News story: Army conducts largest ever virtual battlefield simulation experiment

Discussion in 'MoD News' started by MoD_RSS, Jan 31, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  2. When I joined they used to do big exercises with 50,000 real soldiers and lots of tanks, now the MoD boasts about playing computer games.

    How times have changed...

    • Like Like x 3
  3. I bet there was at least one admin vortex of a Tom who went sick prior to the exercise.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Lessons learnt my old and hairy arse. More like lessons forgotten and relearnt because the Army is unforgivably awful at knowledge management.

    And if anyone from LWC is reading this my rates for pointing out the blindingly obvious are a lot less than you're paying for these experiments.
  5. MOD wish to deny claims that post 2020, virtual armed forces will be all we have left.
  6. how right you were- lots of blokes saying they would prefer to be out on exercise...
  7. Lying git, we've never had 50,000 real soldiers AND loads of tanks.
  8. Don't judge everything in terms of your own service - there was a time not too long ago that we had more Divisions than the Football League.
  9. So we've now got 200 potential claims of RSI from overuse of the right hand - negating any counter claims of self-abuse.

    Do the avatars in these simulators have the stamina of those of Call of Duty?

    Why aren't the players cammed up? I know its a game, sorry, simulation, but they should really get into character. Maybe set off the fire sprinklers and open a window as well.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Has anyone found the easter egg yet? Or found any good cheats?
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Colonel Law said ".....but already several lessons have been learnt (learned!?). For example, that placing Intelligence Corps personnel in the battlefield HQ and feeding information down to front line commanders is preferable to embedding those personnel with combat units."

    What's lesson learned No2....women are weaker than men?
  12. No, it's if your attack fails, switch the computer off and back on again.
  13. err . . . the Hundred Days, Aug-Nov 1918?
  14. There'll be some spotty sprog who's hacked it already, and flying around the level like Superman, with an SLR...
  15. More seriously, how much better (if at all) are these things able to simulate the military-ops-that-are-not-war scenarios that seem to be more probable than simple warfighting?

    Not knocking their value as prep for the most serious (but least likely) threat scenario, just doubtful of their value as far as prep for the myriad of more probable military commitments (Mali anyone?)

    I remember only too well the hours wasted at the US warrior prep centre near Ramstein in the mid-90s, as they tried to re-jig a warfighting computer program that was utterly unable to simulate UNPROFOR withdrawing from BH under NATO escort, in the face of sit-down protests by large number of unarmed Bosniac grandmothers and their grandchildren - the kind of contingency for which we were required to prepare.