Using Wargames to Understand Sustainment in LSCO

By Maj. Catherine R. DeeterOctober 17, 2024

Maj. Jim Mehr and Dr. James Sterrett play-testing an early version of Lines and Webs at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, on Jan. 23, 2024.
Maj. Jim Mehr and Dr. James Sterrett play-testing an early version of Lines and Webs at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, on Jan. 23, 2024. (Photo Credit: Maj. Catherine Deeter) VIEW ORIGINAL

We many never know the right answers, but gaming can sometimes help us learn to ask the right questions.” — from Peter Perla’s The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Professionals and Hobbyists

Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the military community has watched the conflict closely, hoping to glean as many insights into large-scale combat operations (LSCO) as possible. One observation is that sustainment in LSCO is often operating within the worst-case scenario, namely, operations that drag on with a high supply requirement across dispersed formations with no safe area. Little expertise for sustainment in LSCO currently exists within the Army, but sustainers must identify the unique challenges LSCO present and develop strategies to address them. A complex and complicated environment is hard to replicate often enough to develop effective strategies. In addition to the study of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War, sustainers should leverage sustainment-specific wargames to develop the necessary skills for success.

Modern LSCO: A Challenge for Sustainment

Modern LSCO present a unique challenge for the sustainment war-fighting function. To address these challenges, we must define what is meant by modern LSCO. Field Manual (FM) 3-0, Operations, defines LSCO according to the large sizes of forces committed against operations and strategic objectives. However, this broad definition could encompass any scenario in which the U.S. commits significant forces to achieve overmatch. This applies to the last 20 years of conflict in the Middle East, a conflict in which the U.S. conducted counterinsurgency (COIN) operations, an entirely different type of war.

Therefore, this paper refers to a more useful definition of modern LSCO proposed by Maj. John Dzwonczyk and Maj. Clayton Merkley in their 2023 Military Review article, “Through a Glass Clearly: An Improved Definition of LSCO.” They wrote, “LSCO: combat operations involving two or more general or flag officer-level echelons of command on at least one side maneuvering their commands in support of a campaign against an enemy with comparable tactics and force structure.” This proposed definition hints at how sustainment might differ in LSCO from other types of war because it captures the need to consider an enemy that rises to the level of a peer/near-peer threat.

One challenge for sustainment in modern LSCO stems from a lack of experience across the force. Using the definition proposed above, the three latest conflicts that fall into the category of LSCO are World War II, the Korean War, and Operation Desert Storm. The most recent of these conflicts ended 33 years ago, which means few if any U.S. military personnel have concrete experience in LSCO. To compound that, the Army has spent the last 20 years dialed into the COIN range of the competition continuum. This long focus on COIN has led to expertise and a prevalence of strategies aimed at asymmetrical warfare, such as the practice of concentrating sustainment into large hubs. Gaining the experience necessary for success in LSCO will not be easy. Their very nature means that gaining experience through practice at combat training centers requires a large amount of time, units, equipment, and other resources, a costly endeavor that is not quickly replicated. Boardgame-style wargames can potentially bridge these inherent training gaps.

The second challenge for sustainment in modern LSCO is that logistics units are organized and outfitted for a COIN conflict. Before August 2021, operations in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East had taken on a steady-state nature. For instance, Soldiers transferred into theater on a consistent deployment cycle and operated from built-up installations. Sustainment operations also reflected the mature nature of the theater. There was an understood safe rear area with no constant threat and with supplies piled into Iron Mountains, i.e., sprawling supply dumps with large units living off them. As the war on terrorism lengthened, the government did what governments do: it looked for ways to save money, placing pressure on the Army to institute lean business practices and maximize the tooth-to-tail ratio (the ratio of one combat Soldier to the number of support Soldiers). Unfortunately, thinning the logistical system so much made it unsuited to the demands of warfare with China or Russia.

Developing and training practical sustainment strategies for LSCO are further challenged by a system heavily weighted with Army Reserve units (78%) instead of active-duty sustainment units. Reserve units are limited by their training events throughout the year and by a lack of a training cycle that combines Reserve and active-duty units. Even if combat training centers perfect division and higher-echelon training through limited rotations, the majority of sustainment officers will not be able to build their experience by repetitively developing and practicing LSCO procedures. Wargames can help investigate what, if any, changes logistics units may need to undergo, and can provide additional training opportunities.

The third challenge sustainment faces in modern LSCO is reframing the idea of correct sustainment. Successful sustainment in LSCO cannot be synonymous with efficiency. To understand why, we must first acknowledge the definition of efficient as capable of producing desired results with little or no waste. On its face, this sounds like exactly the right goal for a sustainment enterprise. However, in an LSCO environment where logistics are actively and consistently under threat, efficiency makes sustainment vulnerable to unintended gaps. Rather than efficiency, LSCO sustainment must focus on being effective and resilient. Most important, the Army must recognize there will be no single correct method of sustainment for LSCO. The efficient nature of logistics in COIN may work during some phases of an LSCO campaign, but during other phases it may require accepting possible waste or increased costs to ensure effective sustainment. Experimenting within wargames allows sustainers to understand the difference between efficient and effective practices, and when each is more useful.

Why Wargames?

