-A1-f9l 436 FIGHTING BY THE NUMERS: THE ROLE OF UUITIFIC*TIhU IN 1/2

TACTICAL DECISION MNAKING(U) RNY COMM AND GENERAL

STAFF COLL FORT LEAYENNORTH KS SCHOC.. D A FASTABEND
UNCLSSIFIED, 61 DEC 87 F/G 1516 ML
 Lo

Iu
1.1
111116 2lA

______-_5_ LA 111116
 -12
ILEI COPY
00
J
It

I Fighting by the Numbers:

The Role of quantification in Tactical Decision Making

by

Major David A. Fastabend

Corps of Engineers

School of Advanced Military Studies

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

DTIC
1 December 1987 S AELE 1T

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

88-2139 68 t Li U7 3
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
Form Apptroved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OM No.0704-0188
Ia. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
Unclassified
2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
Approved for public release;
2b. DECLASSIFICATION IDOWNGRADING SCHEDULE distribution un 1 imi ted
4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
Mili- (If applicable)
School of Advanced
tary Studies. USACGSC ATZL-SWV
6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-6900

Ba. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
ORGANIZATION (Ifapplicable)

Sc. ADDRESS(City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT
ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. ACCESSION NO.1

11. TITLE (Include Security Classificatio)

Fighting by the Numbers: The Role of Quantification in Tactical Decision
Making
12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
David A. Fastabend, MAJ, U.S. Army
13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. D OF REPRT Ycar,%orth,Day) 115. PAGE COUNT
Monograph FROM TO J ecembe .9 99
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Command and Control, Decision Making, Quantifica-
tion, Intuition, Planning, Courses of Action,
Algorithms Planning Aids, CalcuLation, (See Cont)
19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse ifnecessary and Identify by block number)

FIGHTING BY THE NUMBERS: THE ROLE OF QUANTIFICATION IN TACTICAL DECISION

MAKING
By Major David A. Fastabend, U.S. Army, 99 pages
Quantification in tactical decision making is the application of
mathematical measurements and estimates to tactical consideration of time,
space, and relative combat power. The United States and the Soviet Union
are remarkably divergent in the application of tactical quantification.
The Soviets exercise a rigorous troop control methodology based on
extensive quantification. The U.S. approach is primarily intuitive with
little quantitative foundation.
(See Cont)
20. OISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
0QUNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED (M SAME AS RPT. [3 DTIC USERS Unclassified
22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL
Fastabend. David A. (913) 682-3437 1 ATZL-SWV
DO Form 1473, JUN 3 Previous editions are obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
-- L(Yt~ )K
Report Documentation Page (Continuation)
Fastabend, David A.

Block 18. Automation, Commanders Estimate

Block 19.

The dichotomy in the U.S. and Soviet approaches to tactical

quantification can be attributed to cultural and historical influences.
This dichotomy has achieved particular significance in light of the recent
evolution of battle. The increasing complexity and lethality of modern
battle has amplified the tension between the unforeseeable and immeasurable
aspects of combat friction and the requirements for control and efficiency
in the application of combat power.
The U.S. Army officer sees tactical decision making as an art rather
than a science. In recent decades the United States has enjoyed a heritage
of tactical decision making in a resource-rich environment in which
intuitive errors were redeemed by overwhelming material superiority.
Specific tactical quantification guidelines are not incorporated into
doctrine; tactical quantification procedures are addressed in a limited
academic environment but rarely practiced.

The Soviet Army officer sees tactical decision making as a science

rather than an art. The early disasters of the Great Patriotic War have
left an ineradicable legacy of scientific troop control and tactical
quantification. Tactical quantification is one component of a scientific
systems approach to tactical decision making that incorporates doctrine,
procedure, equipment and training without sacrificing the human component
of the commander's creativity.

The stark dichotomy in the U.S. and Soviet application of tactical

quantification can be examin-d in its historical, theoretical, and
doctrinal implications. The U.S. Army lacks a balanced appreciation for
tactical quantification's role as a complement to intuitive judgment. The
United States Army must develop a systems approach to tactical decision
making that incorporates tactical quantification into a comprehensive
framework of theory, doctrine, training, and force development.

Nill111 R 110 11 1 5 1111111 t 1 111111

 Fighting by the Numbers:
The Role of Quantification in Tactical Decision Making

by

Major David A. Fastabend

Corps of Engineers

School of Advanced Military Studies

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

1 December 1987

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

88-2139
 School of Advanced Military Studies
MqrograpAppiova 1

Name of Student: David A._Fastaben .r, C-.o.rp.s...of. Eng_Ineers

Title of Monograph: Fighting ..
by the.Number: The.Role of
Quantification in Tact l DecIionMaki.

Approved by:

(~sor~ ~Monograph Director

d~of esorliaes J.Schneider,M.A

___________________________Director, School of Advanced

(Col Leonard D. Holder, M.A. ) Military Studies

__________________________ Director, Graduate Degree

(Philip J. Brookes, Ph. D. ) Programs

Accepted this AIX____ day of ______1987.

Aaeesston For

NTIS RA&TI
DT I T.', C

Dist I
 ABSTRACT

FIGHTING BY THE NUMBERS: THE ROLE OF QUANTIFICATION IN TACTICAL DECISION

MAKING, by MAJ DAVID A. FASTABEND, USA, 99 pages

Quantification in tactical decision making is the application of

mathematical measurements and estimates to tactical considerations of time,
space, and relative combat power. The United States and the Soviet Union
are remarkably divergent in the application of tactical quantification.
The Soviets exercise a rigorous troop control methodology based on
extensive quantification. The US approach is primarily intuitive with
little quantitative foundation.-

<The dichotomy in the US and Soviet approaches to tactical

quantification can be attributed to cultural and historical influences.
This dichotomy has achieved particular significance in light of the recent
evolution of battle. The increasing complexity and lethality of modern
battle has amplified the tension between the unforeseeable and immeasurable
aspects of combat friction and the requirements for control and efficiency
in the application of combat power.

The US Army officer sees tactical decision making as an art rather

than a science In recent decades the United States has enjoyed a heritage
of tactical deci ion making in a resource-rich environment in which
intuitive error were redeemed by overwhelming material superiority.
Specific t cal quantification guidelines are not incorporated into
doctrfne: tactical quantification procedures are addressed in a limited
academic environment but rarely practiced.

The Soviet Army officer sees eial4dec-is~njmka g as a science,

rather than an art. The early disasters of the Great Patriotic War have
left an ineradicable legacy of scientific troop control and tactical
quantification. Tactical quantification is one component of a scientific
systems approach to tactical decision making that incorporates doctrine,
procedure, equipment and training without sacrificing the human component
of the commander's creativity-...

- The stark dichotomy In the US and Soviet application of ,actizal

quantification can be examined in its historical, theoretica, ano -.
doctrinal implications. The US Army lacks a balanced appreciation for -.

tactical quantification's role as a complement to intuitive .r-i2ment. h]

United States Army must develop a systems approach to tactical decision
making that incorporates tactical quantification into a comprehensive
framework of theory, doctrine, training and force development.

..........
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Introduct ion.......................................... 1
II Decision Making on the M~odern Battlefield............... 3
III The US Application of Tactical Quantification ............ 5
Philosophy/Ideology............................... 5
History of the Decision Process Development ......... 5
Current US Practice, Tactical Quantification ........ 9
IV The Soviet Application of Tactical Quantification ....... 14
Philosophy/Ideology .............................. 14
History of the Decision Process Development ......... 14
Current Soviet Practice, Tactical Quantification .. 18
V Implications of the Soviet/US Dichotomy in Tactical
Quantification.......................................2 5
Historical Implications .......................... 5
Theoretical Implication.......................... 28
Doctrinal Imlications........................... 30
VI Projections for Tactical Quantification............... 3-
Soviet Projections............................... 35
US Projections.................................. .64
VII Conclusion........................................... 40
Appendices:
A The Battle Calculus Method .........................41
B Representative Tactical Quantification (US) ......... 46
C Representative Tactical Quantification (Soviet ) ... 51
D Potential Automation of Tactical Quantification..6
Endriotes ................................................ 8
Bibliography ................. ........................... 87
 11111 -1111y rs WV w r a a - - - - - - -

I INTRODUCTION

History portrays the Great Captains as men of genius, but what was

the nature of that genius? Napoleon, for example, reputedly possessed

"fertile imagination ... intuitive sense ... indomitable will power

firmness of soul"'. Napoleon himself, however, ascribed to a more

mathematical definition of genius:

Nothing is attained in war except by calculation-

Military science consists ",in carefully estimating a! the

eventualities first, then in estimating exactly, almost
mathematically, the degree of chance. It is on this point that
you must make' no mistake, for a decimal more or less can change
everything.

Tactical genius: art or science? The tension between the intuitive

requirements of tactical art and the quantitative considerations of

tactical science presents a quandary for US Army tactical decision making

doctrine and procedure. This quandary is nowhere more evident than in the

US approach to tactical quantification.

Tactical quantification is the application of mathematical

measurements and estimates to tactical considerations of time, snace, and

relative combat power. Tactical quantification has gained particular

sianificance in light of the tremendous divergence of the tactical decision

making approaches of the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviets

exercise a rigorous troop control methodology based on extensive

quantification. The US approach is primarily intuitive with litt!e

quantitative foundation. This stark dichotomy in troop control processes

constitutes a doctrinal "wager" in which the two superpowers are gambling

the very foundations of their ability to wage war. The relative merits of

that wager will be the zubJect of this analysis.

 This analysis will address tactical decision making for ground forces

at or below US Corps or Soviet Army level . The focus will be the

quantification of time, space, and relative combat power considerations in
the course of action development and analysis portions of the Estimate of
the Situation. After examining the nature of tactical decision making on
the modern battlefield, the study will compare and contrast the US approach

to tactical quantification with that of the Soviet Union. This comparison

will generate historical, theoretical and doctrinal implications for tne

validity of the US approach. Some projections for the future application
of tactical quantification will conclude the analysis.

5|

L 1,111111 = 111
 II Decision Making on the Modern Battlefield

The Nature of Battle: .Daner Exrin netitnd C.hanc~e

Notwithstanding the significant technological advances of the past

decades, battle has retained those characteristics Clausewitz described as

"the climate of war: danger, exertion, uncertainty and chance. "'I in the
danger of battle, "..the light of reason is refracted in a manner quite

different from that which is normal in academic speculation. It is an

exceptional man who keeps his powers of quick decision intact..."-.

Exertion (and violence - - danger's physical manifestation) further

influence the commander's decision making process. That influence is both

direct - - through exhaustion, suffering, or physical destruction of the

commander - - and indirect - - through the commander's awareness of the

destruction and suffering his subordinates. Clausewitz explained how the

challenges of danger and exertion are compounded by the uncertainty of

information: "Many intelligence reports in war are contradictory; even more

are false, and most are uncertainl'

". Even perfect intelligence cannot

solve this dilemma; for besides the unknown there is also the

unforeseeable: chance, according to Clausewitz, is "the very last thing

that war lacks", so that "guesswork and luck come to play a great part in
war."" Danger, exertion, uncertainty and chance are the principal

components of the friction of war.

The_ Evolution of _Batle:

Friction has not merely survived the rigors of battle's technological

evolution: it thrives in the modern battlefield environment. The increased

lethality of current weapon systems extends both the magnitude and scope of

battlefield danger and violence. Modern ranges and speeds have accelerated
battle tempo, exacerbating uncertainty and amplifying the penalty for

faulty decisions. Although modern intelligence systems may reduce the

unknown somewhat, the expansion of an opponent's means and potentia!

options has more than offset this progress by increasing the unforeseeable.

The development of multiple combat means has introduced a level of battle

complexity unknown in Clausewitz's time. Napoleon had a thorough knowledge

of his primary combat resources: infantry, artillery and cavalry. In

"'-refully estimating all the eventualities", Napoleon did not wrestle it

the chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) environment, the full

range of the electromagnetic spectrum, TACAIR apportionment/allocation.
unit maneuver in three dimensions, or the command and control of subunits

whose organization he did not understand through personal experience.

Modern Tacticalt Decision .Making: .Friction.vs ControlI

The modern battle decision maker experiences a level of friendly

"institutional uncertainty" previously associated only with enemy units.

He must deal with a bewildering array of systems which influence the battle
with unprecedented lethality and speed. In a world of tactical nuclear

weapons, moreover, the consequences of incorrect or slow decision making

are catastrophic. Modern combat organizations demonstrate a complexity and

lethality that demand efficient application and measured control. The

tension between this amplified friction and the increasingly critical

imperative of battle control generates a certain ambiguity in the role of

tactical quantification on the modern battlefield. That ambiguity is

demonstrated in the remarkably divergent approaches to tactical

quantification in the United States and the Soviet Union.

