FM-3-09 Fire Support and Field Artillery Operations Download
Page 76 of 256
Chapter 3 3-30 FM 3-09 30 April 2020 Table 3-9. Analysis of course of action (wargame) (continued) MDMP STEP 4: COURSE OF ACTION ANALYSIS AND WARGAMING Staff Actions Key FSE Actions FSE Output Identify decision points, named areas of interest, decisive terrain and additional critical events and how these may influence positioning or posturing of FS assets. Identify high-value targets, high-payoff targets, the FS portion of event templates, and develop a draft high- payoff target list, target selection standards and attack guidance matrix. Integrate information operations and CEMA into these targeting products. Provide recommendations for the commander’s attack guidance. Actively participate in all phases of wargaming. CEMA cyberspace electromagnetic activities COA course of action FS fire support FSCM fire support coordination measure FSE fire support element G-2 assistant chief of staff, intelligence MDMP military decision-making process COURSE OF ACTION COMPARISON 3-72. During COA comparison (see table 3-10), the corps/division staff compares feasible courses of action to identify the one with the highest probability of success against the most likely enemy COA and the most dangerous enemy COA. The staff evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of each COA and presents their findings. The staff outlines each COA in terms of the evaluation criteria established before war gaming and identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each with respect to the others. The FS staff records this analysis in paragraph three of the FS running estimate. 3-73. After the analysis, the G-3, G-2, and the FSCOORD compares strengths and weaknesses, highlights advantages and disadvantages from the perspective of the fires warfighting function and other warfighting functions. The staff assess risks and determine which COA promises to be most successful.