|
Military simulations, also known informally as war games, are simulations in which theories of warfare can be tested and refined without the need for actual hostilities. Many professional analysts object to the term ''wargames'' as this is generally taken to be referring to the civilian hobby, thus the preference for the term ''simulation''. Simulations exist in many different forms, with varying degrees of realism. In recent times, the scope of simulations has widened to include not only military but also political and social factors, which are seen as inextricably entwined in a realistic warfare model. Whilst many governments make use of simulation, both individually and collaboratively, little is known about it outside professional circles. Yet modelling is often the means by which governments test and refine their military and political policies. Military simulations are seen as a useful way to develop tactical, strategical and doctrinal solutions, but critics argue that the conclusions drawn from such models are inherently flawed, due to the approximate nature of the models used. ==The simulation spectrum== The term ''military simulation'' can cover a wide spectrum of activities, ranging from full-scale field-exercises,〔 (BATUS official site ) 〕 to abstract computerized models that can proceed with little or no human involvement - such as the Rand Strategy Assessment Center (RSAC).〔 H E Hall, Norman Shapiro, Herbert J Shukiar, ''Overview of RSAC system software : a briefing'', RAND Corporation, 1993, ()〕 As a general scientific principle, the most reliable data comes from actual observation and the most reliable theories depend on it.〔(The three steps of the Scientific Method: Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation ) 〕 This also holds true in military analysis, where analysts look towards live field-exercises and trials as providing data likely to be realistic (depending on the realism of the exercise) and verifiable (it has been gathered by actual observation). One can readily discover, for example, how long it takes to construct a pontoon bridge under given conditions with given manpower, and this data can then generate norms for expected performance under similar conditions in the future, or serve to refine the bridge-building process. Any form of training can be regarded as a "simulation" in the strictest sense of the word (inasmuch as it simulates an operational environment); however, many if not most exercises take place not to test new ideas or models, but to provide the participants with the skills to operate within existing ones. Full-scale military exercises, or even smaller-scale ones, are not always feasible or even desirable. Availability of resources, including money, is a significant factor — it costs a lot to release troops and materiel from any standing commitments, to transport them to a suitable location, and then to cover additional expenses such as petroleum, oil and lubricants (POL) usage, equipment maintenance, supplies and consumables replenishment and other items.〔 (Center for International Policy, programme of US Military Exercises ) "Exercises are generally the largest, in terms of cost and personnel, of the many types of U.S. military deployments for training..." 〕 In addition, certain warfare models do not lend themselves to verification using this realistic method. It might, for example, prove counter-productive to accurately test an attrition scenario by killing one's own troops. Moving away from the field exercise, it is often more convenient to test a theory by reducing the level of personnel involvement. Map exercises can be conducted involving senior officers and planners, but without the need to physically move around any troops. These retain some human input, and thus can still reflect to some extent the human imponderables that make warfare so challenging to model, with the advantage of reduced costs and increased accessibility. A map exercise can also be conducted with far less forward planning than a full-scale deployment, making it an attractive option for more minor simulations that would not merit anything larger, as well as for very major operations where cost, or secrecy, is an issue. (This was true in the planning of OPERATION AI.) Increasing the level of abstraction still further, simulation moves towards an environment readily recognised by civilian wargamers. This type of simulation can be ''manual'', implying no (or very little) computer involvement, ''computer-assisted'', or fully computerised. Manual simulations have probably been in use in some form since mankind first went to war. Chess can be regarded as a form of military simulation (although its precise origins are debated).〔(The origins of Chess )〕 In more recent times, the forerunner of modern simulations was the Prussian game ''Kriegsspiel'', which appeared around 1811 and is sometimes credited with the Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War.〔(Matthew Caffrey, ''History of Wargames: Toward a History Based Doctrine for Wargaming'', 2000, StrategyPage.com ): ''"There was near universal agreement that Prussia's victories were due to generalship. This advantage in generalship was produced by her War College and her general staff system, and behind the success of both stood wargaming."''〕 It was distributed to each Prussian regiment and they were ordered to play it regularly, prompting a visiting German officer to declare in 1824, "It's not a game at all! It's training for war!"〔Andrew Wilson, ''The Bomb and the Computer'' (London: Barrie & Rockliff, Cresset P, 1968), p.6〕 Eventually so many rules sprang up, as each regiment improvised their own variations, two versions came into use. One, known as "rigid ''Kriegsspiel''", was played by strict adherence to the lengthy rule book. The other, "free ''Kriegsspiel''", was governed by the decisions of human umpires.