4
 III The US Appli~cation.of Tact ical Quant..ification

Philosophy..Ideol ogy.

Although the scientific method of hypothesis and observation through

empirical measurement is an important aspect of the Western intellectual

tradition, its application is not universal in Western society. Westerners

are particularly reluctant to apply the scientific method to many social

processes because they are not readily susceptible to conclusive empirical

measurement. This perspective has particular significance for miliiary

decision making:

In Western thought, where science leaves off, intuition takes

over. Because armed combat is a social process, the sizinlg up
of military situations is largely left to the intuition of the
individual decision maker. What is more, he need not justify
his decision by quantitative means to anyone.c"

To a Westerner, war is generally an unfathomable art that admits of no

single 'best solution.,

History, of the.J)ecisionProcess_ Devel!opment

Qrigins of the Estimate of the Situation: The concept of war as an

art rather than a science was dominant in the United States until the tiirn

of the century. At that time the Army sought to loin the general societal

trend to professionalism by developing a codified body of scientific

military knowledge. Leavenworth's exoerimentation with the Germman

Kriegspiel. "applicatory system" was followed by Major Eben Swift"'s 10,0

booklet on F.ie.d..Qrders, Mesages and Report3 and Captain Roger S. Fitch's

1909 Es.timating TacticalSituations and Publishing-Field Orders.

Incorporation of the latter document into the 1910 Army Field Service

Regp lat ion essentially codified the US Army's current decision making

process, "The Estimate of the Situation." '

-

5
 It is interesting to note that these attempts to standardize milit3ry
decision making were never an attempt to mass-produce genius. General
Tasker H. Bliss introduced a 1911-12 Army_..War CQllege_Course of.Instriuction
with the statement:
It is not claimed that this method develops genius or
brilliancy. It may even be discouraging to an officer who
imagines that the daring and unerring combinations of a
Napoleon are now as possible as ever.
The object is to develop a school of safe leadership for
officers and not to encourage unusual and extraordinary
methods. We need fear little from the brilliancy of our
enemies if we succeed in this. ,o

The Estimate of the Situation assumed enemy behavior that corresponds

to his potential capabilities rather than his actual intentions, resulting
in a conservative (safe-sided) estimate of military requirements.' Course
of action development and analysis should include "calculations", but no
rigorous mathematical methods were mandated. It was ideal for an emerging

power with overwhelming material superiority and minimal external military

threat.

War Experiences: The conservative potential for The Estimate of the

Situation described by General Bliss appears to have been borne out by US
experience in the wars of this century. US warfighting has generally been
characterized by "an expectation of abundant material resources, the
availability of superior firepower, and a tendency toward strategies of
attrition"."2 Americans could afford an intuitive tactical decision making
process, for intuitive errors were counterbalanced by abundant material
resources. When the US has fought without overwhelming superiority in
combat resources, results have frequently been disastrous. At the
conclusion of the 1944 pursuit across France, US forces launched a serie.s
of attacks against the Siegfried Line fortifications at the western borders

of Germany. Buoyed by recent success, these attacks frequently ignored

quantitative indicators of relative combat power. In November of 1944, for

example, the 28th Infantry Division's attack on Schmidt in the Huertgen

Forest was launched with a relative strength ratio of 1:1 in personnel.

Although a key component of the concept of the operation was the

neutralization of enemy observation from the Brandenburg Ridge with

artillery fire, the attack was launched with a 17:14 disadvantage in German
S
vs US artillery battalions. Faulty calculation - - or the absence of

calculation - - contributed to the destruction of the 28th ID in this

attack. L

Because of widespread post-war fascination with German tactical

success in WWII, the German war experience has become a part of our own

military heritage.4 To fully appreciate the impact of war experience on

current US attitudes toward tactical quantification, one should examine ,ot

only the American experience but also the German one.

Although German WWII troop leading procedures were methodical, that

methodology incorporated relatively little tactical quantification. The

introduction to the pre-war German operations manual Tru~penftiehrung noted

that:

Situations in war are of unlimited variety. They change

often and suddenly and only rarely are from the first
discernible. Incalculable elements are often of very great
influence..

In a post-war analysis (The Command_Decision) Generaloberst Rendulic noted

that the pre-war Truppenfuehrung was a broad directive containing only one

definite numerical value - - division attack and defend frontages - - a

.. .. . • .
value that proved to be grossly in error during operations on the Eastern

Front. Noting that this inconsistency caused great consternation for some

German officers, Rendulic concluded that there was great danger in

including quantitative guidance in a service regulation. Rather, he said,

.a decision is not a problem of simple arithmetic, but a

creative act .... intuition and keen sense of perception play a
considerable role ... a decision must be reached, even if it is
fully realized that it will be but a shot in the dark.."-

The values Rendulic recommended in a commander included "... Spi.itual

power, strength of character, maturity of mind ... personal experience ..

a cool head and aggressive spirit."'"

Recent._Experjience sand Decislon_Pro.e.ss Evolution

Post_..World..War..II.. .Trends: The emergence of nuclear weapons

together with the acceptance of global responsibilities at the end of World

War II exercised a centralizing tendency on American military decision

miking." ' Simultaneous development of Operations Research, Systems Analysis

techniques and rapid progress in computerization reinforced that trend.

The trend was institutionalized during Robert McNamara's tenure as

Secretary of Defense.
As the Army entered a period of reassessment at the conclusion of tne

Vietnam War, it changed its focus to Europe and a new doctrine: Active
Defense. One unique feature of this doctrine was an emphasis on tactical

quantification, Active Defense planning featured "battle calculus" with

exhaustive analysis of relative combat ratios, optimum firing ranges, and

"target servicing"', (Extracts from a typical battle calculus methodclogy

are at Appendix A). During this same period there were concurrent efforts

on a Tactical Operations System (TOS) which envisioned intensive automated

8
quantitative analysis "to increase significantly the capability of Army

combat division and subordinate commanders to manage the employment of

combat power"' 2o

Reaction: Centralization, McNamara's management techniques,

and "battle calculus" did not prove to be the watershed of a flood of

quantitative analysis in US tactical thinking. Powerful countercurrents
were at work. The post-war trends toward centralization and scientific

management techniques coincided with a series of failures in national

policy and military endeavor. Debates ensued over the merits of such

techniques for warfighting: should military men be "managers" or "leaders",

"bean-counters" or "warriors"? Uneasiness with the "mechanistic approach

that discounted all too easily the human element and the moral dimension of

battle" was one reason for the rapid demise of the Active Defense

doctrine."

Current.UIS .Prac..ti.ce,.Tact.ical. Quant ification

The Western perception of tactical genius as an art, together with

the limited acceptance of attempts to apply methodology to the decision

making process, is reflected in current US tactical quantification practice

with respect to doctrine, training, research and field application.

Doctrine: Current US Army doctrine recognizes the role of command and

control in overcoming battlefield friction. FM 100-5, Operations, states:

..both leaders and units must be agile. Friction - the

accumulation of chance errors, unexpected difficulties, and the
confusion of battle - will impede both sides. To overcome it,
leaders must continuously "read the battlefield," decide
quickly, and act without hesitation.

FM 101-5, .taffQ.Organizatio.n and Operations, outlines the military decision

making process, The Estimate of the Situation (FTC 1). The quantitative

94V
calculations that occur during that process are limited to the supporting

functional area estimates such as intelligence, engineering and logistics.

STAFF ACTIONS COWAUM sg ACTIONS

-- ..-
- .... °
I....... - -

....... - - -Sw.*a.~t..
- .. ..

FIG 1 (from US Army FC 101-5-2, p 2-2)

The Conmander's Estimate (Including Decision) is outlined in Appendix E to

FM 101-5 (FIG 2).N

COMMANDER'S ESTIMATE OF SITUATION

1. MISSION
2. THE SITUATION AND COURSE OF ACTION
3. ANALYSIS OF COURSES OF ACTION
4. COMPARISON OF COURSES OF ACTION
COMM
ESIMAE NDERS OFSITUTIO

5. DECISION (RECOMMENDATION)
FIG 2

10
 fC_1.01l-55,. Corps and Division Command and Control, ac:-nw:; dgez, a
distinction between intuitive course of action concepts and rational

tactical plans.I4 Neither dccument suggests a quantitative pr: .zedure that

effects the transition from intuitive concept to rational, substant4ived
plan. FC.101-5-2, Staff Officers Handbook, and FM 101-10-1, Staff
Officer'sFieldManual, Organizational, Technical and Logistic Dat-a
(Uncl as.sified..Data), offer many quantitative facts for logistic and
intelligence estimation. This information, however, is only reference data
for supporting analysis functions; there is no methodology for quantitat-ie
analysis in the core tactical decision making processes of course of action

development and analysis.

Train.ing: The US Army's written guidance on tactical quantification
is the US Army Conuand and General Staff College S.t udent Text_ 10.-9, The
Co mand Estimate. Although not doctrine, ST._QO-9 offers a procedure for
quantitative evaluation of combat ratios and relative movement rates. ST
100.9 qualifies the numerical basis of its estimates of relative comoat
power (FIG 1, Appendix B) as being "subjective" and cautions that 3n actua!

comparison should be based on "the current intelligence available and

experience."''G Application of the procedures in ST 100-9 is generally
restricted to the school environment; students find the proce<dures telious
and difficult to apply in the rapid tempo of actual Tactical Operations
Center (TOC) operations. Emphasis on tactical quantification in tactical
analysis has steadily declined since its zenith in the Active Defense
years.
Research: Considerable quantitative analysis of tactical action i3
exercised in the research community through wargaming and simulations.

HQIRHIQ N
Dupuy's Quantitative Judgment Model (QJM) is based on analysis of

historical data and is the foundation for a portion of the ST 100-9

UV
calculations; Weapons Effectiveness Index/Weapons Unit Va]lue rW/C/)

attrition coefficients are used in the Lanchestrian formulations of the

McClintic Theater Model.27 Quantitative tactical modeling is the

foundation for several training tools such as Firefight (company team

battle simulation) and TACOPS (Corps/Division simulation).

Application: Direct application of tactical quantification to the

core Comwand Estimate processes of course of action development, analysis

and comparison is rudimentary. Examples of the limited tactical

quantification methodology offered by ST 100-9 are at Appendix B. US Army

officers rarely apply either the quantitative analyses of ST l0-9 or the

exhaustive subjective deliberations of FMj4Oi-5's Appendix E. These

methods are tedious and do not meet the requirements of modern battle

tempo. The reality of current US tactical decision making practice is tnat

course of action development and analysis is primarily an intuitive

process.

US Army tactical plans frequently lack an effective fusion cf

objective considerations of space, time, and relative combat power. They

typically focus on terrain and space, applying great emphasis to the

clarity and coordination of graphic control measures. A US tactical

planner will usually only coordinate time with respect to mission start,

omitting any forecast of mission phase duration or completion time. He

assesses the feasibility of tactical movement rates and times by "gut

feel". Relative combat power is similarly an intuitive Judgment. There is'

no attempt to quantitatively relate relative combat power tc a fcrecasi of

12
movement through space over time. Although quantitative techniques -:ich as

target value analysis or the J-MEVMS tables may be used in fire supoort

execution, they are not applied during the planning process of course Cf

action development and analysis.

Sunumary:
Tactical quantification in the key decision process of course of

action development and analysis is not incorporated into US doctrine or

applied in field execution. "Number crunching" is accepted in research

activities, battle simulations or the technical specialties of

intelligence. f.re support execution, engineering and logistics. With

respect to tactical creativity and Judgment, however, the average Army

officer of the 1980's is more likely to believe that Airland Battle demands
"holistic and intuitive thinking" f. He prefers the label "leader" over

"manager", and is reluctant to be perceived as a "bean counter" rather

than a "warrior".

