WordPress.com

Charles HutchinsonDifferent branches of the British Armed Forces use virtual training to varying degrees. What does the future hold for the use of games and simulations in military training given the MoDs budgetary restrictions?Games and the military have always had a close relationship because playing at battle was the best way to prepare for the real thing. Records of officers and soldiers involvement in ‘War Games’ go as far back as the 1800s when the Prussian army adopted Kriegsspiel, a wargame in 1811 as a training tool (B.Burenheide, 2007). The use of these games was to teach and practice military tactics. However, being confined to a classroom presented many problems; Combat usually takes place between multiple officers leading their soldiers over an extended amount of time, over varied terrain with varied finite resources. By its nature, Kriegsspiel and similar games were rules-based whereas in the real world there are no rules and chance plays a part. Participants in games partake in "the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles" (B.Suits, 1978), but wargames differ in that the obstacles are not “unnecessary” but key to the game if it is to provide effective training. Since there can be multiple ways of overcoming a tactical issue, there should not be any ‘textbook’ answers. In games there is usually a ‘META’ (Most Effective Tactic Available) meaning a pool of ‘textbook’ strategies are formed which give the user the highest chance of success. This model does not fit a wargame for training, since a real life battle situation seldom has an infallible solution. Creativity is a sought-after trait in tacticians; unusual solutions should be encouraged and recognized whereas the majority of wargames don’t allow this due to strict rules. Therefore, games and simulations have been the solution to mimic different scenarios and improve military training in areas such as tactical thinking. The term ‘simulation’ describes a “self-contained system that faithfully mimics real processes without the need for human intervention” (Sabin, 2014). It has also been said, “Games are of course simulations and computers are the prime platform for doing simulations” (Aarseth, 2004). Wargames used in military training tend to be a large selection of simulations of real discrete processes that together mimic the complexities of combat.The main differentiation between computer simulations and computer games is that a simulation’s attention to detail in replicating reality is much greater. Examples include using accurate representation of environment and controls; precisely mimicking the cockpit of a specific vehicle, giving the participant a Challenger II tank drivers position rather than a generic armoured vehicle drivers station. Generally, games have a win or loss condition because of the participant’s actions. However, in simulations there is an outcome, often more subtle than a simple win/loss condition; each run of a simulation provides the user with useful feedback and information rather than a ‘You Lose’ message. It could be argued that the participants are voluntarily attempting to overcome unnecessary obstacles in accordance with B.Suits definition. However the fact that simulations have realistic physics, accurate ballistics values, models and environment (E.g. the cockpit) these are what set them apart from ‘true’ games as they abstract lots of details. Games generally have different goals often making them poor computer simulations of real phenomena. Generally, games have aspects of real life with certain aspects added or removed making these games imperfect simulations. An example of this would be the game Tetris (Spectrum HoloByte, 1987) where some properties of gravity are represented but not others. Other games such as Superhot (SUPERHOT Team, 2016) simulates how physics may work in slow motion, the simulation the games demonstrates is impossible in the real world but could provide us with information that can be applied to the real world. The games mentioned above are clearly games rather than simulations, all simulations are imperfect models of the real world but to what degree they are is what separates them. Interview with Johnathon SearleIn order to research the current approach to simulation and training in the MoD I spoke to Johnathon Searle, Head of Simulation and Analytics at the Department of Informatics and Systems Engineering of Cranfield University at Shrivenham, which provides the academic component of the UK Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) Defence Academy. The MoD’s Financial Situation Before I go into what technologies are being used, have been used and possibilities for the future it is important to understand the UK’s militaries financial situation because simulations are viewed as a cheaper alternative to live training. I found that between 2010 and 2015 the MoD’s budget had fallen by ?8 billion in inflation-adjusted ‘real’ terms, since which time, spending has stabilised. “In 2017/18 total military operation expenditure was around ?0.8billion – this a reduction of around ?3.9 billion from the 2009/10 peak although an increase of ?0.2 billion from 2016/17.” (Dempsey, 2018) Between 2000 and 2010, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan