the Serpent Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW II) was so close to being fielded (around 2012).

Video by the Defense News guys, from the AUSA 2010 Annual Meeting and Exposition held in Washington DC just last month.



Cheers,

HistWar Les Grognards - Battle at Reick - Part 3

The battle takes shape and luck appears to be on our side.



Cheers,

HistWar Les Grognards - Battle at Reick - Part 2

May victory be ours today!



Cheers,

HistWar Les Grognards - Battle at Reick - Part 1

It's a dreadful morning to go into battle, but we are still looking forward to confront the Allies.



Cheers,

DCS: A-10C Warthog - Angle of attack: watch it, is not just a stall indicator - Part 2

Back when I was teaching biochemistry to medical students in Argentina, there was a veteran professor who used to say: "when you are young you teach what you don't know, when you mature you teach what you know, when you are about to retire you teach what the students really need". After a week long struggle to come out with a nice way to explain this angle of attack thing in the blog, I have thrown the towel. I can fly straight and level without the autopilot. I can trim my A-10 really pretty to fly as I want it to fly. But, I just can't explain how it works to somebody else. Worryingly, they say you don't really know what you can't explain and that's exactly the spot where this angle of attack got me. Maybe I don't know it that well ... Maybe I'm too young of a virtual pilot ... Who knows? :(

So, instead of boring you with lame attempts to explain the importance of angle of attack, I will just point you to where I got this viral idea. My only hope is to raise awareness of this way of flying and how it will affect your virtual missions, from cruising to the objective through the final gun run.

The book "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche is the premier source for all this angle of attack mambo-jambo. Ed Kolano has a nice article about the basics of angle of attack here.

The basics are as follows:

1. You select an angle of attack to fly by using the horizontal stabilizer
2. The angle of attack determines your airspeed
3. From a selected angle of attack (and thereby airspeed) you can climb, descend or fly level by adjusting power

In my previous entry I made some big claims about this method of flying. Now that I got your attention with such claims please make sure that you understand the following: at the beginning you may notice an improving in your flying just for the boring parts of the mission (cruising, loitering and landing). At a later time, you will find out that your selected angle of attack actually affects any type of flying. For the time being, if you are dodging SAMs downtown Georgia you can continue doing whatever worked for you.

So, let's fly the Hog above the Nevada desert and let's see what it can do without touching the stick. The airplane will point its nose down or up depending on your throttle setting. At a certain throttle setting, the aircraft achieves steady flight. In this case is around 270 knots, but that varies depending on loading and altitude.

Without touching the stick and the throttle fairly open, the plain plane achieves straight and level flight at around 270 knots. From this state of steady flight, if you increase the throttle the aircraft's reaction will be to climb and if you decrease the throttle, you aircraft will descend. In this example, I just nailed a throttle setting that results in level flight.

The angle of attack (AoA) indicator reads 14. This is an indication of the angle of attack that the aircraft reaches without any input from the stick.

A quick glance at the instruments reveals that each engine of the Hog is consuming around 2,200 pounds of fuel per hour. Assuming a total fuel load of 9,600 pounds, we have around 2 hours of flight left.

So, let's now increase our angle of attack a little bit. That's done by pushing the stick backwards. For long periods of time, it's kind of difficult (and exhausting) to keep your stick input consistent and even. That's why we have the trim! Yeah! Let's trim the nose up one or two notches. I know that as I do this, the aircraft will be trimmed for a larger angle of attack and a lower airspeed, so I don't need that much power now to keep flying straight and level and thereby reduce my throttle a bit.

I have trimmed the aircraft's nose one or two notches up and reduced throttle until achieving level flight. I am now flying at around 200 knots. Nose up -> more angle of attack -> less airspeed.

The angle of attack (AoA) indicator now reads 16. Angles of attack between 15 and 16 are used to do some cruising in the Hog.

Just with two notches of nose up trim, we decreased the fuel consumption and increased our flying time by one hour. Calculation above assumes a total of 9600 pounds of fuel available.

Let's go loco and trim the nose up one or two notches more. I have the Hog now trimmed for a higher angle of attack and thus a lower airspeed, so I ease the throttle a bit until I get into level flight again.

More nose up trimming. My aircraft is now trimmed for an airspeed around the 170's.

The angle of attack of indicator (AoA) now reads 18. Angles of attack of 17 and 18 are used for endurance or maximum loitering time. See next screenshot.

We may be flying slower now, but look at our endurance!

The moral of this blog entry: watch for your tim/angle of attack! After a long commute to the kill zone, you may be arriving with a Hog trimmed for something else than a gun run. This may not kill you but the aircraft will be heavy to maneuver. In case of doubt, neutralize trim before the bomb/gun run.

Some useful values (please remember that the Hog's AoA indicator has values in arbitrary units, not real/physical angles):

• AoA for cruising: 15-16
• AoA for maximum endurance: 17-18 (may come in handy for loitering)
• AoA for landing approaches: 19-20-21

This blog was never in the tutorial business, but my inability to properly explain this angle of attack-based form of flying has me very frustrated. I can only wish that this blog entry will spark some interest in the topic among you virtual pilots.

Cheers,