A paratrooper from the French Foreign Legion (1er REP) with a captured fellagha during the Algerian War (1954-1962). [Via Pinterest]
Today’s edition of TDI Friday Read is a compilation of posts addressing the question of manpower and counterinsurgency. The first four posts summarize research on the question undertaken during the first decade of the 21st century, while the Afghan and Iraqi insurgencies were in full bloom. Despite different research questions and analytical methodologies, each of the studies concluded that there is a relationship between counterinsurgent manpower and counterinsurgency outcomes.
The fifth post addresses the U.S. Army’s lack of a formal methodology for calculating manpower requirements for counterinsurgencies and contingency operations.
A Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle-Dragoon fires 30 mm rounds during a live-fire demonstration at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., Aug. 16, 2017. Soldiers with 2nd Cavalry Regiment spent six weeks at Aberdeen testing and training on the new Stryker vehicle and a remote Javelin system, which are expected to head to Germany early next year for additional user testing. (Photo Credit: Sean Kimmons)
In 2001, The Dupuy Institute conducted a study for the U.S. Army Center for Army Analysis (CAA) on the historical effectiveness of lighter-weight armored forces. At the time, the Army had developed a requirement for an Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV), lighter and more deployable than existing M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank and the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, to form the backbone of the future “Objective Force.” This program would result in development of the Stryker Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
CAA initiated the TDI study at the request of Walter W. “Don” Hollis, then the Deputy Undersecretary of the Army for Operations Research (a position that was eliminated in 2006.) TDI completed and submitted “The Historical Combat Effectiveness of Lighter-Weight Armored Forces” to CAA in August 2001. It examined the effectiveness of light and medium-weight armored forces in six scenarios:
Conventional conflicts against an armor supported or armor heavy force.
Emergency insertions against an armor supported or armor heavy force.
Conventional conflict against a primarily infantry force (as one might encounter in sub-Saharan Africa).
Emergency insertion against a primarily infantry force.
A small to medium insurgency (includes an insurgency that develops during a peacekeeping operation).
A peacekeeping operation or similar Operation Other Than War (OOTW) that has some potential for violence.
The historical data the study drew upon came from 146 cases of small-scale contingency operations; U.S. involvement in Vietnam; German counterinsurgency operations in the Balkans, 1941-1945; the Philippines Campaign, 1941-42; the Normandy Campaign, 1944; the Korean War 1950-51; the Persian Gulf War, 1990-91; and U.S. and European experiences with light and medium-weight armor in World War II.
The major conclusions of the study were:
Small Scale Contingency Operations (SSCOs)
Implications for the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) Family of Vehicles. It would appear that existing systems (M-2 and M-3 Bradley and M-113) can fulfill most requirements. Current plans to develop an advanced LAV-type vehicle may cover almost all other shortfalls. Mine protection is a design feature that should be emphasized.
Implications for the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT). The need for armor in SSCOs that are not conventional or closely conventional in nature is limited and rarely approaches the requirements of a brigade-size armored force.
Insurgencies
Implications for the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) Family of Vehicles. It would appear that existing systems (M-2 and M-3 Bradley and M-113) can fulfill most requirements. The armor threat in insurgencies is very limited until the later stages if the conflict transitions to conventional war. In either case, mine protection is a design feature that may be critical.
Implications for the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT). It is the nature of insurgencies that rapid deployment of armor is not essential. The armor threat in insurgencies is very limited until the later stages if the conflict transitions to a conventional war and rarely approaches the requirements of a brigade-size armored force.
Conventional Warfare
Conventional Conflict Against An Armor Supported Or Armor Heavy Force
Implications for the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) Family of Vehicles. It may be expected that opposing heavy armor in a conventional armor versus armor engagement could significantly overmatch the IAV. In this case the primary requirement would be for a weapon system that would allow the IAV to defeat the enemy armor before it could engage the IAV.
Implications for the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT). The IBCT could substitute as an armored cavalry force in such a scenario.
Conventional Conflict Against A Primarily Infantry Force
Implications for the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) Family of Vehicles. This appears to be little different from those conclusions found for the use of armor in SSCOs and Insurgencies.
Implications for the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT). The lack of a major armor threat will make the presence of armor useful.
Emergency Insertion Against An Armor Supported Or Armor Heavy Force
Implications for the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) Family of Vehicles. It appears that the IAV may be of great use in an emergency insertion. However, the caveat regarding the threat of being overmatched by conventional heavy armor mentioned above should not be ignored. In this case the primary requirement would be for a weapon system that would allow the IAV to defeat the enemy armor before it could engage the IAV.
Implications for the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT). Although the theoretical utility of the IBCT in this scenario may be great it should be noted that The Dupuy Institute was only able to find one comparable case of such a deployment which resulted in actual conflict in US military history in the last 60 years (Korea, 1950). In this case the effect of pushing forward light tanks into the face of heavier enemy tanks was marginal.
Emergency Insertion Against A Primarily Infantry Force
Implications for the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) Family of Vehicles. The lack of a major armor threat in this scenario will make the presence of any armor useful. However, The Dupuy Institute was unable to identify the existence of any such cases in the historical record.
