Welcome to Military Decision Making Process (MDMP)

Welcome to Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) Step 4 COA Analysis

The Seven Steps of the MDMP Receipt of Mission Mission Analysis Course of Action Development Course of Action Analysis (War-Game) Course of Action Comparison Course of Action Approval Orders Production

Military Decision Making Process Input Output Receipt of Mission • Commander’s initial guidance • WARNO to staff • Initial IPB products Cdr’s Intent • Restated mission Initial CCIR • Updated staff estimates/products • Preliminary movement • Cdr’s planning guidance Initial ISR plan • Updated staff estimates • COA statements and sketches • Refine Cdr’s planning guidance • Wargame results • * Decisions support templates • * Task Organization • Mission to subordinate units • Decision matrix • Approve COA • Refine Cdr’s intent and guidance • Refine CCIR • OPLAN/OPORD • • Mission received from higher HQ or • deduced by the Commander and staff • •Higher HQ order/plan/IPB • •Staff estimates • •Facts & assumptions • Restated mission • •Cdr’s intent & planning guidance • •CCIR • •Staff estimates & products • •Enemy COAs • •Refined Cdr’s planning guidance • •Enemy COAs • •Friendly COAs • •Staff/BOS COAs • Wargame results • • Established criteria for comparison • Decision Matrix • •Approved COA WARNO #1 Staff Estimates Mission Analysis WARNO #2 Course of Action Development Course of Action Analysis (War-Game) Course of Action Comparison Course of Action Approval Running Estimates WARNO #3 Orders Production Annexes Note 1: A star ( ) depicts Commander activities and decisions. Note 2: Rehearsals and backbriefs occur during preparation and ensure an orderly transition between planning and execution. Preparation Execution

Course of Action Analysis • Identifies which COA: • Achieves the Commander’s Intent • Best positions the force for future operations • In addition, helps the commander and staff to: • Maximize combat power • Anticipate battlefield events • Determine conditions and resources required for success • Determine when and where to apply the force’s capabilities • Determine the most flexible COA

Course of Action Analysis • Why War Game? • Allows the staff to visualize the flow of the battle • Anticipates events through Action, Reaction, and Counteraction role playing • Examines tactical possibilities

Course of Action Analysis War Gaming Rules • Remain objective, not allowing personality or “what commander wants” to influence staff. • Accurately record advantages and disadvantages of each COA as they emerge. • Continually assess COA feasibility, acceptability, and suitability. • Avoid drawing premature conclusions and gathering facts to support such conclusions. • Avoid comparisons of COAs during the War Game – COA comparison is the next MDMP step.

War Gaming Responsibilities XO - The chief of staff/executive officer is responsible for coordinating actions of the staff during the wargame. He is the unbiased controller of the process - ensuring the staff accomplishes the goals of the war gaming session. Personnel Officer - The G-1/AG (S-1) estimates potential personnel battle losses and determines human resources support for the operation. Intelligence Officer - The G-2 (S-2) role-plays the enemy commander. He projects enemy reactions to friendly actions, and projects enemy losses. (Recommend 2 S-2s) Operations Officer - The G-3 (S-3) normally selects the method for the wargame and role-plays the friendly commander. Logistics Officer - The G-4 (S-4) assesses the sustainment feasibility of each COA.

War Gaming Responsibilities (continued) Civil-Military Operations Officer - The G-5 (S-5) ensures each COA effectively integrates civil considerations (the “C” of METT-TC). Special Staff Officers - Special staff officers support the coordinating staff by analyzing the COAs from the perspective of their functional areas, indicating how they can best support them. Recorders - Recorders are trained to capture coordinating instructions, subunit tasks and purposes, and information required to synchronize the operation. Doing this allows part of the order to be written before planning is complete.

Step 4: Course of Action Analysis • Output • War game results to include: • Concept of operations • Synchronization matrix • Operations overlay • Decision support template • Task organization • Missions to subordinates • Updated CCIR • Process • Gather the tools • List all friendly forces • List assumptions • List known critical events and DPs • Determine evaluation criteria • Select the war game method • Select a method to record and display results • Wargame the battle and assess the results • Input • Staff estimates • IPB (enemy COAs) • COA statement & sketch • Supporting staff functional COAs

Course of Action Analysis War Gaming Steps • Gather the tools • List all friendly forces • List assumptions • List known critical events and decision points • Determine evaluation criteria • Select the war game method (avenue/belt/box) • Select method to record and display results (synch matrix or sketch note) • War game the battle and assess the results

War Game Tools • Tools required include, but are not limited to— • Current staff estimates. • Event templates. • A recording method. • Completed COAs, including maneuver, reconnaissance and surveillance, and security graphics. • Means to post or display enemy and friendly unit symbols. • A map of the AO.

