Not really. They disallowed specific tactics that the red team had used to win, told them they had to turn on their radars at certain points (so that the fancy electronic countermeasures would work), told them they couldn’t shoot down planes during a particular attack, things like that. For the most part the things that were different the second time around were artificial constraints on the red team.
Ryan McBeth responded to this exact thing. The short version of his answer was that the first run through showed the red team won. That information was written down and learned. With the main lessons now learned, the wargame was restarted under different conditions to allow the other troops to train who weren’t used in the first run. A bridging team that just ‘dies’ in the wargame doesn’t get to hone their valuable skills in the most realistic situation they will ever be in short of people actually getting shot. So, you want subsequent runs to include the bridging team, and all the other teams that were not used in the first run.
Restarting wargames under different situations and with different restrictions is expected and normal.
told them they couldn’t shoot down planes during a particular attack
Correct. This allows those pilots to get experience doing what they were trained to do. Those individual pilots don’t learn shit if they were told they ‘died’ and immediately return to base and sit on their ass the entire exercise. You need a followup run where they get to do their thing.
Yeah, I agree with all of this. I said basically what you just said (with a lot less detail / citation) in my comment that starts “I mean I get it” (which I just recently edited to expand it a little).
I understand why they did it. I’m not saying it wasn’t productive to do. I actually think the way it played out probably made it extremely productive to do, and it’s to the US military’s credit that that type of outcome can even happen, as opposed to most authoritarian structures where the red team would just understand that they’re “supposed to lose” and wouldn’t even try to do something like Riper did. You don’t have to have the final “official” outcome be a blue team loss in order for everyone to learn valuable lessons from it.
What I was disagreeing with was your assertion that they just changed the conditions. They changed around the parameters and rules underlying the situation, specifically to railroad the simulation into a particular outcome. Even if I understand why that happened I can still point it out and think it’s notable, no?
Not really. They disallowed specific tactics that the red team had used to win, told them they had to turn on their radars at certain points (so that the fancy electronic countermeasures would work), told them they couldn’t shoot down planes during a particular attack, things like that. For the most part the things that were different the second time around were artificial constraints on the red team.
Ryan McBeth responded to this exact thing. The short version of his answer was that the first run through showed the red team won. That information was written down and learned. With the main lessons now learned, the wargame was restarted under different conditions to allow the other troops to train who weren’t used in the first run. A bridging team that just ‘dies’ in the wargame doesn’t get to hone their valuable skills in the most realistic situation they will ever be in short of people actually getting shot. So, you want subsequent runs to include the bridging team, and all the other teams that were not used in the first run.
Restarting wargames under different situations and with different restrictions is expected and normal.
Correct. This allows those pilots to get experience doing what they were trained to do. Those individual pilots don’t learn shit if they were told they ‘died’ and immediately return to base and sit on their ass the entire exercise. You need a followup run where they get to do their thing.
Yeah, I agree with all of this. I said basically what you just said (with a lot less detail / citation) in my comment that starts “I mean I get it” (which I just recently edited to expand it a little).
I understand why they did it. I’m not saying it wasn’t productive to do. I actually think the way it played out probably made it extremely productive to do, and it’s to the US military’s credit that that type of outcome can even happen, as opposed to most authoritarian structures where the red team would just understand that they’re “supposed to lose” and wouldn’t even try to do something like Riper did. You don’t have to have the final “official” outcome be a blue team loss in order for everyone to learn valuable lessons from it.
What I was disagreeing with was your assertion that they just changed the conditions. They changed around the parameters and rules underlying the situation, specifically to railroad the simulation into a particular outcome. Even if I understand why that happened I can still point it out and think it’s notable, no?