Implications for the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT). The lack of a major armor threat will make the presence of any armor useful. However, The Dupuy Institute was unable to identify the existence of any such cases in the historical record.
Other Conclusions
Wheeled Vehicles
There is little historical evidence one way or the other establishing whether wheels or tracks are the preferable feature of AFVs.
Vehicle Design
In SSCOs access to a large-caliber main gun was useful for demolishing obstacles and buildings. This capability is not unique and could be replaced by AT missiles armed CFVs, IFVs and APCs.
Any new lighter tank-like vehicle should make its gun system the highest priority, armor secondary and mobility and maneuverability tertiary.
Mine protection should be emphasized. Mines were a major threat to all types of armor in many scenarios. In many SSCOs it was the major cause of armored vehicle losses.
The robust carrying capacity offered by an APC over a tank is an advantage during many SSCOs.
Terrain Issues
The use of armor in urban fighting, even in SSCOs, is still limited. The threat to armor from other armor in urban terrain during SSCOs is almost nonexistent. Most urban warfare armor needs, where armor basically serves as a support weapon, can be met with light armor (CFVs, IFVs, and APCs).
Vehicle weight is sometimes a limiting factor in less developed areas. In all cases where this was a problem, there was not a corresponding armor threat. As such, in almost all cases, the missions and tasks of a tank can be fulfilled with other light armor (CFVs, IFVs, or APCs).
The primary terrain problem is rivers and flooded areas. It would appear that in difficult terrain, especially heavily forested terrain (areas with lots of rainfall, like jungles), a robust river crossing capability is required.
Operational Factors
Emergency insertions and delaying actions sometimes appear to be a good way to lose lots of armor for limited gain. This tends to come about due to terrain problems, enemy infiltration and bypassing, and the general confusion prevalent in such operations. The Army should be careful not to piecemeal assets when inserting valuable armor resources into a ‘hot’ situation. In many cases holding back and massing the armor for defense or counter-attack may be the better option.
Transportability limitations have not been a major factor in the past for determining whether lighter or heavier armor were sent into a SSCO or a combat environment.
Casualty Sensitivity
In a SSCO or insurgency, in most cases the weight and armor of the AFVs is not critical. As such, one would not expect any significant changes in losses regardless of the type of AFV used (MBT, medium-weight armor, or light armor). However, the perception that US forces are not equipped with the best-protected vehicle may cause some domestic political problems. The US government is very casualty sensitive during SSCOs. Furthermore, the current US main battle tank particularly impressive, and may help provide some additional intimidation in SSCOs.
In any emergency insertion scenario or conventional war scenario, the use of lighter armor could result in higher US casualties and lesser combat effectiveness. This will certainly cause some domestic political problems and may impact army morale. However by the same token, light infantry forces, unsupported by easily deployable armor could present a worse situation.
The Army also plans to field the new vehicle quickly. It is dispensing with the usual two-to-three year technology development phase, and will ask for delivery of the first sample vehicles by April 2018, one month after the RFP phase is scheduled to end. This will invariably favor proposals using existing off-the-shelf vehicle designs and “mature technology.”
The Army apparently will also accept RFPs with turret-mounted 105mm main guns, at least initially. According to previous MFP parameters, acceptable designs will eventually need to be able to accommodate 120mm guns.
I have observed in the past that the MPF is the result of the Army’s concerns that its light infantry may be deprived of direct fire support on anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) battlefields. Track-mounted, large caliber direct fire guns dedicated to infantry support are something of a doctrinal throwback to the assault guns of World War II, however.
There was a noted tendency during World War II to use anything on the battlefield that resembled a tank as a main battle tank, with unhappy results for the not-main battle tanks. As a consequence, assault guns, tank destroyers, and light tanks became evolutionary dead-ends in the development of post-World War II armored doctrine (the late M551 Sheridan, retired without replacement in 1996, notwithstanding). [For more on the historical background, see The Dupuy Institute, “The Historical Effectiveness of Lighter-Weight Armored Forces,” August 2001.]
The Army has been reluctant to refer to MPF as a light tank, but as David Dopp, the MPF Program Manager admitted, “I don’t want to say it’s a light tank, but it’s kind of like a light tank.” He went on to say that “It’s not going toe to toe with a tank…It’s for the infantry. It goes where the infantry goes — it breaks through bunkers, it works through targets that the infantry can’t get through.”
Major General David Bassett, program executive officer for the Army’s Ground Combat Systems concurred. It will be a tracked vehicle with substantial armor protection, Bassett said, “but certainly not what you’d see on a main battle tank.”
It will be interesting to see what the RFPs have to offer.
Soldiers from Britain’s Royal Artillery train in a “virtual world” during Exercise Steel Sabre, 2015 [Sgt Si Longworth RLC (Phot)/MOD]
Military History and Validation of Combat Models
A Presentation at MORS Mini-Symposium on Validation, 16 Oct 1990
By Trevor N. Dupuy
In the operations research community there is some confusion as to the respective meanings of the words “validation” and “verification.” My definition of validation is as follows:
“To confirm or prove that the output or outputs of a model are consistent with the real-world functioning or operation of the process, procedure, or activity which the model is intended to represent or replicate.”
