IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/navres/v65y2018i3p242-274.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of artillery shoot‐and‐scoot tactics

Author

Listed:
  • Younglak Shim
  • Michael P. Atkinson

Abstract

Firing multiple artillery rounds from the same location has two main benefits: a high rate of fire at the enemy and improved accuracy as the shooter's aim adjusts to previous rounds. However, firing repeatedly from the same location carries significant risk that the enemy will detect the artillery's location. Therefore, the shooter may periodically move locations to avoid counter‐battery fire. This maneuver is known as the shoot‐and‐scoot tactic. This article analyzes the shoot‐and‐scoot tactic for a time‐critical mission using Markov models. We compute optimal move policies and develop heuristics for more complex and realistic settings. Spending a reasonable amount of time firing multiple shots from the same location is often preferable to moving immediately after firing an initial salvo. Moving frequently reduces risk to the artillery, but also limits the artillery's ability to inflict damage on the enemy.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:65:y:2018:i:3:p:242-274
    DOI: 10.1002/nav.21803
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.21803
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/nav.21803?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. Cha, Young-Ho & Kim, Yeong-Dae, 2010. "Fire scheduling for planned artillery attack operations under time-dependent destruction probabilities," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 383-392, October.
    2. G. Trevor Williams & C. J. Ancker, 1981. "Stochastic duels with displacements (suppression)," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 519-524, September.
    3. Michael J. Armstrong, 2007. "Effective attacks in the salvo combat model: Salvo sizes and quantities of targets," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 66-77, February.
    4. Jack Nadler & Joan Eilbott, 1971. "Optimal Sequential Aim Corrections for Attacking a Stationary Point Target," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 685-697, June.
    5. Michael J. Armstrong, 2005. "A Stochastic Salvo Model for Naval Surface Combat," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(5), pages 830-841, October.
    6. Davis, Michael T. & Robbins, Matthew J. & Lunday, Brian J., 2017. "Approximate dynamic programming for missile defense interceptor fire control," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 873-886.
    7. Thomas W. Lucas & Turker Turkes, 2004. "Fitting Lanchester equations to the battles of Kursk and Ardennes," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 95-116, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Donald R. Barr & Larry D. Piper, 1972. "A Model for Analyzing Artillery Registration Procedures," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(5), pages 1033-1043, October.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Michael J Armstrong, 2014. "The salvo combat model with a sequential exchange of fire," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 65(10), pages 1593-1601, October.
    13. C. J. Ancker & Trevor Williams, 1965. "Some Discrete Processes in the Theory of Stochastic Duels," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 202-216, April.
    14. Michael J. Armstrong, 2014. "Modeling Short-Range Ballistic Missile Defense and Israel's Iron Dome System," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1028-1039, October.
    15. N. Bhashyam & Naunihal Singh, 1967. "Stochastic Duels with Varying Single-Shot Kill Probabilities," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 233-244, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Michael J. Armstrong, 2013. "The salvo combat model with area fire," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(8), pages 652-660, December.
    2. Michael Armstrong, 2011. "A verification study of the stochastic salvo combat model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 186(1), pages 23-38, June.
    3. Michael J. Armstrong, 2007. "Effective attacks in the salvo combat model: Salvo sizes and quantities of targets," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 66-77, February.
    4. Anelí Bongers & José L. Torres, 2017. "Revisiting the Battle of Midway: A counterfactual analysis," Working Papers 2017-01, Universidad de Málaga, Department of Economic Theory, Málaga Economic Theory Research Center.
    5. Michael J. Armstrong, 2014. "Modeling Short-Range Ballistic Missile Defense and Israel's Iron Dome System," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1028-1039, October.
    6. Kolebaje, Olusola & Popoola, Oyebola & Khan, Muhammad Altaf & Oyewande, Oluwole, 2020. "An epidemiological approach to insurgent population modeling with the Atangana–Baleanu fractional derivative," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    7. Michael J. Armstrong, 2005. "A Stochastic Salvo Model for Naval Surface Combat," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(5), pages 830-841, October.
    8. Donghyun Kim & Hyungil Moon & Donghyun Park & Hayong Shin, 2017. "An efficient approximate solution for stochastic Lanchester models," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(11), pages 1470-1481, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Liu, Liwei & Yu, Jun & Guo, Zhi, 2006. "A kind of stochastic duel model for guerrilla war," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(2), pages 430-438, June.
    11. Anelí Bongers & José L. Torres, 2021. "A bottleneck combat model: an application to the Battle of Thermopylae," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 2859-2877, December.
    12. Chen Wang & Vicki M. Bier, 2016. "Quantifying Adversary Capabilities to Inform Defensive Resource Allocation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 756-775, April.
    13. K. Wand & S. Humble & R. J. T. Wilson, 1993. "Explicit modeling of detection within a stochastic duel," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 431-450, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Gülpınar, Nalan & Çanakoğlu, Ethem & Branke, Juergen, 2018. "Heuristics for the stochastic dynamic task-resource allocation problem with retry opportunities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(1), pages 291-303.
    16. Ahmet Silav & Esra Karasakal & Orhan Karasakal, 2022. "Bi-objective dynamic weapon-target assignment problem with stability measure," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 311(2), pages 1229-1247, April.
    17. Gerardo Minguela-Castro & Ruben Heradio & Carlos Cerrada, 2021. "Automated Support for Battle Operational–Strategic Decision-Making," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(13), pages 1-15, June.
    18. Claire Walton & Panos Lambrianides & Isaac Kaminer & Johannes Royset & Qi Gong, 2018. "Optimal motion planning in rapid‐fire combat situations with attacker uncertainty," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(2), pages 101-119, March.
    19. Shawn C. McKay & Alok Chaturvedi & Douglas E. Adams, 2011. "A process for anticipating and shaping adversarial behavior," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 255-280, April.
    20. Hughes, Michael S. & Lunday, Brian J., 2022. "The Weapon Target Assignment Problem: Rational Inference of Adversary Target Utility Valuations from Observed Solutions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    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:65:y:2018:i:3:p:242-274. 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.