caused UK Defence expenditure to increase explaining the 2009/2010 peak.To put the UK’s ‘tight’ Defence budget into a more believable context, Searle gave me a rough estimate that it costs around ?50,000 for an hour of flight for a single jet such as the Typhoon. The unit purchase cost for a Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank costs ?4,217,000 (armedforces.co.uk) and its running costs are significant; it does less than 2 miles to the gallon cross-country, wearing out tracks and live main armament ammunition costs thousands of pounds a round. Whereas a CATT simulation unit of a Challenger 2 tank costs around ?1.5M to buy, its main running cost being electricity, a fraction of the price it would cost to run the real thing. Therefore, in recent times, simulations have gained attention as they offer a viable alternative. However, sophisticated simulators built for military use are still expensive and games could be the answer to achieve a greater level of cost efficiency, which is surely what the MoD desire due to their restraining budget.The rise of powerful personal computersIn addition to games being much cheaper to develop, the hardware that is required to run them is also considerably cheaper. Thanks to computers moving into a position where our lives are dependent on them they have become widespread; we use them in education, business, hospitals and for many other reasons. So it should come as no surprise when Searle explained to me that lots of games and hardware used for training in his lab are off–the-shelf and available to consumers. With the rise of cheap, yet powerful personal computers becoming commonplace it offers the military with the opportunity to drastically reduce costs. I asked about the use of simulation games with a focus on realism, such as games developed by Bohemia Interactive. This company has developed both the Operation Flashpoint Series (Bohemia Interactive et al. 2001) alongside Codemasters and then ARMA series (Bohemia Interactive, 2013) which were commercial successes. Searle explained that these games had been previously modified by the MoD for training purposes. Both series mentioned above focus on the use of vehicles, air support and infantry in the same ground based scenarios, (admittedly there are limited maritime capabilities) all focusing on combat, cooperation, communication and cognitive skills. I asked about other famous games such as America’s Army and why the British had not followed suit. Searle explained that the needs of the US Army and British Army were different at the time. America’s Army had been designed as a recruiting aid; at the time of its development, the US Army had a bad reputation; so they used a game to combat this. They were able to carefully control missions available to the players to paint a positive picture. The game had an interesting feature that any illegal in game action would result in your character receiving jail time for a short period. In this way, the Americans took the first step in developing the use of games and simulations and only when they had reached a viable stage and their effectiveness was proven did the British would follow suit. Searle explained that the military modify games so they meet a certain standards of fidelity for use as a training aid, the quality of fidelity is dependent on the requirements of the simulation. Therefore, games are often a cost effective answer as they are able to develop abstract skills incredibility well, such as general strategy and understanding spatial relations. However, games are often ineffective at developing particular skills, especially ones that require accurate models of the real world such as forecasting weather patterns or understanding relevant phycology such as self-preservation. Simulations are then the answer.Early simulations and games used for military trainingEarly military simulations had many shortcomings, as they lacked playability, user engagement and user-friendliness. Essentially, they were not fun or easy to use. This inhibited their training potential; particularly for new generations who had grown up with computer games. They were also incredibly expensive; for example, an M1 tank trainer in the 80s produced by Chrysler or General Electric would have cost 6 to 7 million dollars per unit. (Halter 2006)However, in the early 90s the US Marine Corps modelling and simulation management office were given a new directive and budget from the annual Marine Corps General Officers symposium to “Find ways to use commercial off-the-shelf software for internal training purposes.”As a result, in 1997 Schneider and Barnett used Doom II’s modding capabilities to produce a version of the game with the needs of the marines in mind, known as ‘Marine Doom’. They had stripped the game down transforming it into a dusty plain a sparse environment consisting foxholes and barriers. (Gault, 2014) Doom’s weapon choices switched to realistic options, such as the M-16 A1 assault rifle, the M249 squad automatic weapon and M-67 fragmentation grenades. In addition to the fidelity improvements mentioned above, life-refreshing power-ups disappeared, and the player’s health points were lowered considerably so the now player died in a