IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/oropre/v21y1973i4p926-941.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A New Formulation of Lanchester Combat Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Frank E. Grubbs

    (U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland)

  • John H. Shuford

    (The Field Artillery School, Fort Sill, Oklahoma)

Abstract

Lanchester's differential equations of combat are inherently deterministic in nature, although considerable effort has been devoted in recent years to introducing stochastic treatments into the theory, for example, by dealing with transition probabilities and “variable” attrition coefficients. We advance the advantageous idea here that the time to kill or time to neutralize key opposing targets is the more logical random variable to be treated on a probabilistic basis, and hence that the fraction of remaining combatants on each side should properly be estimated from the time-to-kill probability distributions sampled—in other words, from principles of the statistical theory of reliability and life testing. The advantages of such treatment include the possibility that the the future course of a battle may be predicted from data on casualties in the early stages of an engagement, and therefore that field commanders will have available information on which to base critical decisions—for example, either to withdraw or to augment fighting forces—in order to bring about more desirable future courses of combat for a given mission. Also, commanders may even use analyses suggested herein independently of information on enemy losses to decide whether the course of combat is proceeding satisfactorily or according to plan by comparing data on early casualties observed in an engagement with standards that have been determined from experience or specified in advance. Another advantage of the suggested method is that available Weibull theory leads to placing confidence bounds on the fractions of survivors for any specified mission times. The degree of confidence on final predictions depends, as would be expected, on the number of targets put out of action in an engagement or simulation, the nature of the time to kill distributions encountered or sampled, the degree of accuracy or confidence desired, and the number of runs or the size of the war game. The new formulation is illustrated with a small-scale, but informative, example on a hypothesized engagement between chief battle tanks (CBT's) that fire missiles and R10 tanks with gun armament.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank E. Grubbs & John H. Shuford, 1973. "A New Formulation of Lanchester Combat Theory," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 926-941, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:oropre:v:21:y:1973:i:4:p:926-941
    DOI: 10.1287/opre.21.4.926
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.21.4.926
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/opre.21.4.926?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kendall D. Moll & Gregory M. Luebbert, 1980. "Arms Race and Military Expenditure Models," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(1), pages 153-185, March.
    2. Pettit, L. I. & Wiper, M. P. & Young, K. D. S., 2003. "Bayesian inference for some Lanchester combat laws," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 152-165, July.
    3. González, Eduardo & Villena, Marcelo, 2011. "Spatial Lanchester models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(3), pages 706-715, May.
    4. 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.

    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:inm:oropre:v:21:y:1973:i:4:p:926-941. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.