Significant efforts are underway at the higher echelons of Army to understand and adapt to contemporary conflict. This must be complemented by tactical level thinking that tests extant techniques, procedures and drills to ensure that the intellectual component of our force makes complimentary leaps with advances in technology, domains, and threats. Doing so supports doctrine development, shapes contemporary exercise design, and validates future operational level planning efforts.

Consequently, this PME package is designed to create an environment in which individuals and small team can:

1.         Hypothesise useful technology and tactics that could assist in short-term design for battle arrangements, shape cost-effective research and development efforts, and influence procurement and implementation lines from the bottom up.

2.         Challenge the current psychological, moral, and ethical depth and difficulty of our training scenarios at all levels, by articulating potential adversary tactics and an operating environment that can severely undermine our preparations and conduct of battle.

3.         Provide Units and Sub-Units with supporting concepts, tactics, QDEs and discussion tools that are useful in unit and sub-unit combined arms training serials.

Recommended approach:

Read the Introduction and ORBAT:

Watch the following video and follow along with the 'Battle 2029 - Scenario Part 1' and Maps 1 and 2

(The video provides a brief narration of the first three scenes of Battle 2029 - Scenario Part 1) 


Complete the QDE and group discussion activities as desired using Maps 3 to 6 as required:

Read the remainder of the 'Battle 2029 - Scenario Part 2' using Maps 7 to 9 as required:


Once you have completed the QDEs, it might be interesting to compare your solutions with the example below. How did you approach the problem? Is the thinking within your small group similar or is there significant diversity of thinking when tackling the QDE? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this?


Battle 2029 was designed to provide multiple angles to challenge our extant doctrine and training while also demonstrating revised learning and instructional mediums available to our training institutions and units. The force models and tactics deliberately avoided gold-plated solutions set in the distant future. Consequently, success for this submission involves debate from the Army's collective mind concerning the evolution of tactics, force structure and intensity of training within a given campaign. My thanks to the Cove team for their support.