13 .,

'3
 IV The Soviet Application of Quantification in .Tatical Decision Making

Phil osophy/ Ideology

Soviet officers approach the subject of troop control within the

context of the Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Although a Soviet would agree

with his US counterpart that war is a social process, he further believes

that social processes are especially subject to "scientific determinism. ' ,

3'
The Soviet officer deplores "subJectivism"c and "relativism" in the
"science of war". He does not hesitate to apply methods of quantitative

analysis to every aspect of tactical decision making. For a Soviet, "there

is no such thing as a 'forbidden zone' of nonquantifiable factors. '

"'

The Soviets maintain that there is an objective "best" solution to

every military problem:

Although many decisions are possible only one of them is
appropriate and correct for a given situation. The other
decisions are incorrect, or may result in only incomplete or
partial success.2

Although a Western planner resigns himself to the unexpected and

uncontrollable in military actions, his Soviet counterpart exercises a
philosophy of secular determinism which holds chance to be "a refuge for

the lazy-minded. ": Soviets exercise a systeis approach to troop control,

incorporating troop control procedures into an integrated man-machine
system of staffs, control posts, tactical communications, and automated
systems and equipment. _;'

HIistory of the Decision Process Development

War Experiences: The current system of Soviet troop control had its

origins in the Great Patriotic War with Nazi Germany. The Soviets were

severely shaken by that war's initial tactical disasters disasters that

they saw as failures of troop control. Early war deficiencies included

14
vulnerability to German counter-control measures and an absence of

standardized internal operating procedures for field staffs. The early war

year experiences precipitated an emphasis on well-defined standardized

procedures and staff activity norms that persists to this day. -

The command and control deficiencies of the initial war period were

gradually corrected. Portugal'skiy notes in Command Prqcedures.in World

War II that as operations with larger mechanized forces were attempted,

planning periods rose, orders and reports became more detailed, commanders

attempted to exercise increased personal contact, and every possible

technical means was applied to the troop control process.-"' By war's end

the Germans themselves gave grudging respect to the Soviet skill in

planning and preparing for operations.-;

A common Western perception is that the Soviet tactical successes of

the final war period were the inevitable result of overwhelming Soviet

advantages in men and equipment. It Is generally overlooked that Soviet

advantages at Stalingrad were 1.1:1 and never exceeded 2.2:1 overall even

in the final war period. The Soviets achieved crushing local superiority

through brilliant deception and rapid concentration in areas of German

weakness.1 Careful analysis and efficient application of available

resources were the foundation for the crushing local superiority that

defeated the Germans in the final war period.

Recent Experiences and Decision Process Evolution

The Revolution in ilitary Affairs: Since the early 1950z the

Soviets have assessed the advent of nuclear weapons and other technological

developments and concluded that a "Revolution in Military Affairs" is at

hand. That revolution includes weaponry improvements such as thermonuclear

15
devices, improved delivery means for combat systems, increased weapon
saturation arnd combat capabilities, and the increased significance of the
time factor in combat. The current stage of the "Revolution in Military
Affairs" is the requirement for increased troop control effectiveness - the

"management stage. ""- The Soviets have concluded that one consequence of
these trends is an increasing importance in the analytical soundness of
combat decisions.'
Post.-WWII Trends: The Soviet recognition of the Revolution in
Military Affairs coincided with the initial development of Operations
Research, Systems Analysis techniques in the United States. The Soviets
quickly seized on these techniques as potential solutions to the troop
control problems of modern warfare. Mathematical optimization and the
Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) are representative of the
quantitative tools applied to the tactical decision making process.-"
Initial Soviet tactical quantification efforts indicated a
mechanistic approach that hoped to reduce combat decision making to
rigorous information processing - - a mathematical procedure. This
original direction was abandoned in favor of a focus on the thinking
process of the commander and his staff. Soviet writings were careful to
emphasize the primacy of the human element in the decision making
process.'2 Particular emphasis was applied to the fine-tuning of the man-
machine interface between the tactical decision maker and the entire range
of decision aids. Tactical quantification gained its current role as a
tool for substantiation of the commander's decision rather than as a source
for it.~

16
x'j %?W W - NxnA9AI ZLIZ
x7 MW VW VWx VWVX WW4jUUVT1~W MUTxar 1n
Ml WWVMVU-1~ .'
L7 '-' .' .

As appropriate technical means became available to the Soviet

planner, he applied those means to the automation of troop control
calculations. Conversion of tactical formulas to nomographs and

calculation forms was soon followed by electronic calculators, programmable

calculators, and computers. Although fielding of computers began at the

higher headquarters, automated decision aids gradually migrated to the

lower levels. 44

These efforts were accompanied by a parallel revision of troop

control procedures. In addressing the increased complexity of modern

warfare, the Soviets made a conscious decision to seek more effective

procedures and automation rather than larger staffs. The Soviets have also

eliminated "pre-decision" staff conferences from their orders process; they

believe these to be generally non-productive and not worth the heavy

investment of that most precious combat resource: time.4'-, The Soviets

advocated parallel rather than sequential planning whenever possible, thus

further compressing their decision cycle.
Current _SovietPractice , Tactical Quantification

The Soviet predisposition to "scientific determinism" and the recent

history of their decision process development is evident in their current

doctrine, training, and application of tactical quantification.

Doctrine: The Soviet concept of command and control is very different

from our own. Control is seen primarily as a matter of information

acquisition and analysis, rather than information acquisition and

distribution. The command and control system is held to be the most potent

weapon 4E available to the commander:

In modern warfare the demands made on troop control have become

even more strict. It (troop control) has now become a decisive

17

6M nm
 factor on a par with the number and quality of weapons, while
the correlation of the levels of troop control is no less
important than the correlation of weapons"

Trrr ng: Soviet officers slated for higher command spend more time

in formal military training than their US counterparts." Officers and

commanders receive advanced training in mathematics and the use of decision

aids. They achieve a great deal of facility and experience in the

mechanics of effective staff action. Whereas a US officer would find many

of the Soviet tactical nomographs intimidating, Vayner's standard text

Tactical Calculations elucidates the principles of nomograph design and

exhorts the Soviet officer to develolp hisown noiogrophs for the solution

of routine tactical decision making problems.'9

App1Ication

The Soviet Troop Control Process: The Soviet troop control

process (FIG 3) differs from our own in the connander/staff interaction and

in the application of tactical quantification.

SOVIET TACTICAL PLANNING SEQUENCE

RECEIVE THE COMBAT MISSION

CLARIFY THE MISSION p.

ESTIMATE THE SITUATION

DEVELOP A CONCEPT OF OPERATION
ANALYZE THE CONCEPT OF OPERATION
MAKE AND FORMULATE THE DECISION
PLAN THE OPERATION
COMMUNICATE THE DECISION TO SUBORDINATES
FIG 3
.%

.
IW WWWW
1jUW WX WIk~~9A. -r~M~ 'DF~
Am . '~-, -. F ~ ~ I' - v iWW.r'.,W ~ V w - .LvdF~wK. w-LbLI

Role of the Commander: The Soviet commander is not "supporten

by" the command and control system but instead is an integral part of it.

The Soviet commander is not viewed as the final arbiter in the selection of

courses of action developed by the staff.3 's The Soviet commander's role is

more directly creative - - he develops a course of action, the staff

subsequently checks it to insure that it is scientifically substantiated.-"

The commander is not only a leader but also the control system weapon

operator who ". .must be, first of all, a control engineer. "- -

Quantification: The Soviet staff accomplishes scientif' c

substantiation of the commander's proposed course of ac ior Dy s Juh*'n,

it to extensive quantitative analysis. The course of action's feasibiiiy

is determined by comparing it to established norms for time, space, and

relative combat power. The planning tools available to support the Soviet

staff officer in this calculation effort include formulas, nomographs,

calculation forms, programmable calculators and tactical computer_3. The

mathematical techniques range from simple addition and subtraction to nore

sophisticated algorithms such as linear programming (LP) or the Prog-ram

Review and Evaluation Technique (PERT). Some Soviet observers believe that

higher level Soviet staffs employ extensive computer model simulation an"

wargaming to forecast the probable outcome of proposed courses of action.

The Decision Support _System: The entire system of tactical

calculation procedures, staff organizations, personnel and equipment

comprise what the Soviets call their Decision Support System, or ASUV

(Automizirovanniye Sistemy Upravleniya Voyskami). The four principal

purposes of the ASUV are information storage and retrieval, tactical

planning calculations, decision evaluation and transmission of commands.--

19

- -* r~ ~*t,.~*~~,f%~*W
* .,.. ' ~ *' ~ -. ~ -
The ASV is not a Soviet MCS (Maneuver Control System) but rather is a

combination of both automated and non-automated procedures thit reflects

the Soviet systems approach to tactical decision making. The ASUV is a

multi-echeloned series of man/machine systems tailored to the decision

content and time requirements of each echelon. Calculations are less

complex (yet more detailed) at the lower echelons. The ASUV is an

integrated system in which staff devices support the quantitative analysis

requirements of the staff procedures; personnel are trained in those

procedures and apply them consistently throughout the force.

The QLanti.f i cat ion/Reconna sSance _Dnamic: The Soviet forces

are famous for the vigor of their reconnaissance effort. This is driven by

their tactical quantification methodology: the requirement for measurable

estimates of enemy activity generates a relentless search for

reconnaissance information that permeates the entire force.

