A Summary of IDA Ground-Air Model I

  • J. Bracken
  • L. B. Anderson
  • J. G. Healy
  • M. J. Hutzler
  • E. P. Kerlin

Abstract

IDA Ground-Air Model I (IDAGAM I) is a deterministic, fully automated model of nonnuclear combat between two opposing sides. This model is the latest in what might loosely be called a family of models that began with ATLAS (Kerling and Cole [191) and led first to GACAM (Bracken, et al.[12]), then to GACAM II (Bracken, et al. [11]), and then to IDAGAM I. This is a “loose” family because the only thing that really ties it together is that the developers of each succeeding model, before developing that model, looked closely at the advantages and limitations of its predecessors. These models were not developed at the same place or under the same funding; and, with the exception of Edward Kerlin, they were not developed by the same people.

Keywords

Phase Line Ground Fire Force Increment Sector Index Defence Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, L.B.: A Method for Determining Linear Weighting Values for Individual Weapons Systems,Working Paper WP-4, Improved Methodologies for General Purpose Forces Planning (New Methods Study), Institute for Defence Analyses, Revised April 1973.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, L.B.: A Brief Review of Some Air-to-Air Models, Working Paper WP-29, Improved Methodo-logies for General Purpose Forces Planning (New Methods Study), Institute for Defence Analyses, August 1, 1972.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, L.B.: Some Comments on the Use of An ATLAS-Type Model to Evaluate Replacement Policies,Working Paper WP-62, Improved Methodologies for General Purpose Forces Planning(New Methods Study), Institute for Defence Analyses, January 22, 1973.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, L.B.: A Brief Description of How Relative Weapon Density Can Be Introduced Into Attrition Calculations, Working Paper WP-69, Improved Methodologies for General Purpose Forces Planning ( New Methods Study ), Institute for Defence Analyses, April 1973.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson, L.B.: A Discussion on How the Contribution of Air Power Should be Considered in Force Ratios for Determining Casualties, Working Paper WP-2, Project 23–21, Institute for Defence Analyses, July 1973.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson, L.B.: The Calculation of Force Ratios From Firepower Matrices Based on a Casualty Approach, Working Paper WP-1, Project 23–22, Institute for Defence Analyses, July 1973.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson, L.B.: The Relationship Between IDAGAM I and the Limitations of GACAM II, Working Paper WP-5, Project 23–22, Institute for Defence Analyses, August 1973.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson, L.B.: A Summary of the Differences Between GACAM II and IDAGAM I, Working Paper WP-6, Project 23–22, Institute for Defence Analyses, August 22, 1973.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anderson, L.B.Bracken, J.: An Example Calculation for the IDAGAM Attrition Process, Working Paper WP-2, Project 23–22, Institute for Defence Analyses, July 1973.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bracken, J.: Two Optimal Sortie Allocation Models - Vol. I: Methodology and Sample Results;Vol. II: Computer Program Documentation, Institute for Defence Analyses, Paper P-992, December 1973.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bracken, J.: Ground-Air Campaign Model II (GACAM II), Smooth Draft, Institute for Defence Anderson, L.B. Analyses, 2 March 1973. Boylan, F. Kerlin, E.P.Luttrell, D.A.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bracken, J.: Methodologies for General Purposes Forces Planning (in to volumes), WSEG Report 165 (IDA Report R-175), April 1971, SECRET.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dare, D.P.: The Derivation of Some Parameters for a Corps/Division Model From a Battle Group James, B.A.P. Model, Defence Operation Analysis Establishment Memorandum 712o, Ministry of Defence, West Byfleet, United Kingdom, July 1971, CONFIDENTIAL.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Molter, W.H. et al. Appendix D: NATO Combat Capabilities Analysis II (COMCAP II) (U), GRC Report OAD-CR-8, General Research Corporation, McLean, Virginia, August 1973, SECRET (Appendix D is unclassified).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karr, A.F,: Stochastic Attrition Models of Lanchester Type, Institute for Defence Analyses, Paper P-1o3o, June 1974.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Kerlin, E.P.: Comments on the Replacement Policy Issue (U), Working Paper WP-63, Improved Methodologies for General Purpose Forces Planning (New Methods Study), Institute for Defence Analyses, January 31, 1973, SECRET.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Kerlin, E.P.: A Stylized Analysis of the Replacement Problem, Working Paper WP-66, Improved Methodologies for General Purpose Forces Planning ( New Methods Study ), Institute for Defence Analyses, February 1973.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Kerlin, E.P.: ATLAS: A Tactical, Logistical and Air Simulation ( Documentation and User’s Guide),Cole, R.H. Research Analysis Corporation, April 1969.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Newman, J.T. et al.: Theater Force Evaluation System for CONAF (Conceptual Design for the Army in the Field), Vol II: Methodology, Research Analysis Corporation, May 1972.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Spudich, J.: The Relative Kill Productivity Exchange Ratio Technique, Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc., Combined Arms Research Office, n.d.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Thrall, R.M. and Associates: Chapter 2.C., Final Report to US Army Strategy and Tactics Analysis Group (RIT-200-R4–33), May 1972. (This reference is virtually identical to David R. Howes and Robert M. Thrall: Chapter 2.C., Final Report to US Army Strategy and Tactics Analysis Group (RIT-200-R4–33), May 1972. (This reference is virtually identical to David R. Howes and Robert M. Thrall, “A Theory of Ideal Linear Weights for Heterogeneous Combat Forces”, Naval Logistics Research Quarterly, Vol. 2o, No. 4, December 1973.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    U.S. Air Force, ACS, SA:Methodology for Use in Measuring the Effectiveness of General Purposes Forces ( An Algorithm for Approximating the Game Theoretic Value of N-Staged Games ), SABER GRAND (ALPHA ), March 1971.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    U.S. Army, Combat Developments Command, Headquarters, TAB E, Appendix II to Annex L, Tank, Anti-Tank and Assault Weapons Requirements Study (U), Phase III ( TATAWS III ), December 1968, SECRET-NOFORN (Tab E, Appendix II to Annex L is unclassified. )Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Bracken
    • 1
  • L. B. Anderson
    • 1
  • J. G. Healy
    • 1
  • M. J. Hutzler
    • 1
  • E. P. Kerlin
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Defence Analysis ArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations