|
One
of the most important apparatuses utilized for strategic
military planning is the terrain model. Terrain models
serve as battlefield visualization tools to support a
variety of mission objectives including general
training, predictive analysis (threat course of action),
reinforcement to stability and support operations
divisions and major engineering projects, among others.1
When it’s not advantageous to physically observe
terrain due to size or presence of an enemy force,
creating a scaled-down model of the terrain yields a
practical and preferred method for plotting military
movements.
Centuries old, the application of terrain models can be
traced back to the earliest surviving globe that was
designed by Martin Benhaim of Nuremberg, Germany in
1492.2 At the time, globes represented Earth
and the celestial rotations of the sun, moon and stars.
Throughout the 15th century, production of globes
continued to serve educational purposes, as well as
prepare countries with opportunities to expand their
empires.
As
nations and societies developed, globe-making evolved
and more sophisticated cartography techniques were
employed to develop relief maps of areas and regions.
Mostly used for military operations, early terrain
models employed materials such as plaster, papier-mâché,
sponge rubber and plastics for simple model
construction. One primitive Polynesian stick chart model
built a framework of coconut palm (or pandanus reeds)
and cowrie shells to represent ocean current patterns
and the locations of atolls and islands. Furthermore, a
simple model of Disko Bay, located on the western coast
of Greenland, reveals terrain that was constructed by
its inhabitants with only sealskin and driftwood.3
It
wasn’t until World War II (WWII) that terrain models
became essential visual aids employed by the armed
forces to train and brief military personnel. War time
technology expanded the battle landscape from ground to
sea and air, making it imperative to understand the
topography that troops would encounter. Successful
operations relied on accurately modeled terrain
surfaces, along with realistic representations of
buildings, military installations and troop deployment
and placement.4
Interestingly, during WWII it was the British who forged
the way for terrain model design, construction and
adoption. Using photogrammetry to interpret aerial
photography was a virtually unknown science that
Americans had yet to integrate into their branch of
armed services.5 By 1942, the British had
amassed more than 3 million photographs covering most of
Europe and oceanic tides, geology and cities and
installations photos acquired from newspapers and
periodicals.6 These images were invaluable to
the military intelligence and the evolution of terrain
model development.
In
order to maintain effective and strategic military
operations, the need to expand terrain model-making
became more evident. Turning to their allies, the
British requested American assistance. An elite group of
highly-skilled model makers with art backgrounds were
assembled. A combination of professional artists,
sculptors, architects and architectural model makers
from Hollywood studios and New York music halls were
invited to volunteer for service.7
Ultimately, WWII terrain model making techniques matured
and paved the way for a multitude of famous and
triumphant air bombing raids, precision bombing assaults
and paratrooper landings. Terrain models proved to be
critical components during military strategy planning
sessions and allowed troops to infiltrate enemy
environments with low-casualty outcomes.
Today, planning and rehearsing complex operations can be
accomplished simply and easily with a terrain model.
Working with a terrain model enables key decision makers
and personnel to absorb and plan missions and
synchronize relevant operational aspects. The models are
vital to conveying movement and mobility options
available during tactical missions.
The
physical nature of terrain models make them a preferred
apparatus for studying the area of influence without
compromising visibility. Because precision is a crucial
factor in terrain model design, models are built in a
variety of
scales depending upon its purpose. For
instance, large-scale strategic planning models can be
created at 1:500,000 and high-level details can be
provided with a 1:500 build. The variety of terrain
model scales available can assist in interpreting
existing urban landscapes with exceptional detail making
them extremely accommodating for any military-based need
or project.
In
relation to military training, terrain models fall into
one of three categories:
General study terrain models
are merely generic representations. They incorporate
various terrain types, such as desert, mountains, jungle
or urban development, with prominent terrain features,
like water banks and vegetation. These models are
studied to learn how troop movement, deployment and
overall survivability affected.
Terrain type study models
illustrate climate-related details that are relevant to
the specific type of terrain. For instance, the
regional surroundings of Afghanistan, Nevada’s
high-desert conditions or Louisiana swamp conditions
for National Guard training exercises.