Tactical Calculations: Soviet tactical calculations support

course of action analysis in three ways. Direc.t calculations analyze a

situation and estimate the results, e.g. - - the firing of three 152-mm

batteries on a US infantry platoon defensive position will destroy 65% of

that position. Inverse calculations determine the necessary inputs to

produce a desired result, e.g. - - to produce 90% destruction of an enemy

armor company at 1200 m range, 12 antitank guns must be employed. Whereas

direct calculation answers the question "what are the possible ends given

the available means," and inverse calculations indicate the necessary means

to achieve a desired end, optim.zatiQn calculations estimate the optimum

tradeoff of ends and means to achieve the assigned mission. An example

optimization calculation might be determination of the optimum distribution

20

I ..
~~~' pp \,*.f' ~ . .
of limited available artillery fires on identified enemy defensive

Positions.ss Direct, inverse, and optimization calculations are applied to

tactical considerations of time, space, and relative combat power.

Time_- The Diagzraz tiqc_ Planing Process: The Soviet

application of the PERT method to depict the time relationships of combat

activities has no US counterpart. FIG 4 is a representative PERT diagram

depicting the preparation of a tank battalion for an attack.

NETWORK SCHEDULE OF READYING TANK BATTALION FOR ATTACK

Sift- mma s.. s s.. ' .....,(6)

(IM

40 I1-,,,
',el 7

(1)) m = .2ae3),.e..a
(.* •

?Igcure 33. Neutvok Schedule of Rteadyle8 Tak Settaliob= for Attack (example)

1. leeioa briefing IL. A3Location of tasks to con -

2. Time catculatton bat subunitts
3. Issuing instructions 12. llocation of tasks
aervicee msuntsto
0.
uLog warn order to co.e rear
*ubtmit8 13. Reading reconnaissance sub-
S. Issuing wart nin order co rear units for a ton
services subunit t&. OrcgafltatoO of reconnhise-
6. leadyoag coubat subunits for eant
attack 1. cabat
Rttack IS. aervice
Organization3 of com~bat
suprort
.OrnStcon for
2ubite 16. Reconlissonce ubunits
8. Issuing warning order to rcobare- proceed to execute mission,
9. Comeandees
enote reconnaissance, situe- 17. .stsbli~a observation
Vrificatio- post.of
of eaetution
tion cestiste. ad decOion-mokng order
10. ear services subnits for
Readying cssmbbly iS. Occupy area for
action offensive operation
19. Movement
a o aaeemblY area

FIG 4

21
The Soviets routinely apply the PERT method, referencing the diagrammatic

planning process in discussions of everything from communication antenna

erection to multi-front offensives.A The Soviets do not depend on

automation for application of PERT, and state that manual computation is

generally more efficient for tactical networks. ' PERT is applied not only

to the tactical decision making process, but also to the subsequent troop

control procedures of organizing and monitoring the execution of the

°
decision. The PERT method becomes a vital lird between the planning and

the execution process that allows the Soviet commander to rapidly shift the

phasing of combat activities to account for unexpected successes and

failures in tactical execution.

Space .- Movement Planning: The Soviet evaluation of space
seldom occurs without simultaneous consideration of time: movement

calculations are an essential component of their tactical analysis. Of the

43 tactical calculation examples listed in Vayner's Tactical Calculatio-nS,

fully 23 are associated with movement planning. The careful estimation

of movement times (and space requirements) serves as input to individual

components of the PERT diagrammatic combat model.

RelativeCombat_ Power - the Correlation of Forces: The

Soviet estimate of relative combat power is more than a numerical

accounting of the quantity of combat resources available to each side.

Considerable effort is made to account for the relative quality of opposing

weapon systems by converting weapon system quantities to standard units of

armament (SUAs). The qualitative value of opposing weapon systems are then
employed to develop multiple indices of relative combat power in the

categories personnel, tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery and

22
mortars, antitank weapons, antiaircraft defenses, and aircraft.&o1- In
developing an adequate correlation of forces, the Soviet planner relies
heavily on supporting artillery fires. Unlike the US planner, whose
primary course of action artillery decision is the task organization of
available artillery assets, the Soviet planner uses calculation aids such
as the nomograph at FIG 5 to substantiate the adequacy of scheduled fire
support.

?4OUORAM EMPWYSED TO DETERMNE HFFECTWEN4 OF ARTILLEIRY DAERAGE6 (U)

~OWNflh Of WEAPON
39 2 is 2 I A FRINGMOV

orORRUND 36ute

FIGIP5UAIN N

23
In NOMORTA
nomograms are at Appendix C, Representative Tactical Quantification,

Soviet.) These nomograms are based on Lanchester-style combat models that

are simple and approximate, but nevertheless serve to mark the probable

bounds of feasible combat.,' They stand in marked contrast to the US Army

ST...0.-9, that maintains, "There is no direct relationship between force

ratios and attrition or rates of advance."62-

Whereas the US officer perceives the Soviet system of troop control

to be rigid and over-centralized, the Soviet probably views his uniform

methodology and scientific substantiation of tactical decisions as a

decentralizing influence that promotes unity of effort even in the absence

of positive control. If a US tactical planner questioned the use of

computers and information-intensive combat models for tactical planning,

the Soviet would cite the approximate nature of those models and their role

as a complement to military Judgment rather than a substitute for it.

Although we associate quantification in tactical decision making with a

limitation of the commander's prerogatives that leads to predictability,

the Soviets believe that creativity is maintained in the Commander's

development of the tactical concept, and that quantification reinforces

that creativity by providing an objective feedback estimate of the

projected results of his creative decision. Unconcerned that tacticai unit

activities may be over-constrained, the Soviets are satisfied that tactical

predictability leads to operational-level success.-,

i.,,
 V Implications of the Soviet/US Dichotomy in Tactical Decision Making

The stark dichotomy between the US and the Soviet concepts of troon

control reveals historical, theoretical and doctrinal implications for the

soundness of the US approach to tactical quantification.

The Estimate of the Situation: The US Army's general historical trend

of tactical success has given the Estimate of the Situation an aura of

legitimacy that may be exaggerated. The Estimate's origin as a conservative

planning tool is significant in light of America's current resource

posture. The Estimate served the US military professional well during the

decades of preponderant military advantage. Overwhelming material

superiority compensated for the inefficiencies of intuitive decision

making. But can the US afford an intuitive tactical planning method in a

resource-poor environment? Scarce resources require that our future

tactical genius incorporate military efficiency, not sacrifice it.

Misapplication of the German Experience: The German WWII propensity

to dispense with mathematical tactical models and rely on "spiritual power"

and "aggressive spirit" has exacerbated the American reluctance to apply
tactical quantification. One can not help but believe that if the German

practice had included the Russian normative approach to tactical decision

making, every American combat arms officer would have a calculator on his-

web belt. The German WWII experience, however, does not conclusively
demonstrate the inadvisability of tactical quantification. It is

noteworthy that the remarkable German successes of the early war years were
against an opponent not yet employing the techniques of modern cybernetic %

~ ~ V
theory. Martin Van Creveld acknowledges that the conditions of Germany's

tactical achievements are not completely applicable to the mocern context:

...the mere fact that a present day Bundeswehr division

contains 900 different MOS, as against only 40 in World War II
is itself sufficient to turn the Wehrmacht's entire loose and
decentralized personnel management system into a historical
curiosity 14

If we are to achieve an American A-uftrag.staktik, we can not simply

co-opt a phrase and with it gain the fruits of decades of German tactical

innovation, doctrinal development and training. An American Auftragstaktik

will require a similar investment to establish a common cultural bias of

doctrinal terms, tactical procedures, and a combined arms organization that

facilitates decentralized combat operations. Tactical quantification can

accelerate that process by providing a rigorous frame of reference for the

examination of tactical problems and the comparison of tactical solutions

through specific numerical estimates of time, space, and relative combat

power. An Army that is practically mute in the language of operational

terms may well start with the unambiguous language of numbers as the

initial foundation for a common cultural bias.

TWe Leac of the Active_ Defense: The legacy of the mechanistic

battle calculus of the Active Defense is anything but quantitative. Tn the

Army's Justified enthusiasm to reject the excessive defensive focus of that

doctrine, it may have inadvertently associated the mechanics of the
doctrine - - quantification - - with the deficiencies of the Active

Defense. All tactics must be based on - - bong other things - certain

objective considerations of time, space, and relative -ombat power. The

flaw in Active Defense was not tactical quantification but a reactive fccuz
that failed to account for the depth of opposing forces.'-'

VI

A26L1 f LAL'1
 The European focus was another aspect of the Active Defense that lei

to a decline in US Army tactical quantification. The General Defense Plan

focus undermined one of the oldest components of our Army's tactical

quantification skills - - large scale movement planning:

Offensive doctrine was a dead letter in the Army for many

years.... the modest requirements of our earlier defensive
doctrine allowed tacticians to forget about movement once units
reached their sectors.6'
Moreover, the Active Defense coincided with a rene*ed and detailed look at

our European opponents - - the Soviets. This look presented a frightening

view of an opponent that had methodically modernized and expanded its
forces while the United States fought a painful war in Southeast Asia.
Some US thinkers seized on "initiative" and native intelligence as some
sort of antidote for the overwhelming imbalance in relative combat power.
A deprecation of Soviet decision making as rigid and non-creative supported
this view. Although US perceptions of Soviet capabilities are now more
realistic, many US officers still associate tactical quantification with
imagined deficiencies in Soviet tactics.
The... odern...Ba.tlefe.ld:. Initial periods of combat may well be
decisive in the next war. The United States no longer has the luxury of a
prolonged period of intuitive tactical learning and experience generation.
The projected tempo and expense of modern battle eliminate the prospect of

experiential learning: there is no Italy where a budding Napoleon can

gradually acquire war experience in tactical decision making. Troop

control procedures will not have the time to evolve during combat: the

initial command and control procedures may prove to be decisive.'- We

should carefully reexamine The Estimate to determine if a process and a

27

UIL
format that has not changed fundamentally in several decades still meets

the requirements of modern battle.

Theo.ret ical. Imp.lications

Art vs Science;.Difficulties vs Puzzles: Writing in Background to

De-cision-Maki.ng, William A. Reitzel provides an excellent frameworK for

addressing the theoretical implications of the US/Soviet troop control

dichotomy through his distinction between puzzles and difficulties:

a fundamental source of confusion in ordinary talk about

decision making .. concerns the difference between performing
.

calculations (finding exact answers) and making choices

(picking a course of action to gain an objective.) Consider
two very plain English words in this connection: Puzzle and
Difficulty.
A Puzzle is an uncertainty that can usually be solved
correctly in one way. It always has a solution and the
solution is an absolute one ..... A difficulty is another kind
of uncertainty altogether. It cannot be solved in the
preceding sense. It can be surmounted, overcome, reduced,
avoided, ignored; but it cannot be solved.c-'-

Reitzel goes on to point out that frequently military problems are

difficulties that include solvable components - puzzles. Frequently

puzzles and difficulties correspond to staff and command responsibilities

in tactical decision making. Reitzel summarized that relationship as

follows:
The Puzzle responds to The Difficulty responds to
Measurement Analysis
Calculation Professional Judgment
Staff Work Choice of courses
and is and is (sometimes with the
aid of puzzle techniques)
SOLVABLE SURMOUNTABLEs

The implications of our failure to distinguish between puzzles and

difficulties is evident in the theoretical considerations of Friction,

Creativity, Centralization, and Command & Control.

28
 Tactical Quantification and Friction: While langer, e:erioi.

uncertainty and chance guarantse that every important tactical oecision

will be a serious difficulty, we must also realize that each difi:ulty

includes several components that are in fact puzzles. It would ;e foolish

to forego the solution of those few solvable puzzles of time, space, and

relative combat power merely because ultimate elimination of the total

tactical difficulty is beyond our ken. Tactical quantification provides an

objective frame of reference that steadies the commander against the

eroding influences of danger and exertion. Although uncertaintv and cnance

are not amenable to exact measurement, even approximate measurement has its

utility. A commander can not predict the exact outcome of a contemplated

engagement, for example, but an analysis of relative unit capabilities may

establish reasonable bounds on the probable result. An Army contemplating

combat on the modern battlefield would be ill-advised to dispense with any

tool that potentially reduces the difficulty of modern combat friction.

Tactical.Quantification and Creativity: If tactical problems were

mere puzzles, then tactical quantification might lead to mundane,

stereotyped tactical solutions. Because tactical problems are

difficulties, however, the application of quantification will not

precipitate a routine, unimaginative solution. On the contrary,

quantification can bolster the creativity of the tactical decision maker in

two ways. First, automation of tactical quantification procedures con free

the staff from routine, non-creative tasks. More importantly, no

creativity is possible without some form of measured feedback. Nothing

could be more stifling to creativity than an inability to forecast and

29

... . ........
, ' . . .. . . . . .
estimate the results of projected courses of action. Quantification offers

the measurement and comparison tools so integral to any creative process.

Tactica uantificati~...and Centralizat.ion: For many US Army officers

the initial introduction of modern management methods coincided with the
debut of expensive "central" computers. It is understandable that
quantification techniques should be unfavorably associated with centralized
management trends. The advent of inexpensive and effective microcomputers,
however, has broken the bond between automation and centralization.
Tactical quantification can now provide an unambiguous description of time,
space and combat power requirements that supports a decentralization,
rather than a centralization, of combat decisicn making.
Control vs.Comand,. Leadershipvs Manaaement: The US Arniy must
abandon the mindset that demands a choice between Command or Control,
Leadership or Management. These concepts are complementary, not
contradictory: "Command is the desired result and leadership is the primary.
means. Control is the adjunct to command and management is its means. ' "
The negative association of quantification with "control" has caused many
officers to ignore the potential of tactical quantification. if we are
going to have an army in which officers train for both command and staff,
then we should recognize that between those rare command opportunities for
"intuitive coup d'oei.", most officers must frequently serve as astute
staff "control engineers." Tactical quantification skills can serve them
well in both roles.
DoctrinalIm~plications
Although the professional soldier may be tempted to ignore the
historical and theoretical implications of the divergent US and Soviet

30

.S
approaches to tactical quantification, the doctrinal imolications of that
dichotomy demand his attention. Steven Argersinger comments that:

All else being equal, we would find it very difficult, if not

impossible, to turn inside the Soviet decision (control) cycle
71
based solely on staff mechanics
The US approach to tactical quantification has important implications for
the tenets of US Army Airland Battle doctrine: Agility, Initiative, Depth

and Synchronization.

Decisipn Making.Agility: It is essential to distinguish tactical

decision making agility from serendipity. Agility is not the capacity for

"intuitive and holistic thinking", nor does it connote a propensity to

rapidly change one's mind. Agility in tactical decision making is cur

capacity - - relative to that of our opponent - - to acquire, analyze, and

act on information. The increased complexity of modern combat has limited

the agility potential of human intuition;7 2 agility requires not only

creativity but also less exciting yet essential expertise in staff

mechanics and estimate quantification. So long as the outcome of combat

depends on the relative combat power of forces moving in time and space,

quantifiable estimates will have an indispensable role in tactical decision

making agility.

Decision Making Initiative: The relationship of tactical

quantification to decision making initiative originates in the feedback

mechanism inherent to any decision process. To initiate action, the

tactical decision maker must first identify the requirement for action. To

identify that requirement, he must estimate the combat situation. That

estimate is not only qualitative - through our subjective assessment of

the situation - - but also quantitative - - through objective measurements

31

-= M . p -. - ~~
of space, time and relative combat power. Tactical quantification is a

necessary component to accurate and timely estimation - - the feedback

process essential to decision making initiative.

Decisin
. i.ng.
.Depth:.The increased tempo and spatial depth of the

modern battlefield generates requirements for a parallel decision making

"depth". Enemy and friendly activities must be forecast and planned for

longer periods and greater distances. This increased scope magnifies both

the amount and the complexity of the data presented to the tactical

planner. 7 4 It is no longer sufficient - - as FM 100-5 suggests - - merely

to read the modern battlefield; the tactical planner must a13o understand

it. Such understanding is not likely without the support of quantified

estimates of time, space and relative combat power.

D-ecis.ion .Maing..Syr..hznization: Army officers are understandably

wary of the Russian practice of scheduling combat activities. Combat

according to detailed timetables evokes memory of the WWI Somme disaster in

which hundreds of thousands went to their deaths in an orderly schedule.

Again a key distinction is necessary in order to appreciate the proper role

of tactical quantification: combat synchronization is Rot combat

scheduling. Scheduling is the planning of subunit mission accomplishment

with respect to absolute date-time groups. It is appropriate in planning

as a subunit coordination measure. It is potentially disastrous as a

mission execution control measure. Synchronization is the planning of

subunit task accomplishments with respect to each other and to some

unifyjngopbj.ectve. It is not important that the 52d Mech Division attack

at 1500 hours (as scheduled), for example, but it is important that this

supporting attack coincide with the main Corps attack in an adjacent

32
division sector. Quantified time estimates are necessary to forecast tne

relative synchronization of combat activities, not their absolute

accomplishment in time. This relative coordination, plus the ability to

rapidly adjust and manipulate those relationships during tactical

execution, is the advantage the Soviets gain in their diagrammatic planning

process.

The._Evaluation..o.f Doc.trine: Tactical quantification has a role not

only in the application of doctrine, but also in its evaluation. A careful

quantitative analysis was instrumental in the decision to discard the

Active Defense." ' An inability to assess the validity of our fundamental

doctrinal assumptions is the most frightening aspect of the Army's current

neglect of tactical quantification. Our doctrine deserves the same

rigorous examination that led to the demise of its predecessor. A frank

examination of correlations of forces, movement rates and unit frontages

may be a highly discomforting exercise. It is nevertheless a necessary one

if our doctrine is to meet the needs of the national defense.

Tactical Quantification: Foundation for the Operational Level of War:

The act of intuition incorporates past personal experience to evaluate the

feasibility of intended courses of action. The dilemma is that as one

ascends to the higher levels of command, the personal experience of the

planner becomes relatively limited in supplying that intuitive

appreciation. Most combat arms officers know the amount of time and space

needed to deploy an armor company column into an attack formation, for

example, but relatively few appreciate the routes, depth and time required

for a divi3ion movement. Holger H. Herwig'j observations on German

military planning are interesting in this regard: a force noted for

33
exemplary tactical proficiency failed because at higher levels an "ostrich

like refusal to tackle the 'technical side' of the military plan guaranteed

exhaustion rather than victory. "' At higher levels, quantification is a

necessary aid to fathom the myriad complexities of division/corps movement

and logistic functions. Tactical quantification helps form the foundation

for Judgment at the operational level of war.

ACaveat:

Reitzel's caveat on the limitations of "puzzle-solving" is hardly

necessary for an Army already wary of tactical quantification:

..,the legitimate success of puzzle-solving responses can
easily lead to their illegitimate extension to the genuinely
non-measurable and non-calculable aspects of a difficulty. When
an uncertainty situation involves human preferences, human
values, and humanly defined objectives, it is more than a
puzzle and it will never be effectively - that is,
satisfactorily - overcome by dealing with it as if it were a
puzzle. 76

Nevertheless, Reitzel's concern is well taken: a simplistic application of

tactical quantification can be disastrous. Estimation of relative combat

power is never a simple accounting puzzle - Dupuy's analysis of 42 battles

over the last two centuries indicates that in 24 (57%) of these battles

the victor was numerically inferior." Any estimate of relative combat

power must address the entire spectrum of firepower, mobility, protection

and leadership; it will alwaysbe a difficultyin which tactical

qqantificationmust complement intuitive Judgment.

34

,~ ei
 VI Projections for the Application of Tactical Quantification

The persistence of the factors that precipitated the "Revolution in

Military Affairs" will continue to give impetus to tactical

quantification's role in the cybernetic domain of battle.

Sovie.t Pro ect ion.s:

Since relative agility is the key criteria for successful tactical

decision making, Soviet projections are of especial interest. The Soviets

do not consider their extensive progress in this field to be complete:

...perfection of troop control must be conducted constantly,

for there is no limit to scientific-technical progress, raising
of the combat capacities of armaments, military equipment, and
groupings of troops (forces). 7*'

Altukhov describes the principal requirements for future Soviet troop

control to be improved operativeness (effectiveness), stability (continuity

of operations), quality and secrecy. The Soviets see a premier role for

computers in meeting their future cybernetic requirements. -' The Soviets

also have high regard for the potential of artificial intelligence

technology. Frolov compares the current pessimism on artificial

intelligence to the limitations of Newtonian mechanics before the discovery

of quantum mechanics; artificial intelligence is seen as a further decision

aid that will expand the commander's creativity. '1'

We can expect the Soviets to continue to field decision support

systems that are completely integrated with their doctrine, training, and

troop control procedures. As technical means are developed or obtained

from the West, they will quickly apply them to tactical decision making

problems. The field use of tactical computers will continue its migration

to lower levels of command.

35

- "- • : - w J ,d *r , . , .. , . . '
US Projec.tions:

Any projections for future application of quantification in US

tactical decision making must be carefully placed in their broader

methodological context. Accurate force correlations, for example, are

simple mathematical estimates, they are meaningless outside the framework

of an effective estimate process. Quantification in tactical decision

making is not a "problem" amenable to direct solution; it must be a

component of a systematic approach to tactical decision making that

incorporates theory, doctrine, training and force development.

Theory: Theory serves as a framework of organized knowledge.

Although Soviet officers work within an extensive conceptual framework of

"laws of warfare", "principles of military art", and "law-governed

patterns", US thinking is less structured. A 1979 US colloquium on command

and control systems concluded that "there is no adequate foundation for a

theory of command and control and, hence, no guiaing principle for system

design and development. ""E Although the United States has generated some

significant work on the theory of decision making in general, that theory

has not been incorporated into military thinking. The development of a

revised theoretical foundation for tactical decision making that

incorporates some of the significant civilian advances in this field would

be an excellent basis for further progress in this key area.

Beyond the theory of decision making, there is extensive theoretical

work to be done with respect to the mechanics of tactical quantification.

The scientific basis of the limited quantification guidelines in ST 100-9

is uncertain. The guidelines themselves are far from complete. What is

the appropriate correlation factor between Soviet and US weapons and units'?

36
What are reasonable movement rates for opposed and unopposed movement in
different types of terrain? How long will certain key combat activities
really take? Should relative combat power be evaluated by one overall
index or by multiple indices? Are the Soviet Lanchestrian relationships of
force correlations to attrition and movement correct? How can the IPB
process drive a quantitative estimate of indirect fire support
requirements? These are questions that the United States is relatively
well-equipped to answer. But these questions will not be answered until
they are asked.
Doct.T.ne: The absence of an organized theory of tactical decision