few hits (Halter 2006). This modification was distributed to Marines worldwide for training purposes; it was even permitted to be used on government computers, as long as they complied with copyright restrictions that included “…opportunities to include an element of stress”. ‘Marine Doom’ was not a simulator; but an example of commercial games providing a cheap alternative to simulation and an effective training resource that develops abstract skills incredibly well. To improve utility, a play-through might be conducted after a laborious forced march or during a period of sleep deprivation, challenging soldiers with frequent decision making under physical and emotion stress with time limits on decisions. Despite its educational purposes, ‘Marine Doom’ was not included in official military training. It marked the start of using 3D commercial games for military training, as a cheap form of training particular skills. (Gault, 2014) A few years later, Spectrum Holobyte modified the PC game Falcon 4.0, a networked flight simulator for F-15 pilots. These developments led to games companies working with the US Army to redesign existing games to fit the training purposes, such as Ubisoft’s collaboration on Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear for urban combat training. (Halter 2006) Looking at simulations of the past, we can understand their shortcomings and see whether weaker areas have been improved and if there are areas that are yet to be improved. Could games become a more viable solution to simulating different scenarios that would be of educational use to the military, especially with the rise of hardware available to consumers supporting VR (virtual reality)? Simulations currently used in military training – CATT, TESIn my interview, I asked Searle what simulations or games are currently used in British Army training. He spoke about two of the support systems he has worked with, CATT (Combined Arms Tactical Trainer) and TES (Tactical Engagement Simulation). He then explained that commercial games engines are of limited use to the military due to their emphasis on creating a fun gaming experience in preference to an accurate representation of reality. The CATT provides soldiers with the opportunity to hone their skills from inside replica vehicles against a range of virtual enemies in multiple scenarios from deserts to Salisbury Plain. (UK MoD 2002) CATT has such a high level of fidelity it enables trainees and Commanders to use real world topographical maps and intelligence data in mission rehearsal. (Lockheed Martin, 2002) There are two CATT simulators, linked between Warminster and Sennelager, Germany. Searle explained that CATT is able to train 700 people at once, with only 6-10 people controlling the enemy. Each Simulator Hall contains “29 Challenger 2 simulators, 29 Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle simulators, eight Scimitar Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle simulators, 16 generic vehicle simulators and 12 dismounted infantry simulators.” on introduction in 2002 these simulations were incredibly advanced and have received constant funding over the years to improve performance and fidelity as technology improves. CATT has been designed to allow other simulators to be integrated in preparation of the widespread use of simulations, as it allows users to perform training “…without environmental impact on training sites or the cost of moving men and equipment over long distances” according to Adam Ingram. (UK Ministry of Defence, 2002) SAAB’s TES is a live simulation training system is for weapons; lasers transmitters are mounted on the weapon and aligned with so they are projected down the barrel to where the soldier is aiming at. They are used in live field training exercises as they account for calculations including ballistic trajectory, damage radius, location of impact on armour and the damage it would inflict and so forth. It is essentially a big game of laser tag but instead of children in a converted warehouse there are whole battle groups tearing around a training area with highly accurate calculation of engagement outcomes. However, from my interview with Searle I was told how TES was initially unable to find out which side had fired the shots and specifically which soldier; This flaw resulted in soldiers messing around shooting their mates, ruining an incredibly expensive training exercise. However, this has now been solved and in 2017 Saab and the UK MoD signed a contract extension of Saab’s TES as a fully managed service. (Saab Corporate, 2018) This form of simulation suits the training needs of the military as it provides soldiers with the highest fidelity possible. However, unlike CATT and other games-based simulations, live training causes environmental damage and incurs the cost of moving men and equipment. TES’s purpose is to prevent harm to the lives of the participants while replicating combat.Games currently used in military training – VBS3, DAUNTLESSSearle mentioned a training tool known as ‘VBS3’ Virtual Battlespace 3 (Bohemia Interactive, 2018) a series that has received constant improvement for over 15 years into a comprehensive desktop trainer and mission rehearsal platform that based on commercial