Wargames are a useful tool. In the Army, the term wargame is most often associated with the practice of simulating a course of action during the military decision-making process. FM 5-0, Planning and Orders Production, defines a wargame as “a disciplined process, with rules and steps that attempt to visualize the flow of an operation.” Historically, wargames have played a central teaching role in the military academies of America, Germany, France, England, and Japan. During World War II, Germany successfully employed their version of wargaming, Kriegsspiel, during active combat to effectively respond to American attacks on the German Siegfried Line. The German wargame accurately predicted American actions and reduced German analysis and reaction time. Wargames are well established as tools to assess plans before and during operations. However, their use in the sustainment warfighting function can and should be expanded.

In this article, wargame refers to the broader category of board-based games that focus on military operations within a specific context. For instance, a board game might allow lieutenants to practice multiple tactical strategies against an enemy embedded within a forest. The lieutenants play against each other and must react to the real-time decisions of their opponents. The advantage of this type of wargame is that it is focused on a specific learning objective and does not require players to first craft the game they wish to play.

These kinds of wargames provide many other advantages. A wargame is a safe-to-fail environment that allows players to experiment with the accepted practice and with bold or out-of-the-box strategies without the fear of real-life consequences. This experimentation lets players investigate what works, what does not work, and why. With repetition, players can develop an understanding of their own and their enemy’s options in a given situation, allowing them to extrapolate in similar scenarios. A player who spends time investigating different scenarios will enter a real-life situation with a toolbox of actions and options to apply.

Wargames support how the human brain is optimized to recognize patterns. It is the first biological computer, synthesizing stimuli from the environment to make assumptions about what is there, what is changing, and above all, what that means. The more the brain studies patterns related to a topic, the further along the spectrum of understanding the brain moves, from intellectual understanding to intuitive understanding. Wargames are designed to reflect the reality of war. The more wargames are developed around the subset of LSCO war, the more scenarios military sustainment officers can study.

Lines and Webs: One Wargame Solution

Recently developed as a part of the thesis of a student at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC), Lines and Webs is a board-based wargame that supports investigating sustainment strategies for LSCO. This wargame models multiple systems for sustainment in an LSCO environment to allow players to practice with their complexities. Lines and Webs pits modern, linear logistics against a proposed web-like system. Players fight for control of key ports on a node-and-link map using comparable combat power that replicates the challenge of a peer/near-peer enemy.

This wargame is designed around four key elements: opposing sustainment models, contested logistics, a panopticon battlefield, and innovative technology. As the core design, the wargame opposes a traditional linear sustainment system (high throughput, but minimal flexibility of fewer higher-capacity units) against a proposed web-like system (lower throughput, but more resilient through numerous but smaller elements). The contested logistics environment is portrayed by using special cards to replicate the vulnerability of sustainment nodes and lines of communication as high-value targets. This forces players to consider how they balance combat operations with the protection of their sustainment assets. Lines and Webs incorporates mini drones and visibility of player pieces to replicate the panopticon nature of an LSCO battlefield. This forces each player to operate in an environment where every action is seen and evaluated. Finally, this wargame replicates near-future combat that includes innovative technologies in development that provide military officers with options for managing their sustainment in novel ways.

During development and multiple tests, Lines and Webs proved useful for investigating the tradeoffs of using the sustainment systems (short-term efficiency or long-term resilience). Unexpectedly, neither system proved perfectly ideal for LSCO. Instead, players were able to identify the risks associated with each system and posit how they might employ each system at different points during operations. The wargame also underscored the importance of understanding how sustainment drives tempo. Players experienced the push and pull between maneuver and sustainment and quickly felt the importance of managing their sustainment, not only during the relevant phases, but also by planning multiple steps ahead.

Lines and Webs and other wargames designed in a similar way can provide persistent and repetitive learning opportunities that can be done in a structured environment (with oversight by more-experienced sustainers) or individually. Depending on the focus, wargames can investigate both tactical and operational sustainment challenges.

Conclusion

LSCO require sustainment systems, leaders, and planners who have the skills to adapt to an ever-changing environment. Many of these skills can and will be developed through the traditional military training system (field problems, combat training centers, etc.). However, wargames can help develop those skills when money, time, or space are not available to replicate a complex and complicated environment. The wargame Lines and Webs is one example of a wargame that bridges this gap. Similar wargames can and should be developed for the same purpose. The military sustainment community should encourage and invest in the development of sustainment wargames oriented around problems of interest to the community. Increased awareness of the Master of Military Arts and Sciences wargame program and a partnership between division logistics/sustainment commands and the Department of Simulation Education at CGSC are great first steps toward that end.

--------------------

Maj. Catherine Deeter serves as the officer in charge of the 7th Infantry Division’s G-4 supply and services section at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. She previously served as the airlift section officer in charge of the 4th Battlefield Coordination Detachment, Army Central Command, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina. She holds a Master of Science degree in human-computer interaction from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and a Master of Military Art and Science degree in wargame design from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

--------------------

This article was published in the fall 2024 issue of Army Sustainment.

RELATED LINKS

Army Sustainment homepage

The Current issue of Army Sustainment in pdf format

Current Army Sustainment Online Articles

Connect with Army Sustainment on LinkedIn

Connect with Army Sustainment on Facebook

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------