IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/navres/v42y1995i3p397-418.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficient concentration of forces, or how to fight outnumbered and win

Author

Listed:
  • David L. Bitters

Abstract

The dramatic outcome of Operation Desert Storm has caused a paradigm shift in military thinking. Traditionally the overriding factor in combat operations has been mission accomplishment, but doctrinal developers now include additional criteria. Though there are many ways to conduct a campaign to assure a military victory, some are costlier than others in terms of casualties. Current thinking requires that the commander have the goal of mission accomplishment with minimum loss of friendly forces. This article explores the principle of efficient force concentration as a means of minimizing losses while defeating an enemy force, particularly one that is numerically superior. It looks at several attrition mechanisms and considers conditions under which theory suggests defeat of a larger force is and is not possible. It also investigates properties of a measure of effectiveness called force elasticity and argues that this is the proper benchmark for comparing the relative effectiveness of combatants. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • David L. Bitters, 1995. "Efficient concentration of forces, or how to fight outnumbered and win," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 397-418, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:42:y:1995:i:3:p:397-418
    DOI: 10.1002/1520-6750(199504)42:33.0.CO;2-Q
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6750(199504)42:33.0.CO;2-Q
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/1520-6750(199504)42:33.0.CO;2-Q?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. James G. Taylor & Gerald G. Brown, 1983. "Annihilation Prediction for Lanchester-Type Models of Modern Warfare," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 752-771, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Ralph E. Bach & Ladislav Dolanský & Harold L. Stubbs, 1962. "Some Recent Contributions to the Lanchester Theory of Combat," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 314-326, June.
    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. G C McIntosh & M K Lauren, 2008. "Incorporating fractal concepts into equations of attrition for military conflicts," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(5), pages 703-713, May.

    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. González, Eduardo & Villena, Marcelo, 2011. "Spatial Lanchester models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(3), pages 706-715, May.
    2. Ian R. Johnson & Niall J. MacKay, 2011. "Lanchester models and the battle of Britain," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 210-222, April.
    3. Patrick S. Chen & Peter Chu, 2001. "Applying Lanchester's linear law to model the Ardennes campaign," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(8), pages 653-661, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Kjell Hausken & John F. Moxnes, 2005. "Approximations and empirics for stochastic war equations," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(7), pages 682-700, October.
    6. Michael J. Armstrong & Steven E. Sodergren, 2015. "Refighting Pickett's Charge: Mathematical Modeling of the Civil War Battlefield," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1153-1168, December.
    7. Shahrooz Parkhideh & A. V. Gafarian, 1996. "General solution to many‐on‐many heterogeneous stochastic combat," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(7), pages 937-953, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Moshe Kress, 2020. "Lanchester Models for Irregular Warfare," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-14, May.
    10. David Connors & Michael J. Armstrong & John Bonnett, 2015. "A Counterfactual Study of the Charge of the Light Brigade," Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(2), pages 80-89, June.
    11. M.P. Wiper & L.I. Pettit & K.D.S. Young, 2000. "Bayesian inference for a Lanchester type combat model," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(7), pages 541-558, October.
    12. Wayne P. Hughes, 1995. "A salvo model of warships in missile combat used to evaluate their staying power," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 267-289, March.
    13. Stephen Biddle & Stephen Long, 2004. "Democracy and Military Effectiveness," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(4), pages 525-546, August.
    14. N. K. Jaiswal & Meena Kumari & B. S. Nagabhushana, 1995. "Optimal force mix in heterogeneous combat," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(6), pages 873-887, September.
    15. Chad W. Seagren & Donald P. Gaver & Patricia A. Jacobs, 2019. "A stochastic air combat logistics decision model for Blue versus Red opposition," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(8), pages 663-674, December.
    16. Israel David, 1995. "Lanchester modeling and the biblical account of the battles of gibeah," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(4), pages 579-584, June.
    17. J. Yang & A. V. Gafarian, 1995. "A fast approximation of homogeneous stochastic combat," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 503-533, April.
    18. John Richard Scales, 1995. "A modified lanchester linear process calibrated to historical data," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 491-501, April.
    19. Hausken, Kjell & Moxnes, John F., 2002. "Stochastic conditional and unconditional warfare," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 61-87, July.
    20. G T Kaup & D J Kaup & N M Finkelstein, 2005. "The Lanchester (n, 1) problem," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(12), pages 1399-1407, December.

    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:397-418. 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.