In this paper the word “validation” with respect to combat models is assumed to mean assurance that a model realistically and reliably represents the real world of combat. Or, in other words, given a set of inputs which reflect the anticipated forces and weapons in a combat encounter between two opponents under a given set of circumstances, the model is validated if we can demonstrate that its outputs are likely to represent what would actually happen in a real-world encounter between these forces under those circumstances
Thus, in this paper, the word “validation” has nothing to do with the correctness of computer code, or the apparent internal consistency or logic of relationships of model components, or with the soundness of the mathematical relationships or algorithms, or with satisfying the military judgment or experience of one individual.
True validation of combat models is not possible without testing them against modern historical combat experience. And so, in my opinion, a model is validated only when it will consistently replicate a number of military history battle outcomes in terms of: (a) Success-failure; (b) Attrition rates; and (c) Advance rates.
“Why,” you may ask, “use imprecise, doubtful, and outdated history to validate a modem, scientific process? Field tests, experiments, and field exercises can provide data that is often instrumented, and certainly more reliable than any historical data.”
I recognize that military history is imprecise; it is only an approximate, often biased and/or distorted, and frequently inconsistent reflection of what actually happened on historical battlefields. Records are contradictory. I also recognize that there is an element of chance or randomness in human combat which can produce different results in otherwise apparently identical circumstances. I further recognize that history is retrospective, telling us only what has happened in the past. It cannot predict, if only because combat in the future will be fought with different weapons and equipment than were used in historical combat.
Despite these undoubted problems, military history provides more, and more accurate information about the real world of combat, and how human beings behave and perform under varying circumstances of combat, than is possible to derive or compile from arty other source. Despite some discrepancies, patterns are unmistakable and consistent. There is always a logical explanation for any individual deviations from the patterns. Historical examples that are inconsistent, or that are counter-intuitive, must be viewed with suspicion as possibly being poor or false history.
Of course absolute prediction of a future event is practically impossible, although not necessarily so theoretically. Any speculations which we make from tests or experiments must have some basis in terms of projections from past experience.
Training or demonstration exercises, proving ground tests, field experiments, all lack the one most pervasive and most important component of combat: Fear in a lethal environment. There is no way in peacetime, or non-battlefield, exercises, test, or experiments to be sure that the results are consistent with what would have been the behavior or performance of individuals or units or formations facing hostile firepower on a real battlefield.
We know from the writings of the ancients (for instance Sun Tze—pronounced Sun Dzuh—and Thucydides) that have survived to this day that human nature has not changed since the dawn of history. The human factor the way in which humans respond to stimuli or circumstances is the most important basis for speculation and prediction. What about the “scientific” approach of those who insist that we cart have no confidence in the accuracy or reliability of historical data, that it is therefore unscientific, and therefore that it should be ignored? These people insist that only “scientific” data should be used in modeling.
In fact, every model is based upon fundamental assumptions that are intuitive and unprovable. The first step in the creation of a model is a step away from scientific reality in seeking a basis for an unreal representation of a real phenomenon. I have shown that the unreality is perpetuated when we use other imitations of reality as the basis for representing reality. History is less than perfect, but to ignore it, and to use only data that is bound to be wrong, assures that we will not be able to represent human behavior in real combat.
At the risk of repetition, and even of protesting too much, let me assure you that I am well aware of the shortcomings of military history:
The record which is available to us, which is history, only approximately reflects what actually happened. It is incomplete. It is often biased, it is often distorted. Even when it is accurate, it may be reflecting chance rather than normal processes. It is neither precise nor consistent. But, it provides more, and more accurate, information on the real world of battle than is available from the most thoroughly documented field exercises, proving ground less, or laboratory or field experiments.
Military history is imperfect. At best it reflects the actions and interactions of unpredictable human beings. We must always realize that a single historical example can be misleading for either of two reasons: (1) The data may be inaccurate, or (2) The data may be accurate, but untypical.
Nevertheless, history is indispensable. I repeat that the most pervasive characteristic of combat is fear in a lethal environment. For all of its imperfections, military history and only military history represents what happens under the environmental condition of fear.
Unfortunately, and somewhat unfairly, the reported findings of S.L.A. Marshall about human behavior in combat, which he reported in Men Against Fire, have been recently discounted by revisionist historians who assert that he never could have physically performed the research on which the book’s findings were supposedly based. This has raised doubts about Marshall’s assertion that 85% of infantry soldiers didn’t fire their weapons in combat in World War ll. That dramatic and surprising assertion was first challenged in a New Zealand study which found, on the basis of painstaking interviews, that most New Zealanders fired their weapons in combat. Thus, either Americans were different from New Zealanders, or Marshall was wrong. And now American historians have demonstrated that Marshall had had neither the time nor the opportunity to conduct his battlefield interviews which he claimed were the basis for his findings.
