Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science

2001 Edition
| Editors: Saul I. Gass, Carl M. Harris


Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-0611-X_65


The ideal battle model completely, accurately, quickly, and easily predicts the results of any postulated battle from the initial conditions. Several factors prevent the existence of an ideal battle model.

One factor is computational complexity. For example, medical planners could use such a battle model to determine the size of treatment facilities, the breakdown of physician skills needed, and the medical supply inventory requirements. It is reasonable to suppose a battle model would track individuals and their separate wounds for engagements of a dozen participants on a side; however, maintaining that level of detail for engagements of tens of thousands of people would be prohibitively expensive in time and hardware requirements. Thus the requirement for complete predictions competes with the requirements for generality and speed of computation.

The second factor preventing the existence of an ideal battle model is the fact that we do not know enough about...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. [1]
    Ancker, C.J., Jr. (1994). An Axiom Set (Laws) for a Theory of Combat, Technical Report, Systems Engineering, University of So. California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bracken, J., Falk, J.E., and Miercort, F.A. (1974). A Strategic Weapons Exchange Allocation Model, Serial T-325. School of Engineering and Applied Science, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Dewar, J.A., Gillogly, J.J., and Junessa, M.L. (1991). Non-Monotonicity, Chaos and Combat Models, R-3995-RC. RAND, Santa Monica, California.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Dupuy, T. N. (1985). Numbers, Predictions & War. Hero Books, Fairfax, Virginia.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Engel, J.H. (1954). “A Verification of Lanchester's Law,” Operations Research 2, 163–171.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Hartley, D.S., III (1991). Predicting Combat Effects, K/DSRD-412. Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Helmbold, R.L. (1961). Historical Data and Lanchester's Theory of Combat, AD 480 975, CORG-SP-128. Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Helmbold, R.L. (1964). Historical Data and Lanchester's Theory of Combat, Part II, AD 480 109, CORG-SP-190. Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Helmbold, R.L. (1971). Decision in Battle: Breakpoint Hypotheses and Engagement Termination Data, AD 729 769. Defense Technical Information Center, Alexandria, Virginia.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Helmbold, R.L. (1990). Rates of Advance in Historical Land Combat Operations, CAA-RP-90-1. Concepts Analysis Agency, Bethesda, Maryland. Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Herndon, S.K. (1993). TRADOC Analysis Command Research on VIC Variability, Technical Document TRAC-TD-0293. TRADOC Analysis Command, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    HQ US Army Armor School (1987). M-1 SIMNET Operator's Guide. Fort Knox, Kentucky.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    HQ USAF/SAMA (1974). A Computer Program for Measuring the Effectiveness of Tactical Fighter Forces (Documentation and Users Manual for TAC CONTENDER) SABER GRAND (CHARLIE). Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Lanchester, F.W. (1916). “Mathematics in Warfare” in Aircraft in Warfare: The Dawn of the Fourth Arm, Constable and Company, London. (Reprinted in The World of Mathematics, ed. by J.R. Newman, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1956.)Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Naval Ocean Systems Center (1992). RESA Users Guide Version 5.5, Vols 1–8. Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Shudde, R.H. (1971). “Contact and Attack Problems” in Selected Methods and Models in Military Operations Research, ed. by P.W. Zehna. Military Operations Research Society, Alexandria, Virginia, 125–146.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Speight, L.R. (1995). “Modelling the Mobile Land Battle: The Lanchester Frame of Reference and Some Key Issues at the Tactical Level,” Military Operations Research 1(3), 53–56.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Speight, L.R. (1997). “Modelling the Mobile Land Battle: Lanchester's Equations, Mini-Battle Formation and the Acquisition of Targets,” Military Operations Research, 3(5), 35–62.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Speight, L.R. and Rowland, D. (1999). “Modelling the Mobile Land Battle: Combat Degradation and Criteria for Defeat,” Military Operations Research, 4(3). Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Taylor, J.G. (1980). Force-on-Force Attrition Modeling. Military Applications Society, INFORMS, Linthicum, Maryland.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Taylor, J.G. (1983). Lanchester Models of Warfare, Vols I and II. Military Applications Society, INFORMS, Linthicum, Maryland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA