A friend sent me a link to this interesting RUSI article, which ruminates around the topic of - "if you cannot be as big as the enemy can you be "bad ass badder than them instead". This is "bad ass as" in "more lethal" .. so are we talking Tiger tanks against Shermans again? Please read on to find out more and what it means for the UK against the Russian threat (see link below):
https://static.rusi.org/measuring-lethality-rusi-apr-26.pdf
It also seemed to suggest policy making and reality are remarkably different, especially if you pretend everything boils down to an equation!
To quote from the paper (on page 27):
The concept of the Lanchester Equation, modelling the relative accumulation of advantage of an aggregate force as attrition is suffered in engagements[39], is perhaps the perfect demonstration of a very sound theory when it is mathematically represented – with remarkably little utility in assessing any real-world military outcomes[40].
- [39] Frederick William Lanchester, Aircraft in Warfare: The Dawn of the Fourth Arm (London: Constable and Co., 1916), pp. 39–66.
- [40] Michael J Artelli and Richard F Deckro, ‘Modeling the Lanchester Laws with System Dynamics’, Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology (Vol. 5, No. 1, 2008), p. 7.
From 1916 to 2008 to 2026 the debate about Lanchester seems to go on and on. The problem seems to lie when people try and apply Lanchester as a general for all case, instead of when Lanchester conditions are met. The trouble is you only seem to know when these conditions are met, after the event. Then there is teh problem of retrofitting the data to suit your needs.
Note: People who "like Lanchester" don't seem to like wargaming as a participant but rather see it as a simulation "stand back" process where they are just dice chuckers. To me that if wrong, to wargame you have to take agency and responsibility. Anecdotally I keep seeing "Lanchestarians" losing their flanks and manoeuvring backwards on the table top. Harsh, but er, true!
6 comments:
Thanks Mark, that was very interesting. It does rather strike me that a lot of this stuff is very wishful thinking to avoid spending any serious money on defence, rather like Hitler thinking wunderwaffen could take the place of large numbers of conventional forces.
As you know, I am deeply sceptical of Lanchester as a simulation of anything, and certainly not air warfare in 1916 (I read his original paper when I was at University). It is a good model of old fashioned Featherstone type wargames though.
Thanks for the link - good article.
It is an interesting read Prufrock - and I am still digesting it tbh. I am getting the theme of "don't be looking for a silver bullet" defense procurement and force development is "very hard work" [implicitly full of lies and confusion], Don't be swayed by seductive "elegant" math theory (Lanchester being only but one example of many competing "models") that have a hard time becoming of practical use - but a great tool of misuse by slippery managers and lobbyists! Eeek .. this of course is just my ignorant conjecture. And I am probably wrong .. but it is an interesting article.
I am definitely in your boat putting on the oar alongside you. The disconnect between the beautiful model and ugly reality strikes as a profound statement of truth!
Lanchester is all well and good when you are fighting in the Lanchester "box" -all neatly lined up with perfect information - bit in reality that is a very a small part of the overall environment/game/scenario (delete as applicable).
Thank you for the link. I have read and am giving it some thought. I'm not a Lanchester fan, the world is just a lot more complicated than Lanchester recognises. Unfortunately, I have read the SDR and still don't understand 10X lethality!
Cheers
Jay
Post a Comment