I knew Marshall, moderately well. I was fully as aware of his weaknesses as of his strengths. He was not a historian. I deplored the imprecision and lack of documentation in Men Against Fire. But the revisionist historians have underestimated the shrewd journalistic assessment capability of “SLAM” Marshall. His observations may not have been scientifically precise, but they were generally sound, and his assessment has been shared by many American infantry officers whose judgements l also respect. As to the New Zealand study, how many people will, after the war, admit that they didn’t fire their weapons?
Perhaps most important, however, in judging the assessments of SLAM Marshall, is a recent study by a highly-respected British operations research analyst, David Rowland. Using impeccable OR methods Rowland has demonstrated that Marshall’s assessment of the inefficient performance, or non-performance, of most soldiers in combat was essentially correct. An unclassified version of Rowland’s study, “Assessments of Combat Degradation,” appeared in the June 1986 issue of the Royal United Services Institution Journal.
Rowland was led to his investigations by the fact that soldier performance in field training exercises, using the British version of MILES technology, was not consistent with historical experience. Even after allowances for degradation from theoretical proving ground capability of weapons, defensive rifle fire almost invariably stopped any attack in these field trials. But history showed that attacks were often in fact, usually successful. He therefore began a study in which he made both imaginative and scientific use of historical data from over 100 small unit battles in the Boer War and the two World Wars. He demonstrated that when troops are under fire in actual combat, there is an additional degradation of performance by a factor ranging between 10 and 7. A degradation virtually of an order of magnitude! And this, mind you, on top of a comparable built-in degradation to allow for the difference between field conditions and proving ground conditions.
Not only does Rowland‘s study corroborate SLAM Marshall’s observations, it showed conclusively that field exercises, training competitions and demonstrations, give results so different from real battlefield performance as to render them useless for validation purposes.
Which brings us back to military history. For all of the imprecision, internal contradictions, and inaccuracies inherent in historical data, at worst the deviations are generally far less than a factor of 2.0. This is at least four times more reliable than field test or exercise results.
I do not believe that history can ever repeat itself. The conditions of an event at one time can never be precisely duplicated later. But, bolstered by the Rowland study, I am confident that history paraphrases itself.
If large bodies of historical data are compiled, the patterns are clear and unmistakable, even if slightly fuzzy around the edges. Behavior in accordance with this pattern is therefore typical. As we have already agreed, sometimes behavior can be different from the pattern, but we know that it is untypical, and we can then seek for the reason, which invariably can be discovered.
This permits what l call an actuarial approach to data analysis. We can never predict precisely what will happen under any circumstances. But the actuarial approach, with ample data, provides confidence that the patterns reveal what is to happen under those circumstances, even if the actual results in individual instances vary to some extent from this “norm” (to use the Soviet military historical expression.).
It is relatively easy to take into account the differences in performance resulting from new weapons and equipment. The characteristics of the historical weapons and the current (or projected) weapons can be readily compared, and adjustments made accordingly in the validation procedure.
In the early 1960s an effort was made at SHAPE Headquarters to test the ATLAS Model against World War II data for the German invasion of Western Europe in May, 1940. The first excursion had the Allies ending up on the Rhine River. This was apparently quite reasonable: the Allies substantially outnumbered the Germans, they had more tanks, and their tanks were better. However, despite these Allied advantages, the actual events in 1940 had not matched what ATLAS was now predicting. So the analysts did a little “fine tuning,” (a splendid term for fudging). Alter the so-called adjustments, they tried again, and ran another excursion. This time the model had the Allies ending up in Berlin. The analysts (may the Lord forgive them!) were quite satisfied with the ability of ATLAS to represent modem combat. (Or at least they said so.) Their official conclusion was that the historical example was worthless, since weapons and equipment had changed so much in the preceding 20 years!
As I demonstrated in my book, Options of Command, the problem was that the model was unable to represent the German strategy, or to reflect the relative combat effectiveness of the opponents. The analysts should have reached a different conclusion. ATLAS had failed validation because a model that cannot with reasonable faithfulness and consistency replicate historical combat experience, certainly will be unable validly to reflect current or future combat.
How then, do we account for what l have said about the fuzziness of patterns, and the fact that individual historical examples may not fit the patterns? I will give you my rules of thumb:
The battle outcome should reflect historical success-failure experience about four times out of five.
For attrition rates, the model average of five historical scenarios should be consistent with the historical average within a factor of about 1.5.
For the advance rates, the model average of five historical scenarios should be consistent with the historical average within a factor of about 1.5.
Just as the heavens are the laboratory of the astronomer, so military history is the laboratory of the soldier and the military operations research analyst. The scientific basis for both astronomy and military science is the recording of the movements and relationships of bodies, and then analysis of those movements. (In the one case the bodies are heavenly, in the other they are very terrestrial.)
I repeat: Military history is the laboratory of the soldier. Failure of the analyst to use this laboratory will doom him to live with the scientific equivalent of Ptolomean astronomy, whereas he could use the evidence available in his laboratory to progress to the military science equivalent of Copernican astronomy.