video game technology. (Bohemia Interactive 2018) The simple reason for its use in military training is that it is cheap, offering incredibly high fidelity for a desktop trainer. Rather than training the physical skills required of a soldier, it improves cognitive skills, communication and cooperation. VBS3 boasts a huge range of scenarios that can be rehearsed and modified in real time, with analytics showing a full recording of the mission. This desktop simulation is on another level to any simulation based on commercial video game technology attempting to fulfil the needs of the military. Because everything is recorded and calculated by the computer the After Action Review feature can irradiate the obscurity of being soldiers messing around during training, a feature the TES system once lacked. Another simulator being used that is based on an AAA game engine is DAUNTLESS (Motion Reality Inc., 2016) a VR infantry training simulator. This is played out in a large open space using sensors; its downside is that it can only handle a few participants at a time. Its use is unlikely as systems such as TES are in place and are have a contract with MoD for several years.VR and AR products available to consumers that could lead the way for virtual military training – Cost, Fidelity and AdvancementsWhen games are able to achieve the levels of fidelity demonstrated by VBS3, are they going to overtake the viability of simulations for much training due to cost. Of course, Simulators such as CATT have the advantage of accurately replicating the environment surrounding the soldier and his controls to a degree an area desktop-based training tools will never be able to achieve. However, using hardware such as VR headsets the user can be placed in the cockpit of the vehicle through the headset, and thus removes the need for a fully-fledged replica of a vehicle. The physical controls can then be more simplistic and cheaper than in an expensive simulator while keeping a high level of fidelity. We can see a basic example of this concept in the VBS3’s ‘What is VBS3: Versatile Desktop Training & Simulation Software’ Video (, 2018), where a soldier is using a HTC: ‘Vive’ VR Headset to drive a jeep in the simulation. The controls consist of a Steering wheel and pedals with nothing else, removing the cost of building a cockpit. An HTC: ‘Vive’’ Headset costs ?499 and the Pro Version costing ?1,299 (, 2018), a considerable price drop in comparison to the CATT project costing ?250M pounds.I asked Searle what other uses today’s technologies could have on training in branches of the military that currently have no need for virtual training or assistance. Suggesting if a Wildcat helicopter engineer could wear a set of AR (Augmented Reality) goggles such as the Magic Leap One (, 2018) or Microsoft’s HoloLens (Microsoft HoloLens, 2016) where it assists the engineer via instructions. For example, the engineer is looking at the real life helicopter, then in the goggles they select an exterior plate which the contents of can be shown to the engineer without the physical removal of the plate. This would be of incredible value to the military and would be in use if technology like this existed. Searle explained that the technology currently available in the AR field is primitive and hasn’t reached a level where it is stable and can be relied on in safety critical applications, like aviation engineering.Current VR consumer examples cited by Searle relating to a possible military use include Onward (Downpour Interactive, 2016). However, everyone who played became “…very, very sick, but if you stood stationary and fired it was good”. I suggested the use of an omnidirectional treadmill, a piece of technology still undergoing improvements to be useable. Onward’s controls could be modified to synchronize with the treadmill. Other examples of advancements in the MR (Mixed Reality) field includes ‘The VOID’ a fully immersive VR experience where participants where VR headsets and are sent into an area which has the same layout, objects and even if you touch an object it would feel like what it looked like through the headset.ConclusionSimulations provide a safe in an environment where there are no legal or ethical considerations are required. They are suitable areas for soldiers to train without consequences especially when it is expensive, dangerous or environmentally damaging. New recruits primarily use simulators so they can gain confidence and understanding without the cost of flying expensive aircraft or live firing exercises. Desktop trainers such as VBS3 prove that commercial video game technology can provide a level of fidelity that satisfy the needs of the military at a reduced cost. Thus suggesting that games are likely to become an increasingly viable source of virtual training compared to traditional military simulators. This is aided by advancements in VR which can reduce the cost of training simulators further. Word Count: 3291BibliographyAarseth, E. (2004). Games, Simulation & Serious Fun: An Interview With Espen Aarseth, [online] Available at: [Accessed 2 Dec. 2018].Aishwarya, S. (2018). UK MoD to use VBS3 software to train soldiers in virtual environment. [online] Army Technology. Available at: [Accessed 13 Dec. 2018].America’s Army. 2002. United States Army.Armedforces.co.uk. (2018). British Army - Challenger 2 Tank - Main Battle Tank - MBT - The Household Cavalry and Royal Armoured Corps - Armed Forces - a4a7. [online] Available at: [Accessed 3 Dec. 2018].ARMA: Armed Assault. 