This will be the first in a lengthy series of blogs on adding the Operational Art into 1944/45 miniature wargaming in Western Europe.  The following terms and a simple definition of their meaning will be used throughout these blogs.  Please note that these are not official or universally accepted definitions, but they will suffice for this particular purpose.

Battle — A general term for combat event between two opposing forces at any size for any length of time.  For purposes of this discussion, in hierarchical terms, a war consists of campaigns, a campaign consists of multiple battles, and an engagement consists of multiple skirmishes.  From the perspective of the Operational Art in miniature wargaming, a scenario covers a battle between division-sized forces over multiple days.

Campaign — A  series of operations conducted over a long period of time and a large area fought in accordance with a high-level strategy and executed at the corps, army, and army group levels. 

Command — The authority that a military commander exercises over subordinates by virtue of rank or assignment.  The commander as the senior decision maker in a unit is responsible for the achievement of an assigned mission, approving plans developed in conjunction with his staff, communicating his intent to subordinates and enabling them in the completion of their mission.

Control — Control may be exercised in two ways. It is usually defined as the administrative, operational, or tactical authority, less than the full command, exercised by a commander over part of the activities of subordinate or other organizations.  Control is a function provided by the Operational Art activities of staffs to plan for, manage, and sustain military operations — for our purposes, a battle.

Engagement — A combat event in a miniature wargame between opposing forces of regimental or battalion size lasting at most a couple of days.

Operation — A military action or the carrying out of a strategic, operational, or tactical mission. 

Operational Art — The cognitive warfighting activities of commanders and staffs — based on their skill, knowledge, experience, creativity, and judgment — to sustain, support, sequence, and link tactics in a way to achieve an intended strategic effect.

Operational Level of War — The level of warfare at which campaigns and other major operations (battles) are planned, conducted, and sustained to achieve strategic objectives within theaters or other operational areas.  In simple terms, its advocates, including the US Military leadership, view the Operational Level as a link to both Strategy and Tactics, and an equal to them.  Others believe that there is no operational level, and that the operational art is what binds strategy and tactics.  However, some have argued that the concept of the Operational Level of War has weakened the relationship between  Strategy and Tactics.

Skirmish — A combat event in a miniature wargame between opposing forces at the company and platoon levels lasting a relatively short period of time.

Strategy — A prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve global and theater, national and/or multinational objectives.  A strategy may be either cumulative or sequential in the manner in which the enemy is defeated.

Strategic Level of War — The level of warfare at which a nation, often as a member of a group of nations, determines national or multinational (alliance or coalition) strategic security objectives and guidance, then develops and uses national resources to achieve those objectives.   For our purposes, the Allied national leadership and the Joint and Combined Chiefs of Staff, and SHAEF shaped the strategic level of war in the ETO in 1944/45.   

Tactics — The employment and ordered arrangement of friendly forces in relation to each other, as well as to the enemy forces. 

Tactical Level of War — The tactical level of war encompasses battles, engagements, and skirmishes that are planned or executed to achieve military objectives assigned to tactical units.  For our purposes, units from division level down to squads undertake tactics.  

Looking for Something More from Miniature Wargaming I first began solo miniature wargaming in the early 1990s and have always focused on the WWII period.  My modest collection of 6mm figures and terrain, and relatively small gaming table of 7½ by 5 feet, confined my battles to the tactical level in North Africa, Western Europe, and on the Eastern Front — at most, a reinforced regiment or two on each side.  I enjoyed this, but was looking for something more out of it.  Two events led me to start looking at miniature wargaming in a different way.  

In 1999 I made my first visit to the Normandy battlefields.  That experience led me to increasingly wonder how commanders and their staffs planned and fought the battles there.  How did strategy drive their tactics?  How did tactical success lead (or not lead) to decisive results on the battlefield and advance the strategic goals?  What challenges did they face in preparing for combat operations and how did they adapt as the situation evolved?  

I didn’t fully appreciate it at the time, but I was starting to think in terms of the Operational Art — that is, how commanders with their staffs planned, prepared, conducted, synchronized, and sustained military operations over a lengthy period of time and often a large geographic area.  Practicing the Operational Art underpins both strategy and tactics, and the relationship between them.  

