Thunder Run in the Classroom-Simulation Entity Detail in Education (Updated)

In April of 2003 the American Army launched an attack into the heart of Baghdad called the Thunder Run. The 3 Infantry Division saw most of the fighting against sizable force of moderately well armed Iraqi Army soldiers. This paper provides an in depth look into utilizing the Thunder Run scenario in conjunction with Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS) software and the Systems Decision Process (SDP). The comparison between two semesters will be made in order to determine if a difference in simulation entity utilization impacts the cadets’ abilities to learn and benefit from the course material. JCATS is an advanced military simulation program and the SDP is a methodology developed by the Systems Engineering Department in order to formalize the decision making process. With these tools cadets explore the world of modeling and simulation and utilize analytical processes in the form of a semester long project by which to recommend to a decision maker a new armored vehicle design for the United States Army. The SDP utilizes problem definition, solution design, decision making, and solution implementation processes by which cadets through a serious of in progress reviews, simulation runs, factorial design analysis, and a final paper work through all the steps necessary to recommend a new armored vehicle design. 1. PURPOSE The purpose of utilizing Thunder Run scenario in the classroom environment is to expose cadets to the analytical tools available when presented with complex problems that require multi-disciplinary solutions. Simulation coursework is an integral part of the Systems Engineering and Engineering Management curriculums at the United States Military Academy. Future leaders in both the military and civilian sectors must be knowledgeable in both the theory and practice of simulation and modeling. In AY 07-1 cadets were required to create armored vehicles for use in their Thunder Run scenarios from the very most basic components. A cadet team was required to instantiate the gun, armor, all associated factors from the very most basic steps in the JCATS software. In AY 08-1 the program of study was changed to were the cadets were not required to create armored vehicles “from scratch” but instead were able to take components off of existing armored vehicles already portrayed in JCATS and switch out components with other armored vehicles already existing in JCATS in order to create unique armored vehicles specifically for their design of experiments. 2. SCENARIO In April of 2003, the Army’s 3 Infantry Division received orders to attack into the middle of the heavily populated urban center of Baghdad. This attack, or “Thunder Run”, consisted of several hundred well-armed Americans attacking into 8 million Iraqis. While the vast majority avoided the Americans and any possible fighting, there was a sizable force of moderately well armed Iraqi Army soldiers who put up strong resistance. Cadet teams consisting of 3-4 cadets recreate this scenario in JCATS and are tasked to design a new armored combat system that is lethal, survivable, and transportable. The basic unit of maneuver is a platoon which has the constraint that a platoon must be transportable by two C-17 transport aircraft. A constraint of up to seven C-17s may be used to insert a combat-loaded company. This scenario and requirement for redesigning equipment is very relevant in today’s Army. Currently the Army is undergoing a period of transition and transformation unlike it has ever seen. Prior to the attacks on September 11, 2001, there were only two brigades at Fort Lewis that were undergoing “Transformation”. This plan called for the Army reorganizing and reequipping both a heavy and light brigade with lightly armored, heavily integrated, and motorized forces. Since Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the Army Chief of Staff has begun another and much further reaching initiative. Beginning in 2003 all Army units began the process of transformation to reorganize into more independent and effective organizations. “Schoomaker's restructuring plan calls for an increase in the active-duty combat brigades from 33 to 48, creating more versatile units available for rapid overseas deployment. Each new brigade will be more self-sustaining and have more combat power than current brigades, enabling the Defense Department to respond to smallerscale contingencies by deploying a brigade of 5,000 soldiers, instead of a much larger division, with 20,000 soldiers.” [1] In class cadets are given an Operational Requirements Document (ORD) for the project that requires that each cadet team to develop a combat system that, when deployed in a platoon of 3 to 5 vehicles, has the cross country mobility of a M2 platoon, and is able to defeat all expected ground and air threats in support of Army Transformation concepts. 3. STUDENT ASSESSMENT In AY 07-1 cadet teams were required to create all facets of a candidate armored system beginning with the most basic steps. This resulted in a very detailed process of which focused on intense training within the JCATS software package. In contrast the following year this course was taught using the concept that JCATS would still be used, however, candidate vehicles would be constructed from previously created vehicles already in existence within the JCATS database. This resulted in the cadets spending less time performing the mechanics of vehicle construction and more time constructing the design of experiments and analyzing data. During course end feedback reports it was noted that the percentage of “Strongly Agree” responses to questions about the course and meeting the learning objectives increased from 46% to 66% amongst cadet opinions. This gives a strong indication that by reducing the tedium in constructing the entity and instead placing the focus on the multiple runs of the simulation in the prescribed design of experiments and the analysis that follows greater student satisfaction was achieved. Interesting to note is the steady state of grades. The second years grades were not significantly different from the first year and therefore it could be assumed that the change in curriculum affecting mostly the satisfaction of the students and not necessarily the understanding of course material. 3.1. Likert Tabulation (Cadet Feedback) Using the course end feedback from both semesters the following data results were collected. The numbers 5-1 represent the “Strongly Agree”=5 and “Stongly Disagree”=1. The questions were grouped into 4 major topics of how the course project impacted the areas of “Learning”, “Thinking”, “Analysis”, and “Course Objectives. A marked increase is noted in the second iteration of the course after changes were made to the method in which cadets were tasked to construct armored vehicles for the simulation.