An Israeli tank unit crosses the Sinai, heading for the Suez Canal, during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War [Israeli Government Press Office/HistoryNet]
It has been noted throughout the history of human conflict that some armies have consistently fought more effectively on the battlefield than others. The armies of Sparta in ancient Greece, for example, have come to epitomize the warrior ideal in Western societies. Rome’s legions have acquired a similar legendary reputation. Within armies too, some units are known to be superior combatants than others. The U.S. 1st Infantry Division, the British Expeditionary Force of 1914, Japan’s Special Naval Landing Forces, the U.S. Marine Corps, the German 7th Panzer Division, and the Soviet Guards divisions are among the many superior fighting forces from history.
Trevor Dupuy found empirical substantiation of this in his analysis of historical combat data. He discovered that in 1943-1944 during World War II, after accounting for environmental and operational factors, the German Army consistently performed more effectively in ground combat than the U.S. and British armies. This advantage—measured in terms of casualty exchanges, terrain held or lost, and mission accomplishment—manifested whether the Germans were attacking or defending, or winning or losing. Dupuy observed that the Germans demonstrated an even more marked effectiveness in battle against the Soviet Army throughout the war.
He found the same disparity in battlefield effectiveness in combat data on the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars. The Israeli Army performed uniformly better in ground combat over all of the Arab armies it faced in both conflicts, regardless of posture or outcome.
The clear and consistent patterns in the historical data led Dupuy to conclude that superior combat effectiveness on the battlefield was attributable to moral and behavioral (i.e. human) factors. Those factors he believed were the most important contributors to combat effectiveness were:
Leadership
Training or Experience
Morale, which may or may not include
Cohesion
Although the influence of human factors on combat effectiveness was identifiable and measurable in the aggregate, Dupuy was skeptical whether all of the individual moral and behavioral intangibles could be discreetly quantified. He thought this particularly true for a set of factors that also contributed to combat effectiveness, but were a blend of human and operational factors. These include:
Logistical effectiveness
Time and Space
Momentum
Technical Command, Control, Communications
Intelligence
Initiative
Chance
Dupuy grouped all of these intangibles together into a composite factor he designated as relative combat effectiveness value, or CEV. The CEV, along with environmental and operational factors (Vf), comprise the Circumstantial Variables of Combat, which when multiplied by force strength (S), determines the combat power (P) of a military force in Dupuy’s formulation.
P = S x Vf x CEV
Dupuy did not believe that CEVs were static values. As with human behavior, they vary somewhat from engagement to engagement. He did think that human factors were the most substantial of the combat variables. Therefore any model or theory of combat that failed to account for them would invariably be inaccurate.
One of the basic problems facing military commanders at all levels is deciding how to allocate available forces to accomplish desired objectives. A guiding concept in this sort of decision-making is economy of force, one of the fundamental and enduring principles of war. As defined in the 1954 edition of U.S. Army Field Manual FM 100-5, Field Service Regulations, Operations (which Trevor Dupuy believed contained the best listing of the principles):
Economy of Force
Minimum essential means must be employed at points other than that of decision. To devote means to unnecessary secondary efforts or to employ excessive means on required secondary efforts is to violate the principle of both mass and the objective. Limited attacks, the defensive, deception, or even retrograde action are used in noncritical areas to achieve mass in the critical area.
How do leaders determine the appropriate means for accomplishing a particular mission? The risk of failing to assign too few forces to a critical task is self-evident, but is it possible to allocate too many? Determining the appropriate means in battle has historically involved subjective calculations by commanders and their staff advisors of the relative combat power of friendly and enemy forces. Most often, it entails a rudimentary numerical comparison of numbers of troops and weapons and estimates of the influence of environmental and operational factors. An exemplar of this is the so-called “3-1 rule,” which holds that an attacking force must achieve a three to one superiority in order to defeat a defending force.
Through detailed analysis of combat data from World War II and the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars, Dupuy determined that combat appears subject to a law of diminishing returns and that it is indeed possible to over-allocate forces to a mission.[1] By comparing the theoretical outcomes of combat engagements with the actual results, Dupuy discovered that a force with a combat power advantage greater than double that of its adversary seldom achieved proportionally better results than a 2-1 advantage. A combat power superiority of 3 or 4 to 1 rarely yielded additional benefit when measured in terms of casualty rates, ground gained or lost, and mission accomplishment.
Dupuy also found that attackers sometimes gained marginal benefits from combat power advantages greater than 2-1, though less proportionally and economically than the numbers of forces would suggest. Defenders, however, received no benefit at all from a combat power advantage beyond 2-1.
Two human factors contributed to this apparent force limitation, Dupuy believed, Clausewitzian friction and breakpoints. As described in a previous post, friction accumulates on the battlefield through the innumerable human interactions between soldiers, degrading combat performance. This phenomenon increases as the number of soldiers increases.
A breakpoint represents a change of combat posture by a unit on the battlefield, for example, from attack to defense, or from defense to withdrawal. A voluntary breakpoint occurs due to mission accomplishment or a commander’s order. An involuntary breakpoint happens when a unit spontaneously ceases an attack, withdraws without orders, or breaks and routs. Involuntary breakpoints occur for a variety of reasons (though contrary to popular wisdom, seldom due to casualties). Soldiers are not automatons and will rarely fight to the death.