For some time there has been a debate whether there is an “operational level” of war between  strategy and tactics.  For now, I’ll set that continuing debate aside, although I do believe that there is a level of command distinguishable from both the strategic and tactical levels of military operations.  For those interested, I recommend B.A Friedman’s On Operations — Operational Art and Military Disciplines in which the author makes that case there is no Operational Level of War, but that the Operational Art is what staffs do.  C. J. Dick’s From Stalemate to Victory — The Western Front Summer 1944 provides a superb assessment of the practice of the Operational Art by the Allied commanders through September, implying that, from the command perspective there is an Operational Level of war.  To learn more about the components and practice of the Operational Art, I recommend Robert M. Citino’s Quest for Decisive Victory: From Stalement to Blitzkrieg in Europe, 1899-1940 and Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm — The Evolution of Operational Warfare.

Most miniature and board wargames place the players in the role of the commanders, able to continuously and nearly instantaneously change strategies, plans, and tactics by having an unrealistic observation of what their opponent is doing.  Moreover, their rulesets also compress the Operational Art into near irrelevancy.  In addition to my reading, map study, and visits to the battlefields of Western Europe, I wondered how I could use miniature wargaminig as an educational tool — a self-study command and general staff college experience — to better understand how military operations were planned and conducted in Western Europe in 1944/45.  Professional Military Education (PME) and Command Post Exercises (CPEXs) do that, so why couldn’t miniature wargaming also do that to some extent?

However, I faced several significant challenges to integrating the Operational Art into miniature wargaming — knowledge, space, and time.  In my Navy/Navy Reserve career, I spent time at sea and also had several opportunities to take short courses and participate in several Global Wargames at the Naval War College.  I also was fortunate to serve as an instructor at the then “Joint Military Intelligence College” which provided Professional Military Education to students from all the armed services.  Interaction with the faculty and students reinforced my understanding that armies and navies operate and fight in very different ways.  That experience also increased my interest in learning more about how armies practice the Operational Art.

I had a pretty good understanding of how navies operate, but not much insight into how armies address the principles of war, as well as the factors of distance, space, and time on the battlefield.  For example, how much space do military units of various size occupy in defensive and offensive situations; what are realistic rates of road and cross-country movement; how does one move a unit to an assembly area prior to an attack, then transition to an attack formation before jumping off the line of departure (something I still struggle with in my wargaming); and why and how do such things as road traffic management, unit boundaries, operational zones, and phase lines aid control of operations.  Such planning and control are critical to tactical success, but are not well addressed in board and miniature wargaming rulesets.  Most importantly, I came to appreciate that military planners don’t have the omnipotent ability to constantly adjust to enemy moves in the way that miniature wargamers have.  In the real world, even if they could do so, that often resulted in confusion and disorder.  Unable to find a ruleset that addressed such matters, I concluded that I would have to come up with my own rules to address the key aspects of the Operational Art.

Retirement was the second event that made developing my own ruleset possible as that provided me the time and a huge basement (aka “the bunker”) in which to turn my miniature wargaming into a classroom experience.  Time and space beyond that available to most gamers is essential for adding the Operational Art to miniature gaming.  It took a few years to develop a practical ruleset that continues to be fine tuned based on learning and gaming experience. 

The Need for a Different Mindset This blog is an attempt to share with others of similar interest what I’ve learned.  Future posts will explain the methodology and rules developed for a very different miniature wargaming experience.  Some of the concepts to be addressed include:

* The Bigger Picture  — Ideally, every battle should advance larger strategic and operational purposes and have a decisive effect.  Historically, most battles don’t do that and competitive gamers often have different motivations for their battle.  In real life, the wargame scenario would be inextricably linked to the bigger picture, which means off-the-battlefield events would in all likelihood impact to some extent what players could do. 

* Command and Control — Adding the Operational Art to miniature wargaming means adding staff activities normally not considered or addressed only slightly.  Commanders lead; staffs strive to control the course of the operations.  The Operational Art is largely performed by staffs from theater level down to the battalion.  From the perspective of my miniature wargaming ruleset, the operational art is practiced at the division and regimental levels, with a limited corps.  Battalions focus on fighting their troops consistent with the divisional and regimental commanders’ intent and the mission. 

* The Role of Intelligence — Very few rulesets address the criticality of obtaining information (not just on the enemy, but also on roads and bridges, terrain, ground conditions, etc.).  The most important rule in my ruleset is that commanders may not react to enemy moves, entrenchments, emplaced battlefield obstacles not provided to them in the scenario or otherwise obtained in the course of the game through observation, reconnaissance, scouting, or engagements.

