User talk:EyeSerene/Military Simulations

I have a problem (a small one) with your inclusion of field exercies under "simulation". I tend to feel map exercises and ops research models are "sims", & exercies are field trials of sims, based on the use of the term as I've come across it; I'm by no means specialist in the field. I'd also say you need to add more following your reference to Lanchester. The accuracy, or provability, of a model is crucial to its value, & if Dupuy's Numbers, Predictions, & War is to be believed (& I see no reason to disbelieve it), no current theatre-level model is capable of reproducing historical battles at better than 50% success; if they cannot reproduce known outcomes, Dupuy argues (correctly, I suggest), they are of no value in predicting. Trekphiler 05:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I added this


 * "Many modern operations research models (simulations,   wargames) prove unable to reproduce historical results; the Atlas  model, for instance, in 1971 proved unable to achieve more than 68% correspondence, and "many OR analysts and planners are convinced that neither history nor data from past wars has any relevance". It may be argued a model that cannot even reproduce a known outcome is little more than a whimsy, with no basis in reality."

I hope I haven't overstated my case. If my tone is not in concert with yours, do rewrite. I encourage you to read Dupuy. It's a fascinating, & very entertaining, work. Trekphiler 06:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments etc: I've responded on your talk page. EyeSerene 12:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)