IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/navres/v42y1995i3p311-343.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A proposed foundation for a theory of combat

Author

Listed:
  • C. J. Ancker

Abstract

Physical phenomena and the structure of corresponding theories are used as a guide to examine the nature of combat and combat theory. The status of combat theory with special emphasis on modeling is scrutinized and found to be seriously deficient. We assert that present knowledge and experience show two statements are worthy of consideration as basic axioms in a theory of combat. The direction of future research is discussed. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • C. J. Ancker, 1995. "A proposed foundation for a theory of combat," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 311-343, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:42:y:1995:i:3:p:311-343
    DOI: 10.1002/nav.3220420303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3220420303
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/nav.3220420303?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franklin C. Brooks, 1965. "The Stochastic Properties of Large Battle Models," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, February.
    2. C. J. Ancker & A. V. Gafarian, 1988. "Erratum. The validity of assumptions underlying current uses of lanchester attrition rates," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 534-534, October.
    3. C. Bernard Barfoot, 1989. "Continuous‐time markov duels: Theory and application," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 243-253, June.
    4. Joseph J. Schoderbek, 1962. "Some Weapon System Survival Probability Models---I. Fixed Time Between Firings," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 155-167, April.
    5. Joseph J. Schoderbek, 1962. "Some Weapon System Survival Probability Models---II. Random Time Between Firings," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 168-179, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael J. Armstrong, 2005. "A Stochastic Salvo Model for Naval Surface Combat," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(5), pages 830-841, October.
    2. Michael J. Armstrong, 2004. "Effects of lethality in naval combat models," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 28-43, February.
    3. Chen, Lei & Kou, Yingxin & Li, Zhanwu & Xu, An & Wu, Cheng, 2018. "Empirical research on complex networks modeling of combat SoS based on data from real war-game, Part I: Statistical characteristics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 490(C), pages 754-773.
    4. N E Ozdemirel & L Kandiller, 2006. "Semi-dynamic modelling of heterogeneous land combat," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(1), pages 38-51, January.
    5. Ken R. McNaught, 2002. "Markovian models of three‐on‐one combat involving a hidden defender," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(7), pages 627-646, October.
    6. Gregory Levitin & Kjell Hausken, 2012. "Resource Distribution in Multiple Attacks with Imperfect Detection of the Attack Outcome," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(2), pages 304-318, February.
    7. Hausken, Kjell & Moxnes, John F., 2002. "Stochastic conditional and unconditional warfare," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 61-87, July.
    8. Thomas W. Lucas & John E. McGunnigle, 2003. "When is model complexity too much? Illustrating the benefits of simple models with Hughes' salvo equations," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 197-217, April.
    9. Hausken, Kjell, 2024. "Fifty Years of Operations Research in Defense," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 318(2), pages 355-368.
    10. Gregory Levitin & Kjell Hausken, 2010. "Resource Distribution in Multiple Attacks Against a Single Target," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1231-1239, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. A. V. Gafarian & K. R. Manion, 1989. "Some two‐on‐two homogeneous stochastic combats," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 721-764, December.
    2. Ken R. McNaught, 2002. "Markovian models of three‐on‐one combat involving a hidden defender," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(7), pages 627-646, October.
    3. C. J. Ancker & A. V. Gafarian, 1987. "The validity of assumptions underlying current uses of Lanchester attrition rates," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 505-533, August.
    4. Younglak Shim & Michael P. Atkinson, 2018. "Analysis of artillery shoot‐and‐scoot tactics," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(3), pages 242-274, April.
    5. Donald Barr & Maurice Weir & James Hoffman, 1993. "An indicator of combat success," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 755-768, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:42:y:1995:i:3:p:311-343. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6750 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.