I'll disagree with this. Sure, a good simulation can recreate nasty events for staff, but simulation can't train the formation as a whole.
OK, but I wasn't talking about training the entire formation as a whole: I was concentrating on training a formation HQ. With the exception of the Comd and his Tac party, and maybe a few LO's, most of the people in an HQ will never see the units/fmns they are controlling. They get orders from higher, hear voices on the radio, they see lines on JCHAT or Transverse, symbols and overlays on maps, watch UAV FMV feeds, get reports from LO's, etc. All of this is very readily reproduced through simulation, to as great a degree of fidelity as you want.
Platoon and company commanders can get good at their level in a vacuum (it's nice to do a right flanking when there is nothing to your right) but the formation as a whole needs exposure to things like moving hundreds of vehicles through the same spot with the enemy trying to do something to you. I've seen the friction this can produce at the Battle Group level both in training and operations, and I can only imagine that it gets more complex the next level up.
I agree that up to about BG (level 6), putting all the bits and pieces into the field has very good value (especially live fire), once you've had a chance to work out the kinks at lower levels, and get the Bn CP sorted out (all of which, IMHO, offer appropriate roles for some kind of simulation at some stage). I also agree that TTPs and SOPs at BG and below really must be worked out in the mud. You need to do a live fire combat team attack, not just look at it on a screen.
But, that's about where it stops, in my view. Maybe it's heresy to a generation brought up on the extravagances of the RV series, or the REFORGER/FALLEX environment in NATO. But, above BG, it isn't clear to me just who it is you're really training by putting all those bits and pieces into the field above BG level. Remember that it's actually quite rare that anybody operating at sub-unit or unit level on the ground can really see much to their left, right or rear beyond a few hundred metres or maybe a couple of km's. Can a Pl Comd see the other Cbt Tms? Can a Cbt Tm Comd see all the other Cbt Tms, or BG HQ, or the CSS elements? Can 90% of the people in an Arty unit see who they're supporting?
No-what they're mostly aware of is
the idea that all that friendly presence is out there, and they're aware of the
effects that those friendly things create (arty support, AH attack, replenishment, casevac,C2, etc). This is why, above BG, simulation of one sort or another can be so useful. A tactical road move at unit level is, IMHO a very valuable training activity if it's done properly. (Actually, it seems to be a dying art...) But, when you're on a Bde or Div road mov, how many other units do you actually see? You know that the mov is slow, and confusing, and half the buggers get lost because they didn't read their maps, but at Bde or Div HQ levels
ALL of that can easily be represented through simulation, if you agree that is what you want. The problem, IMHO, is that we don't want to be bothered.
I'm not a fan of the RV series: I lived through them at coy and unit level and other than the monstrous logistics costs involved in cramming the Army into one training area, there was IMHO very, very little training of any sort done at BG and below that couldn't have been done just as well in a CMTC-type environment (or, at least in well funded and supported Level 6 training). The tactical exercises were in particular huge wasters of training time, in an Army that never has enough time. Having a company sit in a hide on 10 min NTM for eight hours might seem "realistic" to some people, but it's a waste that teaches very little.
There may have been value at formation level in those RV exercises, but again I argue that, for a formation HQ, the great majority of this can be better achieved by well designed and intelligently run simulation, that is actually designed to challenge the training audience and break them, not to just go through a MEL and then say "aren't we great".
I still think that a large amount of the hostility toward simulation is based on confusing "what is" (or "what was") with "what should be" (or "what could be"). If you use a system poorly, or use it for what it isn't intended to do, you will get poor results. I'm not sure that we've really been using what we've got to the best potential.
Cheers