making is further reflected in doctrine - - the application of theory to

current context. In light of the incredible evolution of modern combat
means, the fact that our procedures and our format for tactical decision
making have not changed significantly in several decades is reason enough
for their serious reexamination. A fundamental objective of that
reexamination should be to determine if those procedures meet the tempo and
complexity challenges of modern tactical decision making.
An additional objective should be to determine if tactical
quantification merits an outright position in US tactical decision making
doctrine or should rather be described as a potential implementing
procedure. The difficulties and delays associated with acceptance of
doctrine in the US Army are well known. The current doctrine development
process may be incapable of keeping pace with the changes in quantification
techniques and tools. Conversely, the current relegation of the ST 100-9
quantification procedures to a restricted academic environment limits the

37
understanding of those techniques, their implemientation in the field, and
the development of supporting procedures and equipment.
Training: FM 100-5 observes that
In the end, agility is as much a mental as a physical quality.
Our Army has traditionally taken pride in its soldiers ability
to "think on their feet" and to see and react rapidly to
changing circumstances. -
Is "think on your feet" adequate guidance to prepare our soldiers for the
complexity of decision making on the modern battlefield? The French after-
action report describing the debacle of the 1940 Battle of France concluded
that "future training exercises should emphasize having commanders solve
unanticipated problems, make decisions, and issue orders rapidly.";,
Intuitive Judgment -- through it-- reliance on previous experience -- can
disastrously fail to meet the challenge of unexpected enemy combat methods.
There is an obvious potential for tactical quantification as an analytical
tool to supplement Judgment in unique, unanticipated tactical situations.
That tool will be useless, however, unless officers are trained in
its application. US Army officers are generally intelligent, industrious,
and computer-literate. They have the maturity to exercise quantifiable
decision making techniques with proper restraint and appreciation of the
limitations of those techniques. The fundamentals of tactical
quantification techniques should be a component of every officer's entry-

level professional training.

Force DevePlopnenkt: A major obstacle to implementation of tactical
quantification in the United States Army is the tediousness and difficulty
of manual calculation. A decision that is quantitatively substantiated is
useless if it occurs too late. Tactical quantification and field
automation devices have a reinforcing relationship: -automation is not

38
 advantageous unless the decision process includes quantitative, algorithmic

components; tactical quantification techniques are expedited by automated

decision aids.

An absence of tactical quantification techniques is the origin of the

US propensity to apply automation to data storage and communication rather

than to analysis. The current projections for tactical decision making

devices do not promise to reverse that trend. The Maneuver Control System

is primarily a data acquisition, storage and retrieval system with limited

capacity for data analysis.4

The development of quantifiable decision techniques is the

fundamental, indispensable first step needed to capture the benefits of

modern computers for the tactical decision making process. This is one of

those rare situations in which equipment is not an obstacle - - most

tactical quantification procedures are readily programmed on the type of

personal computer now available in all headquarters. Inclosure D dezcribes

several automated decision aids to demonstrate the potential of the

microcomputer to facilitate tactical quantification calculations.

I
I 39
39%10&0 =4, 1
 VII Conclusion and Summary
Tactical genius: art or science'? Major E.S. Johnston addressed this
question in his 1934 paper, ...Science of.War:
The application of knowledge ... is art. All arts ... rest on
science. War is both a science and an art; and, as for any p
art, we will apply it more effectively as an art if we
understand the science underlying it.*'
In assessing the merits of the superpowers' doctrinal "wager" .. the stark

dichotomy in their troop control processes - - it would appear that the

Soviets exercise a sounder approach to tactical quantification. The US

assumption that tactical genius is a pure art may in fact be a reckless
gamble. Although it is difficult to reconcile the clearly measurable
tactical considerations of time, space, and relative combat power with the
unquantifiable factors of danger, violence, uncertainty and chance, we can
surely do better than to choose between them! A failure to acknowledge

tactical quantification as a complement to intuitive judgment produces a

self-imposed friction in which, as Napoleon stated, "an abundance of ideas
without firm and rapid analysis blinds rather than clarifies."''-
American officers are intelligent, computer-literate, and have the
maturity to exercise appropriate restraint in the application of tactical
quantification. it is ironic that the most technically developed nation in
the world eschews quantification - - the language of technology - - in the

planning of combat. When the United States Army restores balance to its
appreciation of tactical quantification, US Army officers will be better

prepared to meet B.H. Liddell Hart's prescription for tactical genius:

Creative imagination is the essential characteristic of genius
... when coupled with dynamic energy, it produces an executive
genius. When balanced by cool calculation, it makes a Great
Captain.

40
APP.A.The. Battle Calculus Method

Inclosures 1 through 3 are representative extracts from the BDM Corporation

Commander's Battle Book with Battle Book Calculus. They are typical "battle
calculus" methodologies that supported Active Defense tactical doctrine.

Inclosure 1 - Battle Book Calculus Method Overview

2 - Steps for Moving Forces and Calculating Engagements

3 - Loss Calculation Graphs (2 pages)

LI

41S

V
Inclosure 1, App A: Battle Book Calculus Method Overview

From: The BDM Corporation, Commander's Battle Book with Battle Book Calculus,
(Fort Ord, California) (undated)

BATTLE BOOK CALCULUS

MOVE ENEMY FORCE

ONE TIME INCR EET
(One Minut)
SELECT MA
AT DESIRED SCALE

PLACE WEAPON
COVERAGE TEMPLATE . ,
OVER ENEMY FORCE

GRAPH PAPER -

COMPUTE RED . ;-4

I AND BLUE LOSSES
;' SELECT ENEMY FORCE
AND FORMATION,
AND ATTACK SPEED
MARK OFF LOSSES
ON RED TEMPLATE

j. LAY OUT DEFENSIVE

POSITIONS IMF,
PLOT NUMBER OF WEAPONS
4 * ENGAGING AND FORCE
REMAINING ON GRAPH PAPER
SELECT WEAPON ... .
:?
o';. COVERAGE TEMPLATES ",""
SI MOVE ENEMY FORCE
" ......... I ONE TIME INCREMENT,
" 'REPEAT LOSS CALCULATION
AND PLOT RESULTS
* ~MODIFY WEAPON TEMPLATE ADPO EUT
Y-;'
! , FOR INTERVISIBILITY ' .. . .____"
EACH
i. DEFENSE SITE
F~i MOVE BLUE FORCES

+.
i SELECT ENEMY ROUTES, .-. -+... '.:i

TIME TICK THESE ROUTES

.... .... L'mm~' REPEAT PROCESS 7t.-
UNTIL BATTLE IS OVER

Overview of Battle Book Calculus Method

42

......... ' ,-
LNVUWWWuV1M1tFW rU ~ Xpr iUU I'
KE WINl~rr~ Nn'70Nr ~ri
7SJI .2. .1' JI-J ~ 7 xnj .P _ i
r.d -. V_2-' ._

Inclosure 2, App A: Steps for Moving Forces and Calculating Engagements

From: The BDM Corporation, Commander's Battle Book with Battle Book Calculus,
(Fort Ord, California) (undated)

BATTLE BOOK CALCULUS

MOVING FORCES AND CALCULATING ENGAGEMENTS

STEP NO. 1 - Using Engineer graph paper or a to 42 Rodand 21 Blue for the second minute. Cumula-
suitable substitute, draw a vertical line along the five losses are also shown here. five for Red and none
left margin of the graph paper. One for the Red /or Blue af the end of the first minute. and ten for Red
Force and one for the Blue as shown in the and one for Blue at the end of the second minute
example. Next lay off in multiples of ten, a series (losses calculated in Step No. 5).
of indices going from 0 to whatever number com-
prises the total Red and/or Blue forces. These STEP NO. 5- Sum the number of weapons by
will be used to indicate the total weapons en- type which are engaging at this point in time.
gaged, and torce remaining in the battle, for each Calculate the losses as follows:
minute of play. KILLS BY BLUE KILLS BY RED
Number MSOA1 X .3 - Number T62 X .02 -
STEP NO. 2 - Draw a horizontal line from the Number
Number M551
TOW xX .lS
.lS --
Number BMP X .02 -
base of the vertical line drawn, extending it to the Number DRAGON X .S-
right. Along this line lay off In equal parts a series
of indices indicating separate one-minute inter- In this example Blue's eleven M60A I weapons gen-
vats of battle time. ereted 3.3 Red kills while six M551 weapons
achieved 0.9 kills end io TOW an addihonal0.3 )ils.
STEP NO. 3 - Move the Red force at one minute The total Red kills is 4.5 which is rounded to 5. Simi.
intervals until forces engage. Using the Red unit larly 16 T.62 Red weapons generated 0.32 Blue kills
templates and the Blue weapon coverage temp-
lates determine the Red and Blue units engaged. Distribute the losses to units using tactical judg-
At the top of the Red and Blue battle graphs. ment. The losses distributed to the units, in this ex-
record for each minute of the battle, the identity of ample, are one each to Company 1. 2. and 3 of the Ist
the units engaged by battalion and company for Battalion.Two kills were assessed against Company
the Red force and by weapon position for the 2 of the 2nd Batetlon. Mark off losses on the Red
Blue force. Indicate opposite each unit/position, unit templates. Also enter the total losses for both
the total weapons, by type, engaged during that Red and Blue on the graph. Do this by showing
minute of the battle. Then add together the total subtractions against the units recorded in Step.
number of weapons engaged. For the example, in No. 3 at the top of the bar graphs.
the first minute there are 16 Red and 19 Blue
weapons engaged. For the second minute the totais STEP NO. 6 - Draw in. for each minute of the
37 Red and 21 Blue weapons engaged. The numbers
for the second minute reflect the addition of weapons battle, bar graphs denoting the total weapons
due to new Red weapons advancing within Blue engaged (dashed line) by each opponent. Also
weapon coverage. In the case of Red weapons, the graph the number of weapons remaining (solid
loss oflive weapons due to Blue action in the previous line) at the end of this interval.
minute is also reflected.
STEP NO. 7 - Repeat the above steps for each
STEP NO. 4 - (Optional) Beneath each of the one minute time Interval of the battle. As you go
Red and Blue bar graphs record the cumulative to succeeding intervals be sure to account for
number of weapons committed as the battle Red and Blue losses from previous intervals.
progresses. This can be done by keeping a Red losses will be already marked on templates
scratch sheet total, adding to it the number of and will also be shown above the bar graphs.
now weapons which become engaged as the Blue losses will be recorded only above the bar
Red force advances. In the example, this is 18 Red graphs.
and t9 Stue for the first minute interval,and increases 'Nfa Red weapon IsInthe coverage of mae 'ienone Blue
uni, ourn Vio Red weson only once.

43
 LrjK1PTM~rPLJLAP*-Wr"a 1. rxl -6P -jr e.r~ -------

Inclosure 3, APP A: Loss Calculation Graphs

From: The BDMd Corporation, Commander's Battle Book with Battle Book Calculus,
CFort Ord, California) (undated)

_7
I.RCt
I. .....
....

A
Ur'jT . .1- 7[. o
7--i
:-A
%
fvi
I. LCO i-. A
I _I _
- - -

-7-

- - - T
-K t
I .. . . . ...
~~ A777-.

-No.4MS qA-

A i
-- - No. 2

M IV U I

___ Cu P t I C
coml~n1co Losses1M~M3

44
Inclosure 3, APP A: Loss Calculation Graphs
From: The BDM Corporation, Commander's Battle Book with Battle Book Calculus,
(Fort Ord, California) (undated)

-. -- - _______BATTLE BOOK CALCULUS

.... -i Ii IM 2 . L ~ . . "6At~ 7j-

3- . r

7 C- --
Ir

[ rZ -d! _

T4 I _______

44

45
APP B Representative Tactical Quantification (US)

This appendix demonstrates the tactical quantification exercised in course of

action development and analysis in current US tactical decision making. The
methodology for these procedures is in Command and General Staff College
Student Text 100-9, The Command Estimate. The two procedures demonstrated
will be the estimate of relative combat power and the estimate of movement
rates.

1. Relative combat pgwer: The planner compares relative combat power by

selecting a base unit and subjectively assigning each unit (both enemy and
friendly) a combat power value relative to that unit. The ST 100-9 uses the
Soviet BTR battalion as the base unit for that comparison, as demonstrated by
FIG 1 (Table 4-1 from ST 100-9).

Table 4-1. US vs Souiet Combat Unit Comparison Values

MANEUVER
US (J-Series) Soviet
M113 Bn =1.5 BTR Bn =1
M2 Bn =2 BMP Bn = 1.5
M60 Bn = 2.75 Tk Bn (ITR) = 2.6
M1 Bn =3 Tk Bn (TR) = 1.6
ACR Sqdn = 2.75 AT Bn =1
Div Cay Sqdn (H) = 2 ITB/TB (MRR)-- 2.0
Div Cay Sqdn = 1.5
Atk Hel Bn =4 Atk Hel Bn =2

ARTILLERY
FA Bn =2 FA Bn =2
MLRS Btry =2 MRL Btry =1

FIG I

Relative combat power values are adjusted to account for the actual strength
of participating units. These relative combat power values are then used to
estimate a correlation of forces for the opposing sides. ST 100-9 recommends
the estimation of two correlations: maneuver and artillery. An example
calculation is at FIG 2 (Fig 4-1, ST 100-9).

46
 US Soviet

17 GMRD 5TD
Type #Bn Value Total Type #Bn Value Total Total
BTR 6 1.0 6.0
M2 4 2.0 8.0 BMP 4 1.5 4.5 1.5
TB/MRR 3 2.0 6.0
Mi 6 3.0 18.0 ITB/MRD 1 2.0 2.0
TB/TR 6 1.6 4.8(3) 4.8(3)
TOTAL 26.0 23.3 6.3
X% Strength .9 .7 .9
Relative combat powers 23.4 16.3 5.7
Ratio for maneuver forces 23.4:22.0 = 1:1
ARTY
FA 7 2.0 14.0 FA 7 2.0 14.0
X% Strength .9 .7
Relative powers 12.6 9.8
Ratio for artillery forces 12.6:9.8 1.3:1

FIG 2