As Dupuy summarized,
It is obvious that the law of diminishing returns applies to combat. The old military adage that the greater the superiority the better, is not necessarily true. In the interests of economy of force, it appears to be unnecessary, and not really cost-effective, to build up a combat power superiority greater than two-to-one. (Note that this is not the same as a numerical superiority of two-to-one.)[2] Of course, to take advantage of this phenomenon, it is essential that a commander be satisfied that he has a reliable basis for calculating relative combat power. This requires an ability to understand and use “combat multipliers” with greater precision than permitted by U.S. Army doctrine today.[3] [Emphasis added.]
An understanding of the people and culture of the host country is an important aspect of counterinsurgency. Here, 1st Lt. Jeff Harris (center) and Capt. Robert Erdman explain to Sheik Ishmael Kaleel Gomar Al Dulayani what was found in houses belonging to members of his tribe during a cordon and search mission in Hawr Rajab, Baghdad, Nov. 29, 2006. The Soldiers are from Troop A, 1st Squadron, 40th Cavalry Regiment. (Photo Credit: Staff Sgt. Sean A. Foley)
As the United States’ ongoing decade and a half long involvement in Afghanistan remains largely recessed from the public mind, the once-intense debate over counterinsurgency warfare has cooled as well. Interest stirred mildly recently as the Trump administration rejected a proposal to turn the war over to contractors and elected to slightly increase the U.S. troop presence there. The administration’s stated policy does not appear to differ significantly from that that proceeded it.
Fisher and Taub addressed the question of the seeming intractability of the Afghan war. “There is a reason that Afghanistan’s conflict, then and now, so defies solutions,” they wrote. “Its combination of state collapse, civil conflict, ethnic disintegration and multisided intervention has locked it in a self-perpetuating cycle that may be simply beyond outside resolution.”
The article weaves together findings of studies on these topics by Ken Menkhaus; Romain Malejacq; Dipali Mukhopadhyay; and Jason Lyall, Graeme Blair, and Kosuke Imai. Fisher and Taub concluded on the pessimistic note that bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan may be on a generational time scale.
Burke looked at a more specific aspect of counterinsurgency, the relationship between civilian casualties and counterinsurgent success of failure. Separating insurgents from the civilian population is one of the central conundrums of counterinsurgency, referred to as the “identification problem.” Burke noted that the current U.S. military doctrine holds that “excessive civilian casualties will cripple counterinsurgency operations, possibly to the point of failure.” This notion rests on the prevailing assumption that civilians have agency, that they can choose between supporting insurgents or counterinsurgents, and that reducing civilian deaths and “winning hearts and minds” is the path to counterinsurgency success.
Burke surveyed work by Matthew Adam Kocher, Thomas B Pepinsky, and Stathis N. Kalyvas; Luke Condra and Jacob Shapiro; Lyall, Blair and Imai, Christopher Day and William Reno; Lee J.M. Seymour; Paul Staniland; and Fotini Christia. The picture portrayed in this research indicates that there is no clear, direct relationship between civilian casualties and counterinsurgent success. While civilians do hold non-combatant deaths against counterinsurgents, the relevance of blame can depend greatly on whether the losses were inflicted by locals for foreigners. In some cases, counterinsurgent brutality helped them succeed or had little influence on the outcome. In others, decisions made by insurgent leaders had more influence over civilian choices than civilian casualties.
While the collective conclusions of the studies surveyed by Fisher, Taub and Burke proved inconclusive, the results certainly warrant deep reconsideration of the central assumptions underpinning prevailing U.S. political and military thinking about counterinsurgency. The articles and studies cited above provide plenty of food for thought.
Servicemen of the U.S. Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (standing) train Ukrainian National Guard members during a joint military exercise called “Fearless Guardian 2015,” at the International Peacekeeping and Security Center near the western village of Starychy, Ukraine, on May 7, 2015. [Newsweek]
Last week, Wesley Morgan reported in POLITICO about an internal readiness study recently conducted by the U.S. Army 173rd Airborne Infantry Brigade Combat Team. As U.S. European Command’s only airborne unit, the 173rd Airborne Brigade has been participating in exercises in the Baltic States and the Ukraine since 2014 to demonstrate the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) resolve to counter potential Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.
The experience the brigade gained working with Baltic and particularly Ukrainian military units that had engaged with Russian and Russian-backed Ukrainian Separatist forces has been sobering. Colonel Gregory Anderson, the 173rd Airborne Brigade commander, commissioned the study as a result. “The lessons we learned from our Ukrainian partners were substantial. It was a real eye-opener on the absolute need to look at ourselves critically,” he told POLITICO.
The study candidly assessed that the 173rd Airborne Brigade currently lacked “essential capabilities needed to accomplish its mission effectively and with decisive speed” against near-peer adversaries or sophisticated non-state actors. Among the capability gaps the study cited were
The lack of air defense and electronic warfare units and over-reliance on satellite communications and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) navigation systems;
simple countermeasures such as camouflage nets to hide vehicles from enemy helicopters or drones are “hard-to-find luxuries for tactical units”;
the urgent need to replace up-armored Humvees with the forthcoming Ground Mobility Vehicle, a much lighter-weight, more mobile truck; and
the likewise urgent need to field the projected Mobile Protected Firepower armored vehicle companies the U.S. Army is planning to add to each infantry brigade combat team.
