Targeting, Deployment, and Loss-Tolerance in Lanchester Engagements.

Incorporating Imperfect Targeting, Deployment Restrictions, and Morale into Combat Models Military forces engaged in a battle of attrition have classically been described by Lanchester equations. Existing Lanchester combat models focus on two force parameters: numbers (force size) and per-capita effectiveness (attrition rate). Whereas these two parameters are central in projecting a battle's outcome, there are other important factors that affect the battlefield: (1) targeting capability, that is, the capacity to identify live enemy units and not dissipate fire on nontargets; (2) tactical restrictions preventing full deployment of forces; and (3) morale and tolerance of losses, that is, the capacity to endure casualties. M. P. Atkinson, M. Kress, and N. J. MacKay incorporate these three factors into Lanchester models in "Targeting, Deployment, and Loss-Tolerance in Lanchester Engagements" and derive force-parity equations for various combinations of these factors and obtain general implications and trade-offs. The paper shows that more units and better weapons (higher attrition rate) are preferred over improved targeting capability and relaxed deployment restrictions, unless these are poor. Existing Lanchester combat models focus on two force parameters: numbers (force size) and per-capita effectiveness (attrition rate). Whereas these two parameters are central in projecting a battle's outcome, there are other important factors that affect the battlefield: (1) targeting capability, that is, the capacity to identify live enemy units and not dissipate fire on nontargets; (2) tactical restrictions preventing full deployment of forces; and (3) morale and tolerance of losses, that is, the capacity to endure casualties. In the spirit of Lanchester theory, we derive, for the first time, force-parity equations for various combinations of these effects and obtain general implications and trade-offs. We show that more units and better weapons (higher attrition rate) are preferred over improved targeting capability and relaxed deployment restrictions unless these are poor. However, when facing aimed fire and unable to deploy more than half of one's force, it is better to be able to deploy more existing units than to have either additional reserve units or the same increase in attrition effectiveness. Likewise, more relaxed deployment constraints are preferred over enhanced loss-tolerance when initial reserves are greater than the force level at which withdrawal occurs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]