U.S. Army Expands Use of Video Games for Training

A newly issued U.S. Army field manual has put people on notice: Video games are serious training tools. In its first revision since 9/11, the U.S. Army field manual for Training and Full Spectrum Operations mentions gaming 32 times, describing it as as a key ingredient in replicating “an actual operational environment.”

Released in December 2008, the new doctrine is another reminder of how gaming is rapidly redefining military recruitment and training.

The push to use games as a recruiting tool dates back to 2002, when the Army released “America’s Army” — a free, downloadable video game that gave people a virtual peak into soldiering. Since then, the game has registered 9.7 million regular users worldwide, and military leaders suggest that a third of the cadets entering the Army’s West Point academy have played the first-person shooter game. It has also been praised as a cheaper alternative to television ads, which may not reach the targeted audience: 14- to 16-year-olds.

The same year that America’s Army was released, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) launched a new program to revolutionize the use of experimental training in the military and take advantage of the technological advances in the computer-gaming industry. The project helped generate DARWARS Ambush, a multiplayer, first-person shooter game that since 2006 has taught thousands of troops about convoy operations, including how to react to and anticipate ambushes and improvised explosive devices.

This year, the military is spending millions more to upgrade the game with a modified version of Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2), known as “Game After Ambush.” The new version more accurately replicates what today’s soldiers encounter on the battlefield, and gives trainers more tools to edit missions, increase difficulty and run after-action reviews.

The military also relies on tactical language and cultural training tools — such as Tactical Iraqi and Tactical Pashto — to help familiarize troops with cultures and languages they will encounter in the Middle East. These programs immerse troops in a 3-D, interactive environment that simulates real life, teaching culturally sensitive communication that could benefit them in the field.

The United States is not the only country plugging into virtual reality. Gaming is being embraced by combat leaders in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is also developing a tailor-made version of VBS2 for tactical training needs of member countries.

Critics, including antiwar groups and some researchers, accuse the military of preying on a generation of adolescents, raised on video games that blur the brutal reality of war. These groups often ask: If soldiers treat a game like war, what happens if they start treating war like a game?

U.S. military officials portray gaming as simply a cost-effective way to attract talent, and a proven platform for rehearsing missions, building leadership skills and developing teamwork. However, despite their confidence in the Defense Department’s multibillion-dollar investment, the impact of gaming is still unknown — and the military knows it.

“The only piece that is not there is some extensive study that shows numbers to prove it,” says Col. Gary Stephens, a product manager in the office responsible for developing, acquiring and fielding cutting-edge training and testing devices for the U.S. military.

Given all the complex variables that go into successful recruiting, training and performance on the battlefield, such a definitive study would be difficult to design.

Still, Stephens is confident that gaming works, and his claims got a boost from a 2007 study by the Canadian Armour School that found gaming proved successful when it was incorporated into an officers’ training course. In the study, the class with the most game-based simulations mixed in with live training performed much better in the course.

Col. Casey Wardynski, one of the creator’s of America’s Army, points to a 2007 study from Rochester University that showed that certain cognitive skills, useful in operational conditions, were improved by a few hours of daily gaming over the course of a month.

Others are more skeptical.

A 2008 report from the Congressional Research Office said that virtual reality games allow training missions to be repeated numerous times, without the risk of injury or wear and tear on military equipment. But the report also mentioned shortcomings, such as comfortable gaming environments that minimize the impact of real world conditions such as fatigue, stress and physical discomfort.

Wardynski says that while there “is still a need for a science-based study,” there is already enough anecdotal evidence of gaming’s success to justify its expanded use.

The Pentagon apparently agrees.

Last summer, the Army opened a controversial 14,500 square foot Army Experience Center at a mall in suburban Philadelphia, sparking recent protests in which seven people were arrested. The $12-million, taxpayer-funded “virtual education” facility is supposed to give anyone over the age of 13 years old a sneak peak into military life. Visitors can fly a simulated Black Hawk helicopter, shoot M-16s aboard an Army Humvee and play America’s Army — which will soon be upgraded to include authentic weapons.

In December, the Army also announced approval of roughly $50 million for a “games in training” program that will keep an eye on industry trends to identify technology that can be used for military training. The Army also freed up funding to help field Game After Ambush at least a year ahead of schedule, Stephens said.

By September, the Army is scheduled to have 70 Game After Ambush systems in 53 military locations across the globe — including Germany, Italy and South Korea.

The funding is a direct result of the Army’s decision in April 2008 to institutionalize its use of gaming technology, Stephens said. Before that, the Army used games informally and had never established a sustained program for the acquisition and use of games. Now, like other training devices, funding requests for gaming can be part of the line-item fiscal year budget.

“The army realized gaming technology really did have a place in training,” Stephens says. “It was a technology we need.”

Seth McLaughlin is a Washington-based journalist.

This entry was posted on Monday, May 18th, 2009 at 01:03 and is filed under BIA, News, Scenarios, Simulation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.