* Solo Miniature Wargaming — Given my focus on using miniature wargaming as an educational tool to better understand operations in general or a battlefield to be visited, as well as the above rule on intelligence, solo wargaming works best.  However, a refereed competitive game might be possible.

* Longer Battles and Higher Level Formations — Most miniature wargaming rulesets focus on skirmishes and engagements, only touching lightly on control in addition to command.  Adding the Operational Art to miniature wargaming requires battles between division-sized opponents, significantly bigger battlefields, and the scenarios much longer in duration than those played with most rulesets.  Instead of scenario lengths of a few hours or a day or two, battles at this higher level of play would go on for days and, in some cases, weeks given the compartmented terrain of western Europe.  Longer battles also mean changes in the weather and ground conditions are possible, critical considerations in planning and conducting operations.

* Balance between Tactics and the Operational Art — It is possible to add the Operational Art and also preserve much of the tactical fighting that gamers enjoy.  There are commercially available rulesets that provide a good jumping-off line for adding the Operational Art.

* Balance in the Scenario — Historically, many battles were fought with one side numerically or otherwise advantaged in combat power.  Terrain or weather might have favored one side or the other, or negatively impact both.  One side may have faced a greater logistical shortage (ammunition, fuel, and transportation) or both sides may have serious shortages in different categories of supply.  However, adding the Operational Art is primarily about learning, not competitively winning.  Throw out the point systems for balancing the opposing forces and the alternate set-up of battlefield terrain.  Select scenarios that present a good learning opportunity or will better prepare you for visiting a specific battlefield.

* Troop Scale — The optimal scale is 6mm as any larger scale precludes the size battlefield required to practice the Operational Art.  Single stands and models may represent platoons or companies.  On a wargaming table, stands representing companies allow for a relatively larger battleground than stands representing platoons.  Either works with a gaming table of at least 8 by 5 feet at a scale of 100 yards per inch.

* Off-the-Battlefield Events — Battles are not fought in isolation from larger operations, so why shouldn’t historical events off-the-battlefield impact events in miniature wargaming?  

* Combat Proficiency — How might doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures, as well as training and combat experience, impact command and control in miniature wargaming?  How do they impact morale?

* Artillery and Fire Support — Most board and miniature wargaming rulesets minimize the importance of command and control regarding artillery.  In my opinion, many rulesets overestimate the destructive power of artillery and underestimate its neutralizing effects.  Also, artillery support is often too readily available.  Allocating direct and general support artillery and developing fire support plans are key components of the Operational Art, and a shortage of artillery ammunition was a common event in Western Europe in 1944/45.

* Combat Engineering —  In the European Theater, an advancing army could expect to encounter a waterway 75 to 100 yards wide every 24 to 45 miles; one 200 yards wide every 100 miles; and one 300 yards wide every 100 miles.  The countless narrower waterways between these rivers could be significant obstacles and flooding was often a problem.  However, most miniature wargaming rulesets limit combat engineering to battlefield obstacles and field fortifications.  Rules for assault river crossings, if included, are overly simple. 

* Special Terrain Areas — At this level of play, fortified areas such as the Atlantic Wall, Maginot Line, and West Wall are better handled from the perspective of an area rather an individual bunkers.  Urban areas and the Normandy hedgerows are also best treated as areas rather than individual structures and hedgerow lines.

* Airborne and Amphibious Operations — Most rulesets start with troops jumping out of planes or landing in gliders, but that’s the easy part of airborne operations which require extensive planning.  However, the success or failure of most airborne operations ETO were usually decided before the planes arrived over the drop zone.  Much the same could be said of amphibious assaults.  Therefore, the Operational Art is fundamental to wargaming all airborne and amphibious operations.

* Logistics — At higher level of play and in a longer scenario, logistics cannot be completely ignored.  The availability of fuel or ammunition (mainly of artillery shells), as well as transportation are major considerations in the Operational Art.  The gradual reduction in combat power of isolated units and their potential resupply by ground relief or airborne resupply was a frequent challenge in the ETO.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on this different approach to miniature wargaming, especially if you have experience in gaming in this manner.  Please leave a comment or begin a discussion.