The correlation factors serve as guidelines to estimate the feasibility of

missions. (FIG 3, (Table 4-3, ST 100-9) ).

Table 4-3. Planning Ratios for the Array of Friendly Units

Friendly Minsion Friendly: Enemy Notes

Delay 1:6
Defend 1:3 Prepared or Fortified
Defend 1:2.5 Hasty
Attack 3:1 Prepared or Fortified
Attack 2.5:1 Hasty position
Counterattack 1:1 Flank

FIG 3

The correlation of forces calculation can be developed for the entire sector
of operations or for specific subsectors or subphases of the proposed course
of action.

2. Estimate tools for rates of movement in ST 100-9 Include two tables. Table
§-4 (Inclosure 1) is an adaptation of the CACDA Jiffy III War Game. It is

47
used for estimating feasible movement rates at brigade level and below. Table
5-5 (Inclosure 2) is a derivation of Dupuy's estimates in Numbers, Prediction
and War. It is recommended for estimation of Division level movement rates.

Inclosure 1 - Table 5-4, ST 100-9, Brigades and Below Opposed Rates of Advance
(in km/hr)

2 - Table 5-5, ST 100-9, Division Opposed Rates of Advance (in

km/day)

I.

48.

II
Inclosure 1, App B: Table 5-4, ST 100-9, Brigades and Below Opposed Rates of
Advance (in km/hr)

Table5-4. &gnedse
end . Advance (U behe'Aer)
elowOpposed ZAs.e
I
Degree of PREPARED DEFESr BSTI DItENSI5
leistancse
Attacker to GO SLOW-GO NO-Go Go SLOW-GO NO-GO
Defend TERRAIN TERRAIN TEIRRAI TERRAIN TERRAIN TERRAIN
Ratio AzrmlM h nf Armlech Inf Are/Holh Tnf AremMch nf Arm/Hech lof Arm/M ch lnt

Intense
Basis a
1,1 .6 .5 .5 .3 .15 .1 1.0 .8 .8 .5 .b .2
laey lieawy
2,1 .9 .6 .6 .4 .3 .2 1.5 1.0 1.0 .7 .6 .3

Sassy
3,0 1.2 .7 .75 .5 .5 .3 2.0 1.2 1.3 .9 .8 .5

4,1 1.4 .8 I.0 .6 . , .5 2.4 1.4 1.75 1.1 .9 .8

Light
5. 1 1.5 .9 1.1 .7 .6 .5 2.6 1.6 2.0 1.2 1.0 .9

6.1 1.7. 1.0. 1.3+ .8. .6. .6. 3.0. 1.7. 2.3. 1.3. 1.1. 1.0

Sources Adapted from CACDAJiffy III War Gae. Val I, Methodoloy.

1
2 Units cannot sustain these rates for 24 hours. Thee ratas are reduced by I at night.
The relative combat power ratio must be computed for the unit under considertion.
3
1Ihan there is surprise meultiply these figures by a surprise factor as follows:
-- Complete Surprise x 5 (e.g., German at the Ardennes in 1944, Arabe in 1973).
-Substantial Surprise a 3 (e.g., Gerom invasion of Ruaia In 1I, Israelis' invasion of Sinai in 1967).
-- linor Surprise z 1.3 (e.g.. Allied Iorm ny landing In 194b, Pakistanis' attack on India in 1?71).
The effects of surprise last for 3 days, being roduce9d by one-third on day 2 and two-thirds on day 3.
Cpepared defense Li based on defender in prepared positions (24 hours or ore).
65Hasty defense is base on 2 to 12 hours preparation time.
The ratios used here are to deteraine the degree of resistance. There i no direct relationship between advance retes
and force ratios. However. sustained sdvances probably are not possible without a 3 to I ratio. Advance Is possible against *C
superior forces but cannot be sustained.
'Raoes greater than 6 to I will result In advanoes beateen these and the unopposed reies.

49

t kzj~ij kI.
 Inclosure 2, APP B: Table 5-5, ST 100-9, Division Opposed Rates of Advance (in
km/day)

"
Table -S. Diusoan Opposed Rates ofAduance (inkin/day13,
3 M
Degree at PREPARED OOUSE NASTY DEFEINS DELAY
Attae to GO SLOWI-GO NO-GO GO SLOW-O0
Deender TERRAIN TERRAIN TERRAIN TERRAIN NO-GO
TERRAIN TERRAIN
Ratio Armflech Inf Arufi-ech Tnf Ar-m/lHoh tof Armjlech Inf Ara/Mech Inf Arm/Mech Inf

Intense
lesistance
11 2 2 1 . .6 s N 2 2 1.2 1.2
Very Heavy
2:1 (.) -6 4 2-3 2 1.5-1.8 1.2 10-12 a 5-6 4 - _-3.6 2.4
eavy
3,0 -8 5 3-4 2.5 2.1-2.4 1.5 13-16 10 a 5 3.9-4.8 3
redium
,Il 8-10 6 N..5 3 2.4-3 1.8 16-20 12 10 6 4.8-6 3.6

Light
531 16-20 10 8-10 5 4.8-6 3 30-40 18 20 9 9-12 5.4

Neg igi.ble
6,1 24-30 12 12-15 6 7.2-.9 3.6 48-60 24 30 12 14.4.18 7.2

Sources RUes. Predictions and War, Dupuy. T. N., 1979.

1Wen there is surprise, multiply these ftiguresby a surprise factor As follows:
--Coaplete Surprise x 5 (e.g., Germans at the Ardennes in 194N, Arabs In 1973).
-Substantial Surprise s 3 (e.g., German lnvaalcn of Russia In 19 1, Israelis' invasion at Sinai in 1967).
-- lMnor Surprise 1 1.3 (e.g., Allied Normandy landing In 19N, PakistanLs' attack on India in 1971).
The effects of surprise last for 3 days, being reduced by one-third an day 2 and twa-thirds an day 3.
2U30 the relative combat power from paragraph 2a(N) in the operaticns estimate.
3
Prepared defase Is based on defender in prepared positions (2N hours or sore).
4Hasty defense Is based an 2 to 12 hours prmparation aime.
5
ThV ratios used here are to determine the degree of resistance. There is no direct reLationshtp between advance rates
and torce ratios. However, sustained advences probably are not possible without a 3 to I ratio. Advance is possible against
superior forces but cannot be Sustained.
GRates greater than 6 to I will result in advances between these and the unopposed rates.

.501
C ' . %; r -SI .
A
APP C_Reprsentative.Tat ical Quatification_(Soviet)

1. Soviet tactical calculations are performed in a methodical algorithm that

supports the staff planning process. The decision algorithm at Inclosure 1-I
is used in CGSC instruction for Course A352, Soviet Operational Art, and is
representative of the logic employed in Soviet planning.

2. The representative tactical calculations described in this Appendix are

extracted from various US and Soviet sources, particularly Vayner's Tactical.
Calculations.

a. Correaton of forces: The Soviets estimate both quantitative and

qualitative force correlations for several indices of relative combat power.
Initial quantitative estimates are converted to standard units of armament to
achieve qualitative comparisons. The density of weapon systems per unit
frontage is also calculated (Inclosure 2-1).

b. Arti"l..ey_F1e acuato"u. i-os: Unlike his US counterpart, the Soviet

will calculate specific indirect fire support requirements to verify the
feasibility of the fires portion of the course of action concept.
1) An example calculation of the surface suppression available
from a particular fire means is at Inclosure 2-2.

2) An example calculation of the allowable firing time without

changing positions is at Inclosure 2-3.
c. Reconnaissance Requirements: Because of their quantitative approach
to tactical decision making, the availability of input data for the
quantitative model is the driving impetus for the Soviet emphasis on
reconnaissance. The required reconnaissance effort is estimated through
calculations such as the one at Inclosure 2-4.

d. Opposed movement rates and attrition: The Soviets believe that

movement rates and expected attrition are related to force correlations that
can be modeled through Lanchester-type equations. The nomogram at Inclosure
2-5 demonstrates a nomogram that relates correlation of forces and movement.
Inclosure 2-6 depicts the estimated relationship between correlation of forces
and attrition.

e. Mqvemet.p.j_4)ni.ng: The Soviets do not relegate movement planning to

an isolated subportion of the staff; they expect all planners to take
objective consideration of the time-space considerations of large-scale
movement. The examples at Inclosures 2-7 and 2-8 are only a portion of the 23
movement formulas elaborated in Vayner's Ta.cticalC.alculation..

Inclosures:
1-I - Decision Algorithm
2-1 - Correlation of Forces Calculation
2-2 - Surface Suppression of Fires Calculation

1
2-3 - Permissible Firing Time Calculation

51
2-4 - Determination of Reconnaissance Search Length
Calculation
2-5 - Correlation of Forces and Movement Rates
2-6 - Correlation of Forces and Attrition
2-7 - Road (Route) Throughput Calculation
2-8 - Passage Time of a Column into a Concentration
Region

lot

52

yea
t<q 2
Inclosure 1-1, APP C: Decision Algorithm

From CGSC Instruction A352: Soviet Operational Art, AY 86-87

U.S. AIM COMM4AND AND GENERAL, STAFF COLLEGE

SOVIET OPERATIONAL ART

Appendix 7 to Section I. Army Lev'el Planning--Analytic
Architecture
OBANCONTINUING INTELLIGENCE
O OANCOMBAT SITUATION

PLAFRF POABLE MISSIONS

OfVFROT PRELilaICOBATM

CCCONTEOF OFAIN

CHOOSE MOST SIA

COMBAT NETWOR

MODIFY XETWiORK
AS EEDED

CALCULATE MOVEMENT
TDIE UP TO H-HOUR'

9AFIER FIRST TIME

THROUGH, INCR94ENT
B! TC

53
Inclosure 1-1, APP C: Decision Algorithm

From CGSC Instruction A352: Soviet Operational Art, AY 86-87

OK? NOSECTORSCHANGE REGIME~NTAL

NO
TOR
DIVISION
-

OFPREPARATION FIRFR
(AID IND ARTY).
ALLOCATION
AN
CALCULATE REULTS OF
OC DETERMINE
PREPARATION FIRES

OK FIRE
ALLOCATIONS

OTHE INPUNTS, E.G.

MODEL A/B RATES

CALCULATE FRIENDLY LOSSES

FOR THE ENEM1 LOSS LEVEL
SPECIFIED BY COMMER,
COMPARE W1ITH IS CRITERION
OF ICCEPT.BLE LOSSES.
toots
YEN S
40
USE NMELS A/B

0
?ICREA.,E CORRELATION OF 2
FORtCES ON MIIN AXIS3
YESB

5.
Inclosure 1-li APP C: Decision Algorithm

From CGSC Instruction A352: Soviet Operational Art, AY 86-87

NOTE CALCULATED TIME, TC,

TO COMPLETE MISSION- SUBROUTINE

OF UNIT ON MAIN AXIS
FOR EACH DIVISION OR REGIMENTAL SECTOR

CALCULATE COMBAT
MOVEENT IN TIME TC SPECIFY MISSION/PHASE OF
-C.MAT IN THE SECTOR

FOR EACH SECONDARY SECTOR

CALCULATE: LOSSES AT TC, I
COMBAT MOVENT AT T-

PLOT ON PLANNING
MAP

CALCULATE DENSITIES OF
ESTIMATE ENE4Y ACTIONS: ARTILLERY, TANKS, ETC.
DIPLOINENT OF RESERVES. FOR THE SECTOR,
IN SECONDARY SECTORSt WEAPONS/KM
WITHDRAWN, DEFEND, ATTACK.

SPECIFY ACTIONS FOR 2ND COMPARE VIT! NORMS

ECHELON AND OTHER UNITS FOR MISSION AND
IN MAI AND SECONDARY PHASE OF COMBAT
SECTIORS ,

551
Inclosure 2-1, APP C: Correlation of Forces Calculation

From CGSC Instruction A352: Soviet Operational Art, AY 86-87

CORRELATION OF FORCES OF THE SIDES

Length of FRONT:
Ours (Soviet)
Enemy
Forces & Means *u~ntitu l Correlation
Aeo~rdln x *ordu9
Denitu
Ours Enemy Ours Cnemy 1m QO.Edln uurs
1ualitl Eno" I
Divisions
Tank
Motorized Rifle
Tanks
infantry Fighting Vehicles
Antitank Assets
Helicopters w/ ATGM

Air Defense
Nuclear Weapons
Guns and Mortars

Total

I
Inclosure 2-2, APP C: Surface Suppression of Fires Calculation

From Vayner's Tactical Calculations (Voennoye Izdatel'stvo: Moscow, 1982), pp

40-41.
NOMOGRAM EMPLOYED TO DETERMNE EFFECTIVENEW OF ARTILLERY BARRAGEM (U)

NUMBER OF WEAPONS

36 24 Is 12: 1 6 FIRING MODE

OF ROUNDSI
NUMBSER

22 216
200 066 Sis I 12 1 2 2 24 2 8

FOIRINEDUEAIONONSN

122M
ERONELAN
MM
HOWIT2E
WEA ON 11 WTZ

2$.

1. T deermne
te frin capbiltie of 2 12-m howtzes i
suppessng
eemyperonne intheopenwit a 5 miuteartller stike
48,

in
the opentem oirineFo the pointpbiite
of intersechowtonswe

draahhoiznalulin toarthe "trcto areesa"liscale heeiua

weinea

the result - 33 hectares, i.e., in these particular conditions, the

area of destruction of personnel in the open is 33 hiectares.

57
 -
K W'K , . " 1 . l
MB
[ -,. h- IU MA- rig r.AN" . I B .1K M 1 .M -. ..

Inclosure 2-3, APP C: Permissible Firing Time Calculation

From Vayner's Tacticai Calculations (Voennoye Izdatel 'stvo: Moscow, 1982), pp

47-48.
The initial data for calculation is the effective firing range of
the weapons (artillery, mortars) proceeding from the tamtical and
technical characteristics of the weapons and the conditions, the
established distance of the firing positions from the forward operating
subunits and the speed of movement of the subunits and the shifting of
the weapons with a change in their positions. Moreover, the time it
takes to close up and deploy the weapons to the new positions should be
taken into consideration.

The calculation formula is:

t * d _-jd](0 t or

t (D-d) --v- ) (60) -t

Vf c C

where t is the length of firing without a change in the firing positions

or .the permissible time for the weapon to remain in one position, minutes;
D is the effective firing range of the weapon, kilometers; d is the
established distance of the firing positions from the forward operating
forces, kilometers; V is the rate of advancement of the operating forces,
kilometers per hour; ; is the travel speed of the weapons with a change
in position, kilometers per hour; 60 is the factor for converting
hours into minutes and t is the time it takes to close up and deploy the
systems, minutes. c

Using this particular technique, it is possible to conduct cal-

culations for a change in the firing positions not only of weapons
systems (artillery, mortars), but also antiaircraft defense forces,
reconnaissance and communications systems and command post disposition
points.
Calculation example. To determine the permissible time for conducting
firing by mortars without a change in the positions when the positions
are 3 kilometers from the forward operating forces, the effective firing
range is 7.5 kilometers, the rate of advancement of the forward operating
forces is 5 kilometers per hour, the speed for shifting weapons systems
during a change in positions is 25 kilometers per hour and the close up
and deployment time is 15 minutes.

Solution

- P- 5 - (7255
_ )6o 0) _.1 5 4'2 5 (60) - 15 - (0.9-0.18)(60) -15

- (0.72)(60) - 15 - approximately 43-15 " approximately 28 minutes.

58

.%C.
K K , ,- ' - • P~ ' i __-_ _ .= _ _
Inclosure 2-4, APP C: Determination of Reconnaissance Search
Length Calculation

From Vayner's Tactical Calculations (Voennoye Izdatel 'stvo: Moscow, 1982), pp

62-63.

Target detection probability

This technique makes it possible to calculate the probability of

target detection with a search in an assigned region. The initial data
for the calculation are the length and speed of the search, the range of
reliable target detection of the reconnaissance systems. Here, it is
taken into consideration that at this range the target is detected with
a reliability which approaches 1.

Calculation formula: P - 2RVt/S at 2RVt is less than or equal to S,

where P is the probability of target detection; R is the effective
range of reliable observation in kilometers; V is the search speed in
kilometers per hour; t is the search time in hours and S is the surface
area of the search region in square kilometers.

Calculation example. Determine the probability of targe-detection

in 2.5 hours in a region whose surface area is 37 square kilometers when
the search speed is 4 kilometers per hour.'

Solution:. - (2)(1.3)(4)(2.5)/37- 0.7.

g . U.'