Evaluation Criteria – EXAMPLE • Mission accomplishment at an acceptable cost. • The principles of war. • Doctrinal fundamentals for the type and form of operation being conducted (see SMFM 90-9). • The commander’s guidance and intent. • The level of tactical risk.

Course of Action Analysis War Gaming Steps • Gather the tools • List all friendly forces • List assumptions • List known critical events and decision points • Determine evaluation criteria • Select the war game method • Select method to record and display results (synch matrix or sketch note) • War game the battle and assess the results

Select the Wargame Method Belt Method • Avenue-in-Depth Method Box Method

Belt Method • Belt method: • Divides battlefield into areas (belts) running the width of sector or zone • Sequential analysis • Belts based on terrain, phases, and enemy

Avenue-in-Depth Method Avenue-in-Depth method - focuses on one avenue of approach (AA) at a time, beginning with main effort. Plus focuses on all the things that could impact the mission

Box Method • Box method: Detailed analysis of critical events or areas (obstacle breach, river crossing, or passage of lines)

Record & Display Results of Wargame Time or Phase of the Operation The Sync Matrix method allows the staff to synchronize the COA across time and space in relation to an enemy COA. Other operations, functions, and units that are to be integrated, or what the staff wants to highlight, can be incorporated into the matrix. Synchronization Matrix Sample # 1

Record & Display Results of Wargame A Sync Matrix for Contiguous Operations allows the staff to synchronize the COA across Time (H-R) and space (Phase Line) in relation to the enemy COA. A Sync Matrix for Non Contiguous allows the staff to synchronize the COA across Events in relation to the enemy COA. Battlefield Operating Systems (BOS) or units are listed to highlight what the staff desires to integrate in the matrix whether time, space or event. Synchronization Matrix Sample # 2

Record & Display Results of Wargame When the staff uses the Sketch Note method to record wargame results it uses the wargame worksheet to identify all pertinent data for that critical event. Advantages – Disadvantages Sample Sketch Note Work Sheet

Record & Display Results of Wargame Advantages – Disadvantages Sample Sketch Note Work Sheet

War Gaming Process • During war gaming, the commander and staff try to see the dynamics of the battle’s action, reaction, and counteraction. • The Intelligence Officer role plays the Enemy CDR, The Operations Officer role plays the friendly commander, The Executive Officer mediates the process and the separate BOS Officers stand by to provide specific BOS considerations. • The staff analyzes each selected event by identifying the tasks the force must accomplish one echelon down, using assets two echelons down (identifying the COA strengths and weaknesses allows the staff to make adjustments as necessary). • The war game follows an action-reaction-counteraction cycle and is continued until the critical event is completed (action usually initiated by the side with the initiative - usually the force on the offensive).

War Gaming Process (Continued) • The staff considers all possible forces, including templated Enemy forces outside the AO, that could conduct a counterattack. • The staff uses the selected method to record war gaming decisions and starts “filling in the blanks”. • The staff continually assesses the risk to friendly forces from weapons of mass destruction, seeking a balance between mass and dispersion. • The staff identifies the Combat Support (CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS) assets required to support the scheme of maneuver and synchronize the support and sustainment efforts. • During the war game, the commander can modify the COA based on how things develop or identify additional critical events that require more analysis.

Course of Action Analysis War Game Results 1 OF 2 • Refined or Modified COAs • Refined location and time of the decisive point • Identification of key and decisive terrain • Refinement of enemy event template & matrix • Refinement of task organization • Identification of unit tasks and subordinate unit tasks • Allocation of combat, CS and CSS assets to subordinates • Decision points • Synchronization matrix and decision support template • Estimate duration of each critical event / entire operation • Projection of enemy force destruction in each event • I.D. location and time of commitment of reserve • Identify likely times and areas for enemy use of WMD and friendly NBC requirements • Most dangerous enemy COA • Location of commander and CPs • Identify critical events

Course of Action Analysis War Game Results 2 OF 2 • Identify requirements for BOS support • Requirements for military deception and surprise • Refined C2 requirements (control measures & graphics) • Refined CCIR and IR with LTIOV • ISR plan and graphics • IO objectives and tasks • Develop FS, ENG, AD, IO, CSS plans and graphics • Identify / confirm location of DPs / NAIs, TAIs • Determine timing for concentrating forces & starting the attack or counterattack • Determine movement times for critical assets • Identify, analyze, and evaluate strengths and weaknesses of each COA • Integrate targeting process (Refine EFSTs) • Identify hazards, develop controls & determine residual risk War Game Brief (Optional)

Course of Action Analysis War Game Brief • Higher headquarters mission, commander’s intent, and military deception plan. • Updated IPB. • Friendly and enemy COAs that were wargamed, to include – • Critical events. • Possible enemy actions and reactions. • Modifications to the COAs. • Strengths and weaknesses. • Results of the wargame. • Assumptions • Wargaming technique used

Questions

Welcome to Military Decision Making Process (MDMP)