Specific area/site
terrain models represent an
actual area or location. Its size can be either small or
large depending on the model’s purpose and it’s most
commonly used for local military offensive operations,
practice defense scenarios and special operations
planning. Additional area/site model functions include
planning operations and evacuation procedures for
natural disaster preparation, military installation
enhancements and other prediction and forecast purposes.
Replicating terrain to scale unveils
potential obstacles and opportunities that may go
unnoticed or overlooked.
This is extremely
valuable for tactical planning, operational maneuvers
and counter-offensive measures where expertly engineered
terrain models can mean the difference between success
or failure. Other types of scale models may be cross
referenced to produce a comprehensive model tools that
deliver impressive potential for a range of needs,
including
structure study for military and law
enforcement training, as well as
combat identification
and recognition training.
Since
the 1940s, technology has transformed terrain model
making considerably. Re-scaling photographs and
stretching them, referred to as photo-skinning, is no
longer practiced, and cutting sets of layered cardboard,
known as egg-crating, are all but extinct from the
terrain model construction process. In today’s modern
world, satellite photo surveys, 3D simulations and
digital mapping software have revolutionized the manner
in which terrain model information is collected and
processed. However, technology has not changed the
distinct advantages that a tangible terrain model
provides.
Until a deployable holographic simulator and rehearsal center
is made available, terrain models are the best
representations and most utilitarian tools around for
military training and tactical planning.8
Terrain models can be developed in several pieces,
making them easy to disassemble, and load in
custom-sized transit cases. This allows strategy
adjustments and operational changes to be shared with
essential personnel on the fly. Because they don’t
require batteries or any other form of power, they can
be operated abroad – land, sea or sky.
Less
built-in technology (i.e. computer chips, motherboards,
processors, etc.) means that terrain models
don’t require user training, licensing, software
upgrades, system enhancements or hardware purchases to
ensure operational functions. In a nutshell, terrain
models are exceptionally affordable compared to
technology.
Visual memory is fully engaged through terrain model
interactions. For instance, observations of the model
simulates terrain from the perspective of an aircraft,
which produces realistic imagery that can be easily
related to. In the context of special operations forces
and military leaders, above average visual memory skills
are imperative for fulfillment of mission objectives.
Spurring visual memory through intricate and
well-constructed terrain model design is highly
beneficial for achieving training goals and military
assignments.
In
the April-June, 1997 edition of the Military
Intelligence Professional Bulletin, the article What
A Combat Commander Expects of His S2 by Colonel
Henry Kinnison stated, "Always ask yourself if your
products are saving time and making the enemy situation
clearer.”9 A pioneer in grasping the big
picture, Kinnison’s comment relates well to the the
importance and affordability of terrain models.
Because of the limitations that technology imposes for
field training and actual/live combat situations,
terrain models are a cost-effective and obvious choice
for military personnel and support staff. Despite the
fancy features in 3D digital map software, simulating
troop movement, deployment and camouflage, the bottom
line is that it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars
to install, operate and maintain. Costs are compounded
by the time required to provide systems training to
personnel and ensure timely upgrades and software
patches are installed for proper program functionality.
Allocated budget dollars can disappear quickly in a
technology vortex.
Overall, terrain models have been responsible for many
victorious battles throughout military history. They are
reliable training tools that produce measurable and
positive outcomes, including saving lives during combat.
Terrain models are customizable, scalable and most
importantly, budget favored in contrast to digital
training aids. Terrain models will continue to be
effective and significant pieces in ongoing military
research, operations planning and tactical development.
Reference
1.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBS/is_4_28/ai_94538585/?tag=content;col1
2.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/guide/gmillgtm.html
3.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/guide/gmillgtm.html
4.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/211419?cookieSet=1
5.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/211419?cookieSet=1
6.
http://www.geography.wisc.edu/histcart/v6initiative/09pearson.pdf
7.
http://www.geography.wisc.edu/histcart/v6initiative/09pearson.pdf
8.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/tradoc/usaic/mipb/1997-4/CptChenery.htm
9.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/tradoc/usaic/mipb/1997-4/CptChenery.htm |