〔Edgardo B Matute, ''Birth and Evolution of War Games'', Military Review 50, No7, 1970, p53〕 Each version had its advantages and disadvantages: rigid ''Kriegsspiel'' contained rules covering most situations, and the rules were derived from historical battles where those same situations had occurred, making the simulation verifiable and rooted in observable data, which some later American models discarded. However, its prescriptive nature acted against any impulse of the participants towards free and creative thinking. Conversely, free ''Kriegsspiel'' could encourage this type of thinking, as its rules were open to interpretation by umpires and could be adapted during operation. This very interpretation, though, tended to negate the verifiable nature of the simulation, as different umpires might well adjudge the same situation in different ways, especially where there was a lack of historical precedent. In addition, it allowed umpires to weight the outcome, consciously or otherwise. The above arguments are still cogent in the modern, computer-heavy military simulation environment. There remains a recognised place for umpires as arbiters of a simulation, hence the persistence of manual simulations in war colleges throughout the world. Both computer-assisted and entirely computerised simulations are common as well, with each being used as required by circumstances. The Rand Corporation is one of the best known designers of Military Simulations for the US Government and Air Force, and one of the pioneers of the Political-Military simulation.〔Thomas B Allen, ''War Games: Inside the Secret World of the Men who Play at Annihilation'', New York, McGraw Hill, 1987, ISBN 0-7493-0011-6, p141〕 Their ''SAFE'' (Strategic And Force Evaluation) simulation is an example of a manual simulation, with one or more teams of up to ten participants being sequestered in separate rooms and their moves being overseen by an independent director and his staff. Such simulations may be conducted over a few days (thus requiring commitment from the participants): an initial scenario (for example, a conflict breaking out in the Persian Gulf) is presented to the players with appropriate historical, political and military background information. They then have a set amount of time to discuss and formulate a strategy, with input from the directors/umpires〔A situation common in sophisticated civilian games.〕 (often called ''Control'') as required. Where more than one team is participating, teams may be divided on partisan lines — traditionally ''Blue'' and ''Red'' are used as designations, with ''Blue'' representing the 'home' nation and ''Red'' the opposition. In this case, the teams will work against each other, their moves and counter-moves being relayed to their opponents by Control, who will also adjudicate on the results of such moves. At set intervals, Control will declare a change in the scenario, usually of a period of days or weeks, and present the evolving situation to the teams based on their reading of how it might develop as a result of the moves made. For example, Blue Team might decide to respond to the Gulf conflict by moving a carrier battle group into the area whilst simultaneously using diplomatic channels to avert hostilities. Red Team, on the other hand, might decide to offer military aid to one side or another, perhaps seeing an opportunity to gain influence in the region and counter Blue's initiatives. At this point Control could declare a week has now passed, and present an updated scenario to the players: possibly the situation has deteriorated further and Blue must now decide if they wish to pursue the military option, or alternatively tensions might have eased and the onus now lies on Red as to whether to escalate by providing more direct aid to their clients.〔Thomas B Allen, ''War Games: Inside the Secret World of the Men who Play at Annihilation'', New York, McGraw Hill, 1987, ISBN 0-7493-0011-6, pp.11-20, describing a wargame the author was permitted to observe. It also resembles simulations prepared and broadcast by ABC-TV's ''Nightline''.〕 ''Computer-assisted'' simulations are really just a development of the manual simulation, and again there are different variants on the theme. Sometimes the computer assistance will be nothing more than a database to help umpires keep track of information during a manual simulation. At other times one or other of the teams might be replaced by a computer-simulated opponent (known as an ''agent'' or ''automaton'').〔Allen, ''op. cit.'', p.328.〕 This can reduce the umpires' role to interpreter of the data produced by the agent, or obviate the need for an umpire altogether. Most commercial wargames designed to run on computers (such as ''Blitzkrieg'', the ''Total War'' series, ''Civilization'' games, and even Arma 2) fall into this category. Where agents replace both human teams, the simulation can become fully computerised and can, with minimal supervision, run by itself. The main advantage of this is the ready accessibility of the simulation — beyond the time required to program and update the computer models, no special requirements are necessary. A fully computerised simulation can run at virtually any time and in almost any location, the only equipment needed being a laptop computer. There is no need to juggle schedules to suit busy participants, acquire suitable facilities and arrange for their use, or obtain security clearances. An additional important advantage is the ability to perform many hundreds or even thousands of iterations in the time that it would take a manual simulation to run once. This means statistical information can be gleaned from such a model; outcomes can be quoted in terms of probabilities, and plans developed accordingly. Removing the human element entirely means the results of the simulation are only as good as the model itself. Validation thus becomes extremely significant — data must be correct, and must be handled correctly by the model: the modeller's assumptions ("rules") must adequately reflect reality, or the results will be nonsense. Various mathematical formulae have been devised over the years to attempt to predict everything from the effect of casualties on morale to the speed of movement of an army in difficult terrain. One of the best known is the ''Lanchester Square Law'' formulated by the British engineer Frederick Lanchester in 1914. He expressed the fighting strength of a (then) modern force as proportional to ''the square of its numerical strength multiplied by the fighting value of its individual units''.〔F W Lanchester, ''Aircraft in War: The Dawn of the Fourth Arm'', Lanchester Pr Inc, 1999, ISBN 1-57321-017-X ''A reprint of the original 1916 issue''〕 The Lanchester Law is often known as the ''attrition model'', as it can be applied to show the balance between opposing forces as one side or the other loses numerical strength.〔A F Karr, ''Lanchester Attrition Processes and Theater-Level Combat Models'', ''Mathematics of Conflict'', Elsevier Science Publishers B V, 1983, ISBN 0-444-86678-7.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「military simulation」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|