The report also stressed the vulnerability of the brigade to demonstrated Russian electronic warfare capabilities, which would likely deprive it of GPS navigation and targeting and satellite communications in combat. While the brigade has been purchasing electronic warfare gear of its own from over-the-counter suppliers, it would need additional specialized personnel to use the equipment.
As analyst Adrian Bonenberger commented, “The report is framed as being about the 173rd, but it’s really about more than the 173rd. It’s about what the Army needs to do… If Russia uses electronic warfare to jam the brigade’s artillery, and its anti-tank weapons can’t penetrate any of the Russian armor, and they’re able to confuse and disrupt and quickly overwhelm those paratroopers, we could be in for a long war.”
While the report is a wake-up call with regard to the combat readiness in the short-term, it also pointedly demonstrates the complexity of the strategic “identity crisis” that faces the U.S. Army in general. Many of the 173rd Airborne Brigade’s current challenges can be traced directly to the previous decade and a half of deployments conducting wide area security missions during counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The brigade’s perceived shortcomings for combined arms maneuver missions are either logical adaptations to the demands of counterinsurgency warfare or capabilities that atrophied through disuse.
The Army’s specific lack of readiness to wage combined arms maneuver warfare against potential peer or near-peer opponents in Europe can be remedied given time and resourcing in the short-term. This will not solve the long-term strategic conundrum the Army faces in needing to be prepared to fight conventional and irregular conflicts at the same time, however. Unless the U.S. is willing to 1) increase defense spending to balance force structure to the demands of foreign and military policy objectives, or 2) realign foreign and military policy goals with the available force structure, it will have to resort to patching up short-term readiness issues as best as possible and continue to muddle through. Given the current state of U.S. domestic politics, muddling through will likely be the default option unless or until the consequences of doing so force a change.
The Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz identified the concept of friction in warfare in his book On War, published in 1832.
Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction that is inconceivable unless one has experienced war… Countless minor incidents—the kind you can never really foresee—combine to lower the general level of performance, so that one always falls far short of the intended goal… Friction is the only concept that more or less corresponds to the factors that distinguish real war from war on paper… None of [the military machine’s] components is of one piece: each part is composed of individuals, every one of whom retains his potential of friction [and] the least important of whom may chance to delay things or somehow make them go wrong…
While recognizing this hugely significant intangible element, Clausewitz also asserted that “[F]riction…brings about effects that cannot be measured, just they are largely due to chance.” Nevertheless, the clearly self-evident nature of friction in warfare subsequently led to the assimilation of the concept into the thinking of most military theorists and practitioners.
Flash forward 140 years or so. While listening to a lecture on combat simulation, Trevor Dupuy had a flash of insight that led him to conclude that it was indeed possible to measure the effects of friction.[1] Based on his work with historical combat data, Dupuy knew that smaller-sized combat forces suffer higher casualty rates than do larger-sized forces. As the diagram at the top demonstrates, this is partly explained by the fact that small units have a much higher proportion of their front line troops exposed to hostile fire than large units.
However, this relationship can account for only a fraction of friction’s total effect. The average exposure of a company of 200 soldiers is about seven times greater than an army group of 100,000. Yet, casualty rates for a company in intensive combat can be up to 70 times greater than that of an army group. This discrepancy clearly shows the influence of another factor at work.
Dupuy hypothesized that this reflected the apparent influence of the relationship between dispersion, deployment, and friction on combat. As friction in combat accumulates through the aggregation of soldiers into larger-sized units, its effects degrade the lethal effects of weapons from their theoretical maximum. Dupuy calculated that friction affects a force of 100,000 ten times more than it does a unit of 200. Being an ambient, human factor on the battlefield, higher quality forces do a better job of managing friction’s effects than do lower quality ones.
After looking at World War II combat casualty data to calculate the effect of friction on combat, Dupuy looked at casualty rates from earlier eras and found a steady correlation, which he believed further validated his hypothesis.
Despite the consistent fit of the data, Dupuy felt that his work was only the beginning of a proper investigation into the phenomenon.
During the periods of actual combat, the lower the level, the closer the loss rates will approach the theoretical lethalities of the weapons in the hands of the opposing combatants. But there will never be a very close relationship of such rates with the theoretical lethalities. War does not consist merely of a number of duels. Duels, in fact, are only a very small—though integral—part of combat. Combat is a complex process involving interaction over time of many men and numerous weapons combined in a great number of different, and differently organized, units. This process cannot be understood completely by considering the theoretical interactions of individual men and weapons. Complete understanding requires knowing how to structure such interactions and fit them together. Learning how to structure these interactions must be based on scientific analysis of real combat data.
Tom Lea, “The 2,000 Yard Stare” 1944 [Oil on canvas, 36 x 28 Life Collection of Art WWII, U.S. Army Center of Military History, Fort Belvoir, Virginia]
That idea that fatigue is a human factor in combat seems relatively uncontroversial. Military history is replete with examples of how the limits of human physical and mental endurance have affected the character of fighting and the outcome of battles. Perhaps the most salient aspect of military training is preparing soldiers to deal with the rigors of warfare.