2006. Bohemia Interactive. 505 Games.ARMA: Queen’s Gambit. 2007. Bohemia Interactive, Black Element Software. 505 Games.ARMA 2. 2009. Bohemia Interactive. ARMA 2: Operation Arrowhead. 2010. Bohemia Interactive. 505 Games.ARMA Tactics. 2013. Bohemia Interactive. ARMA 3. 2013. Bohemia Interactive. Army Technology. (2018). UK MoD to use VBS3 software to train soldiers in virtual environment. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Dec. 2018].BBC News. (2018). UK 'must prepare for Russia fight'. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 Nov. 2018].BBC News. (2018). Reality Check: What's happening to defence spending?. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 Nov. 2018].. (2018). Bohemia Interactive Simulations. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 Dec. 2018].Burenheide, B. (2007). Using Wargames in the Classroom to Teach Historical Thought. Teaching History: A Journal of Methods, 32(1).Crogan, P. (2011). Gameplay mode: War, Simulation and Technoculture. University of Minnesota Press.Crookall, D. (2012). The founding of modern simulation/gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 43(1).Dempsey, N. (2018). UK Defence Expenditure. House of Commons Library. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 Nov. 2018].Defense-, UK MoD. (2002). MOD Unveils World's Biggest Armored Warfare Simulator. [online] Available at: (nov.-28).html [Accessed 4 Dec. 2018].Doom II: Hell on Earth. 1994. Id Software. GT Interactive Software.Ebbutt, G. (2018). Fixed, deployable and scalable: TES takes training to the next level. SAAB. [online] Available at: [Accessed 6 Dec. 2018].FAAC. (2018). Military Training Simulators | FAAC. [online] Available at: \ [Accessed 4 Dec. 2018].Falcon 4.0. 1998. MicroProse Alameda. Hasbro Interactive.Gault, M. (2014). A Cash-Strapped Corps Once Tried Training Marines With Doom. [online] Medium. Available at: [Accessed 17 Nov. 2018].GOV.UK. (2017). UK armed forces monthly service personnel statistics: 2017. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 Nov. 2018].Halter, E. (2006). From Sun Tzu to xbox war and video games. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.Huntemann, N. and Payne, M. (2010). Joystick soldiers. New York: Routledge.Lockheed Martin. (2002). Lockheed Martin and British Army Unveil the World's Most Sophisticated Simulation System. [online] Available at: [Accessed 3 Dec. 2018].Macedonia, M. (2002). Games, Simulation, and the Military Education Dilemma. [online] Available at: [Accessed 1 Dec. 2018].MacNab, I. (2018). Kriegsspiel and the sandtable: Using tabletop wargames to teach tactics and exercise decision making in the classroom. Westpoint. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 Dec. 2018].. (2018). Magic Leap One: Creator Edition | Magic Leap. [online] Available at: [Accessed 6 Dec. 2018].Microsoft HoloLens. (2018). Microsoft HoloLens. [online] Available at: [Accessed 6 Dec. 2018].Saab Corporate. (2018). Saab and the UK’s Ministry of Defence sign contract extension. [online] Available at: [Accessed 10 Dec. 2018].Mun, Y., Oprins, E., van den Bosch, K., van der Hulst, A. and Schraagen, J. (2017). Serious gaming for adaptive decision making of military personnel. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61(1).Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis. 2001. Bohemia Interactive, Codemasters.Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising. 2009. Codemasters.Operation Flashpoint: Red Hammer. 2002. Codemasters.Operation Flashpoint: Red River. 2011. Codemasters.Operation Flashpoint: Resistance. 2002. Bohemia Interactive, Codemasters.Searle, J. (2018). A talk over the phone about Simulation and Games in Military Training. (Interview with me)Sabin, P. (2014). Simulating war: Studying conflict through simulation games. Bloomsbury Academic.Serious Games to Enhance Defense Capabilities – Modeling & Simulation Special Edition. (2017). CSIAC, [online] 5(4). Available at: [Accessed 1 Dec. 2018].Suits, B. (1978). The grasshopper: games, life, and Utopia. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.Superhot. 2016. Superhot Team.Taylor, G. and Barnett, J. (2012). Evaluation of Wearable Simulation Interface for Military Training. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 55(3),.Tetris. 1984. Spectrum HoloByte.Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear. 1999. Red Storm Entertainment. Ubisoft MilanVirtual Battle Space 3. 2018. Bohemia Interactive.. (2018). VIVE? | Discover Virtual Reality Beyond Imagination. [online] Available at: [Accessed 3 Dec. 2018].Wouters, P., D. van der Spek, E. and van Oostendorp, H. (2018). Games-Based Learning Advancements for Multi-Sensory Human Computer Interfaces: Techniques and Effective Practices. [online] Available at: [Accessed 5 Dec. 2018].ImagesFigure 1. House of Commons Library. 2018. UK defence Spending. From BBC [online] Available at: [Accessed 2 Dec. 2018]. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download