Value and Methods of Measuring Combat Effectiveness: a New Approach
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Value and Methods of Measuring Combat Effectiveness: A New Approach Wang Jiesheng Sun Yat-sen University Sun Weipu ( [email protected] ) Nankai University Research Article Keywords: Combat effectiveness, combat effectiveness coecient, analysis-simulation software of combat effectiveness Posted Date: April 12th, 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-408649/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Value and Methods of Measuring Combat Effectiveness: A New Approach WANG JIESHENG SUN WEIPU⃰ ABSTRACT The lack of effective methods to measure the combat effectiveness of an army deters military mathematical models and military simulation software from realizing their full potential. In this paper, we use Galilean idealization and domain theory to suggest solutions and propose an appropriate mathematical method to reach universally applicable results. We introduce the International System of Units (SI) to measure combat effectiveness without relying on subjective assumptions regarding parameters. Our method requires only spatial and temporal data to calculate combat effectiveness by evaluating the extent of territorial changes (outcome) within a given time period (time). Moreover, we measure influencing factors of combat effectiveness, based on the ratio of combat effectiveness. We discuss the practical value and applicability of this method in the development of the analysis-simulation software of combat effectiveness. Keywords Combat effectiveness; combat effectiveness coefficient; analysis-simulation software of combat effectiveness INTRODUCTION The analysis-simulation software of combat effectiveness(an electronic simulation system which analyzes the enemy's strategic intentions and combat capabilities, and tests the effectiveness of various corresponding defensive countermeasures) entails a system of calculations based on military mathematical models programmed into a computer.1 The incorporation of military mathematical models in History is lacking, because quantitative research has not been particularly developed as a method of History. Even more so, mathematical modelling in the military sector suffers from an inherent flaw that undermines its reliability: models usually rely on subjective data.2 The well-known Lanchester model is a telling example. The measured data available for this model is only the number of combatants, which reduces its ⃰ First Author: Jiesheng Wang (Department of Philosophy, Sun Yat-sen University; Guangzhou, China). Corresponding author: Weipu Sun (Dapartment of History, Nankai University, Tianjin, China); contact details:15585835050;[email protected]. 1 Andreas Tolk. Engineering Principles of Combat Modeling and Distributed Simulation. (John Wiley & Sons Inc. Hoboken,2012). 2 J. S. Przemienieeki. Mathematical methods in Defense Analyses (3rd edition). (The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc. Reston,2000); D.A.Novikov. Hierarchical Models of Warfare. Automation and Remote Control74.10, 1733-1752 (2013). 1 explanatory value to the effect that it can only be applied under the strict condition that the outcome of war is determined only by the number of soldiers.3 In 1985, Joshua Epstein challenged the actual value of the Lanchester model and proposed an alternative model. However, although his model included many real-world combat parameters (such as the marginal utility of additional soldiers or social tolerance to military and civilian casualties), none of them is measurable and can only be hypothesised.4 As Nigel Perry of the Australian Department of Defense notes, the inability to measure parameters is a common shortcoming of all current combat models, including the Lanchester model.5 Undoubtedly, measurement is the basis of modeling and programming. Therefore, it is of great value for military experts and scholars to be able to work with an effective method to measure the combat effectiveness of an army, especially in times when governments and Defense Departments show a growing interest in the development of mathematical modeling and military simulation software. In the past researchers usually considered the following factors to measure combat effectiveness: army size, physical and mental prowess of troops, the prestige and tactical knowledge of military commanders, the quality of arsenal and tactical aptness in using weaponry, logistics, intelligence, medical care, knowledge of topography, and others. However, measuring such concepts with high accuracy can be next to impossible. It is the synergy of many contributing factors that determines combat effectiveness, and researchers cannot eliminate perceptual, perhaps non-measurable elements. For example, in our experience, researchers can provide detailed data on specifics and performance of weapons systems, such as those included in the reports presented in Jane's Defense Weekly, but it is impossible to use reliable quantitative criteria to evaluate the actual skills of military personnel in using those systems, or the cumulative effect of weaponry efficiency and tactical efficiency. As another example, the Lanchester model only considers numerical changes in forces deployed, but army size must be complemented with tactical skills and troop morale to estimate the combat effectiveness of an army. Arguably, we need to change the way we measure combat effectiveness to account for the nuances and factors discussed above. The main purpose and value of this article is to contribute towards a solution to this shortcoming in military quantification by creating a simple, effective, and universally applicable method to measure combat effectiveness. This paper is the first among a series of publications, essentially the outcome of a grand research project that brings together History, Politics, and the military sector. The aim is to work towards resolving the inability of current military mathematical models and the analysis-simulation software of combat effectiveness to produce reliable results because of the lack of actual data. 3 Dolansky Ladislav. Present State of the Lanchester Theory of Combat. Operations Research12.2, 345 (1964). 4 Joshua M.Epstein. The Calculus of Conventional War: Dynamic Analysis without Lanchester Theory. (Brookings Institution Press,Washington,DC ,1985). 5 Nigel Perry. Fractal Effects in Lanchester Models of Combat. Australian Joint Operations Division Defense Science and Technology Organization Report,2009),20; available at https://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000032543464210_151e.html. 2 METHOD One of the characteristics of the Galilean idealization paradigm is the new focus on 6 the mathematization of representation rather than perception, just like researchers after the 17th century, who for example used the formula mg to express weight (the sense of physical strain in lifting objects) and ma for force (the sense of physical effort in moving an object).7 In contrast, the factors which previous researchers used to measure combat effectiveness (presented in the previous section) are more similar to "the sense of muscular effort in moving something" (perceived) than "ma" (representation). Hence, we need to find the representation of combat effectiveness and use it as our measurement basis. The theory of territorial behavior argues that the essence of territory is the physical space that ought to be defended and it asserts that armed conflict will occur if unauthorized external forces cross the boundary.8 Combat is, in other words, an invasion of territory by armed forces of another state or political entity, or a counterattack to ward off such an invasion; by implication, combat effectiveness is the measure of the ability to invade and counterattack, or to alter and maintain territorial boundaries, and a measure of the overall success of the operation. Changes in territorial boundaries are the very outcome of an armed conflict and can be used to measure combat effectiveness. Despite the inherent difficulties in measuring territorial change with great accuracy, we begin with the following formula or measurement of combat effectiveness: S F t where F is the combat effectiveness relative to the enemy; ΔS represents changes in territorial control; and t expresses the time required to alter boundaries and complete occupation. The formula can measure average combat effectiveness within a certain period. To calculate instantaneous combat effectiveness, we need to adjust the formula as follows: dS F dt Spatial changes are measured in square meters and time in years, expressed as sqm and t respectively. Thus, the basic unit of measuring combat effectiveness is square meters/year, expressed as sqm/a. CASE STUDIES In this section we use four examples to showcase the use and application of the proposed method. The first two examples show its applicability in historical wars, whereas the last two exhibit how this method can measure the influencing factors of 6 Dominique Dubarle, “Galileo's Methodology of Natural Science”, in Ernan Mcmullin (ed.), Galileo: Man of Science (The Scholar’s Bookshelf, Cranbury,1988), 300. 7 A. Rupert Hall, From Galileo to Newton (Dover Publications, Inc,New York,1981), 85. 8 Desmond Morris, People Watching: the Guide to Body Language (Vintage Publications, London,2002), 187. 3 combat effectiveness. The selected examples aim to capture data and explain actual conditions in different regions and eras, and thus show the potential for universal applicability of this method. The measurements and calculations