Trevor Dupuy was aware that fatigue has a degrading effect on the effectiveness of troops in combat, but he never was able to study the topic specifically himself. He was aware of other examinations of historical experience that were relevant to the issue.
An approximate value for the daily effect of fatigue upon the effectiveness of weapons employment emerged from a HERO study several years ago. There is no question that fatigue has a comparable degrading effect upon the ability of a force to advance. I know of no research to ascertain that effect. Until such research is performed, I have arbitrarily assumed that the degrading effect of fatigue upon advance rates is the same as its degrading effect upon weapons effectiveness. To those who might be shocked at such an assumption, my response is: We know there is an effect; it is better to use a crude approximation of that effect than to ignore it…
During World War II when Colonel S.L.A. Marshall was the Chief Historian of the US European Theater of Operations, he undertook a number of interviews of units just after they had been in combat. After the war, in his book Men Against Fire, Marshall asserted that his interviews revealed that only 15% of US infantry soldiers fired their small arms weapons in combat. This revelation created something of a sensation at the time.
It has since been demonstrated that Marshall did not really have solid, scientific data for his assertion. But those who criticize Marshall for unscholarly, unscientific work should realize that in private life he was an exceptionally good newspaper reporter. His conclusions, based upon his observations, may have been largely intuitive, but I am convinced that they were generally, if not specifically, sound…
One of the few examples of the use of military history in the West in recent years was an important study done at the British Defence Operational Analysis Establishment (DOAE) by David Rowland. An unclassified condensation of that study was published in the June 1986 issue of the Journal of the Royal United Services Institution (RUSI). The article, “Assessments of Combat Degradation,” demonstrates conclusively that, in historical combat, small arms weapons have had only one-seventh to one-tenth of their theoretical effectiveness. Rowland does not attempt to say why this is so, but it is interesting that his value of one-seventh is very close to the S. L. A. Marshall 15% figure. Both values translate into casualty effects very similar to those that have emerged from my own research.
The intent of this post is not to rehash the debate on Marshall. As Dupuy noted above, even if Marshall’s conclusions were not based on empirical evidence, his observations on combat were nevertheless on to something important. (Details on the Marshall debate can be easily found with a Google search. A brief discussion took place on the old TDI Forum in 2007.)
The exhaustion factor (ex) of a fresh unit is 1.0; this is the maximum ex value.
At the conclusion of an engagement, a new ex factor will be calculated for each side.
A unit in normal offensive or defensive combat has its ex factor reduced by .05 for each consecutive day of combat; the ex factor cannot be less than 0.5.
An attacking unit opposed by delaying tactics has its ex factor reduced by 0.05 per day.
A defending unit in delay posture neither loses nor gains in its ex factor.
A withdrawing unit, not seriously engaged, has its ex factor augmented at the rate of 0.05 per day.
An advancing unit in pursuit, and not seriously delayed, neither loses nor gains in its ex factor.
For a unit in reserve, or in non-active posture, an exhaustion factor of less than 1.0 is augmented at the rate of .1 per day.
When a unit in combat, or recently in combat, is reinforced by a unit at least half of its size (in numbers of men), it adopts the ex factor of the reinforcing unit or—if the ex factor of the reinforcing unit is the same or lower than that of the reinforced—both adopt an ex factor 0.1 higher than that of the reinforced unit at the time of reinforcement, save that an ex factor cannot be greater than 1.0.
When a unit in combat, or recently in combat, is reinforced by a unit less than half its size, but not less than one quarter its size, augmentations or modifications of ex factors will be 0.5 times those provided for in paragraph 9, above. When the reinforcing unit is less than one-quarter the size of the reinforced unit, but not less than one-tenth its size, augmentations or modifications of ex factors will be 0.25 times those provided for in paragraph 9, above.
* Approximate reflection of preliminary QJM assessment of effects of casualty and fatigue, WWII engagements. These rates are for division or smaller size; for corps and larger units exhaustion rates are calculated for component divisions and smaller separate units.
EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION
A division in continuous offensive combat for five days stays in the line in inactive posture for two days, then resumes the offensive:
Combat exhaustion effect: 1 – (5 x .05) = 0.75;
Recuperation effect: 75 + (2 x .l) = 0.95.
A division in defensive posture for fifteen days is ordered to undertake a counterattack:
Combat exhaustion effect: 1 – (15 x .05) =0.25; this is below the minimum ex factor, which therefore applies: 0.5;
Recuperation effect: None; ex factor is 0.5.
A division in offensive posture for three days is reinforced by two fresh brigades:
Combat exhaustion effect: 1 – (3 x .05) = 0.85;
Reinforcement effect: Augmentation from 0.85 to 1.0.
A division in offensive posture for three days is reinforced by one fresh brigade:
Combat exhaustion effect: 1 – (3 x .05) = 0.85;
Reinforcement effect: 0.5 x augmentation from 0.85 to 1 = 0.93.