* '.U.,U...*~ U. U U.~ U,'. . %~ ~ V'k

59
Inclosure 2-5, APP C: Correlation of Forces and Movement Rates

Unclassified Extract from Foreign Systems Research Center Cours.e --

on Soviet
Troop Control., Science Applications, Inc., 4-15 November 1985.

APPROACH TO COMPARING ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS OF THE OPERATION (U)

(BASED ON FORCES IEQUIRJED ON MAIN SECTOR)

1. (U) DEFINE ENEMY FORCES TO 09 ENGAGED AS A PART OF EACH PROPOSED MAIN SECTOR
(BOUNDARIES ARE NOT YET IMPORTANT) TO THE DEPTH OF THE OPERATION

2. (U) CALCULATE THE COMBAT STRENGTH OF THESE ENEMY GROUPINGS

3. (U) DETERMINE THE DEPTH OF TIlE AXES OF ADVANCE FROM THE MAP

4. (U) SELECT APPROPRIATE SPEED ADJUSTMENT COEFFICIENTS FOR THE TERRAIN - DIVIDE UP
TIlE OPERATION IF NECESSARY

LEVEL, SMOOTH 1.0 RUGGED, VALLEYS .5

LEVEL, ROUGH .8 RUGGED, MOUNTAINS .2 UNCLASSIFIED

5. (U) CALCULATE TIE FORCES REQUIRED TO MEET THE TIMETABLE OF ADVANCE

6. 4U) COMPARE THE RESUL7S

NOMOGRAM FOR CORRELATION OF FORCES NEEDED TO CONDUCT AN OFFENSIVE (U)

(STEP I)

= -CORRELATION ' LASSIFIED

K T VMAX OF FORCES ''"

D: DEPTH OF MAIN AXIS .

K: SPEED ADJUSTMENT COEFFICIENT -- -----...---

-,.._ -

VMAX : SPEED ATTAINABLE IN COMBAT -- t .

-.
FORMATION (65 KMi'II) . __,___ ,

T: TIME ALLOWED TO COMPLETE I .. _"__ --- .

TIIE OPERATION " - .-

IF MAIN AXIS IS DIVDED INTO SEPARATE I. .. * ... .-.. .--.

SECTIONS. TAKE Tile SUMS OP ALl, TIll
D AND K PARAMETERS IN TIIE PLACE OF
EACH OF TIIEM, LL,
X (DI KI +D2 K2 ... ) D l . - -- " .-

.. .-.. ... .1......... .... - A .. ,., .

P -FACTOR
60 .

'.5. ~ . *.9*
~ , *5. '5'.
 Inclosure 2-5, APP C: Correlation of Forces and Movement Rates

Unclassified Extract from Foreign Systems Research Center C'ourse .on ".Sov.iet
Troop Control, Science Applications, Inc., 4-15 November 1985.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM FOR COMPARING CONCEPTS OF TIHE OPERATION (U)

(U) FIND THE FORCE STRENGTHS REQUIRED TO REACH THE FINAL LINES IN THE SECTORS
SHOWN. (EACH SECTOR IS CONSIDERED AS THE MAIN AXIS)

NOTE: THE SECTORS ARE

A TERRAIN TYPES

UNCLASSIFIED

A B T = 10 DAYS
D1 300 200 V = 65 km/da Solution:
D2 350 250 SECTOR F COP INDEX FORCE POTENTIAL
Kj .8 .8 A .77 2.8 1,250
K2 .5 .2
B .69 2.3 1,150

EMEMY: VIRTUALLY INDIFFERENT TO

STRENGTH 450 500 FORCES REQUIRED
ACTIONS MOBILE MOBILE
I)LFI.NSE DEFENSE

61
Inclosure 2-6, APP C: Correlation of Forces and Attrition
Unclassified Extract from Foreign Systems Research Center Course 'o
'nSoviet
Troop Controlt, Science Applications, Inc., 4-15 November 1985.

FORCE ArrRITION NOMOGILAM BASED ON CORRELATION

OF FORCES AND TIME (ARMY LEVEL) (U)

DEESE LOSS,

62
 Inclosure 2-7, APP C: Road (Route) Throughput Calculation
From Vayner's Tactical Calculations (Voennoye Izdatel 'stvo: Moscow, 1982), pp
60-61.

Route throughput

The technique is designed for calculating the throughput of routes

relative to the quality of the road, the nature of the transport travel
and the travel conditions.

The initial data for the calculation are the transport travel speed,
the established distance between the vehicles, the nature of the travel
(one-way, two-way), the throughput reduction factor because of travel
in columns and the factors which take into consideration the inter-
section of the route by railraods with varying railroad traffic.
The calculation formula is N- (Vqk)/dK(1,O00), where N is the
throughput of the road in vehicles per hour; V is the travel speed in
kilometers per hour; q is the factor which takes into consideration the
influence of oncoming traffic with two-way travel (1.6); k is the factor
which takes into consideration the train traffic on the intersecting
railroad (30 pairs of trains per day - 0.75; 40 pairs - 0.65; 50 pairs -
0.57; 60 pairs - 0.5 and'70 pairs - 0.4); d is the distance between
vehicles in meters; K is the throughput reduction factor because of
travel in columns at speeds of: 10 kilometers per hour - 2.8; at 20
kilometers per hour - 2.4; at 25 kilometers per hour - 2.2; at 30 kilo-
meters per hour - 2; at 40 kilometers per hour - 1.8 and at 50 kilometers
per hour - 1.6; and 1,000 is the factor for converting kilometers into
meters.

Calculation example. Deteimine the throughput of a route leg with

the condition that the permissible travel speed is 30 kilometers per
hour, there is two-way traffic, the distance between the vehicles is
75 meters and the route is intersected by a main railroad with a traffic
level of 50 pairs of trains per day.

Solution: N - ((30)(1.6)(0.57)/((75)(2))(1,000) is approximately

182, i.e., in these particular conditions the throughput of the leg per
hour is 182 vehicles. With a reduction in the distance between the
vehicles to 25 meters, the throughput rises to 546 vehicles per hour.
When the railroad crossing is eliminated, the throughput with the very
same conditions rises to 960 vehicles per hour.

63

MA W ? M*M-a
Inclosure 2-8, APP C: Passage Time of a Column into a
Concentrat ion Region

From Vayner's Tactical Calculations (Voennoye Izdatel 'stvo: Moscow, 1982), pp

26-27.

Passage time of a route column into a concentration region

The passage time of a route column into a new concentration region

is determined when the depth of this region is less than the depth of the
route order.

The initial data for calculation are the depth of the concentration
region, the depth of the route column and the travel speed upon passage,
which is made up relative to the conditions of 0.5-0.75 of the average
march speed.

The calculation formula is tpl - (Dc - Dr)/Vp X 60,

where t i is the passage length of the route column into the concentration
region, in minutes; D is the depth of the route column in kilometers;
D r is the depth of thi concentration region in kilometers; V is the
travel speed of the route column with passage in kilometers Fer hour and
60 is the factor for converting hours into minutes.

Calculation example. To determine the length of passage of a route

column into a concentration region when the depth of the column is 7 kin,
the depth of the concentration region is 3.5 km and the travel speed of
the column upon passage is. 10 km/h.

Solution: t = (7 - 3.5)/(10)(60) 0.35 X 60 = 21 minutes.

p6

• i.
APP D Potential_ Automation of Tactical Quantification

This appendix contains examples of the application of personal microcomputers

and software to reduce the tediousness and inconvenience previously associated
with complex tactical quantification calculations.

1. Correlationof_fforces: The complex and unique task organizations

associated with each combat mission render such calculations too tedious for
manual calculation by a hard pressed tactical planner. Electronic
spreadsheets are uniquely suited to calculation requirements that include
successive multiplication and additions. Electronic spreadsheets perform
realtime calculations on cells, rows, or columns. A careful representation of
tactical units in a matrix of hierarchical relationships makes it possible to
represent most unit task organizations. The instantaneous calculation of
relative combat power is then relatively straightforward.

FASTCALC is an electronic spreadsheet that does a rapid estimate of the

relative correlation of forces for typical combinations of opposing US and
Soviet units. FASTCALC depicts Soviet and US organizations in three general
categories of combat power: ground maneuver, combat aviation and artillery.
The relative attrition of each type unit may be adjusted. The user is offered
a selection of several units and subunits, allowing the depiction of most unit
task organizations. A spreadsheet window at the bottom of the screen keeps
the user continuously appraised of the relative combat power (Inclosure 1-i).
This information can also be depicted in a color bar graphic (Inclosure 1-2).
A complete printout of the spreadsheet documents the calculations of relative
combat power (Inclosure 1-3).

2. Plannin. Time: The allocation of planning and preparation time is of

critical interest to every planner in the Airland Battle. Planning time is
especially important for the multiecheloned fight, where excessive delay in
higher echelon planning may render the tasks of subordinate units impossible.
The accurate forecasting of planning and preparation times is one of the
initial requirements of the planning process. Most planners rely on the
venerable "1/3 -2/3" rule of thumb, which allocates 1/3 of the available time
to planning, leaving the other 2/3 to subordinate units. The scheduling and
estimating of the planning process is relatively straightforward but rarely
accomplished to any level of detail.
Spreadsheets have functions that perform calculations on dates and
times, making them ideal for rapid calculation of planning schedules and time
impacts.
One must establish several definitions prior to automating calculations
of multiechelon planning impacts. Key definitions used in FASTPLAN include:

anning-T.i.me: The time from receipt of warning order at one echelon to

..
issuance of warning order to the subordinate echelon.

PTreparA.9ion Timg.: The time from receipt of warning order at one echelon
until time of mission execution for that echelon.

Warnin-_Notice: A heads up warning that a new mission, as yet undefined,

is likely.

65
 Warni.g Order: A preliminary notice of an action or order that is to
follow. Usually issued as a brief oral or written message, it is designed to
give subordinates time to make necessary plans and preparations. (FM 101-5-1,
p 1-75.) A warning order should include: situation, time and nature of the
operation, earliest time of move, time/place for oporder issuance, and special
instructions. (FC 7-5, p 5-9). The warning order is issued as soon as
possible after the commander's decision to allow subordinate elements to begin
planning while the formal order is being processed at the higher headquarters.

FASTPLAN allows the user to allocate planning time between both the
echelons of command and the steps of the planning process at each echelon.
FASTCALC calculates the estimated planning schedule from Corps to Company Team
for the following planning phases:

Mission analysis and Commander's Guidance

Warning Notice Out
Analysis and Decision
Warning Order

The user also estimates the minimum time required for the following types of
planning:

Fully__taffed Mission Order (Oporder prepared through a complete

application of the 11 steps of the estimate process)
Cdrs Mi ssion0rder (Oporder in which the commander dictates a course of
action which the staff fleshes out and coordinates
WrittenFragrder (requires transmission of written message)
Ve rb a Fraggoder (requires assembly of orders group for face-to-face
coordination

FASTPLAN compares the planning schedule against these minimum time requirement
estimates, presenting an instant visualization of the type of planning
feasible at every level of the command. (Inclosure 2-1)

Two graphic outputs are available: a presentation of the minimum planning time
estimates vs the available time at every echelon (Inclosure 2-2), and the
preparation time available at every echelon (Inclosure 2-3).

A printout of the report documents the planning schedule analysis. (Inclosure

2-4)

3. 1Wovement Cal culations: Movement has been described as the essence of

operational art. Movement calculations are individually simple but become
complex for large movements because of the volume of detail involved. The
Soviets have developed several movement formulas and associated nomographs
(Vayner, 1982). Nomographs are especially useful in that they can solve for
any of the variables used to develop the nomograph relationship. Many
American officers find nomographs confusing and not "straightforward".
For tactical calculations based on linear equations, electronic
spreadsheets are generally superior to nomographs. Logical condition

66
statements and careful organization can lead to "electric nomographs" that
instantly solve for the undefined variable of the tactical equation. Such
spreadsheets are much more accurate and straightforward than nomographs.
FASTMOVE is a series of electronic spreadsheets based on tactical
movement formulas in Vayner's 1982 text, "Tactical Calculations". Each
spreadsheet presents the tactical problem to be solved, the formula, and a
list of variables with their units of measure and definition. For most
problems the user inputs known variables, the spreadsheet automatically solves
for the Nth variable after N-1 inputs have been accomplished.

Inclosures:
1-1 - Sample FASTCALC Screen Image
1-2 - FASTCALC Decision Graphic
1-3 - FASTCALC Correlation of Forces Report
2-1 - Sample FASTPLAN Screen Image
2-2 - Decision Graphic, Minimum Planning Time
Estimate vs Available Planning Time
2-3 - Decision Graphic, Available Preparation
Times
2-4 - Planning Schedule Report
3-1 - FASTMOVEl: Time Required for the Advancement
of a Subunit from One Region to Another
3-2 - FASTMOVE2: Entry Time of a Route Column to
Arrive at a Designated Point
3-3 - FASTMOVE3: Concentration Time
3-4 - FASTMOVE4: Rail Transportation Time

67
Inclosure 1-1, APP D: Sample FASTCALC Screen Image

A B C D E F G H I J K

2 SOVIET MANEUVER UNITS (DIV-BN)

3 (ATTRITION FACTORS)
4 ORGANIC MRD TD MRR TR MRB TB ATB RECON ITB
5 SUBUNITS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
6 MTRZD RIFLE DIV 4-33 1 * **
7 TANK DIVISION 4-106 ***** 1 *
8 MRR (BTR) 4-8 2 ***** 0 ****************************
9 MRR (BMP) 4-26 1 1 0 *
10 TANK REGT (MRD) 4-42 1 ********** 0 *
11 TANK REGT (TD) 4-101 ***** 3 ***0* 0 ***********t********
12 MRB (BTR) 4-4 6 ***** 0 ***** 0 *
13 MRB (BMP) 4-24 3 6 0 0 0 ****** ********
A B C D E F G H I J K
130 US SOV US:SOV
131 Concept by: MANEUVER: 38.8 48.5 1 : 1.24
132 Major David A. Fastabend CBT AVN: 26.5 47.8 1 : 1.80
133 82 3rd Infantry Road ARTILLERY:35.6 73.4 1 : 2.06
134 Fort Leavenworth, KS, 66027
135 913-651-0356
06-Oct-87 10:53 PM

68
 api ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
VV. ~ ~~ ~ nn
~' 9tlVNNVK.NVm'.
~nnaax~Vl
~ ~ ~ vvvl W'xnwwiu
-6111 V'Axgj'.w..-i k U Vv. r. IF.'V-WVC

Inclosure 1-2, APP D: FASTCALC Decision Graphic

CORRELATION OF FORCES
MVR, COT AVN. ARTY
2.1
2
1.9 -

1.7
1.4-

1.2 -

.3
0.8 -. .. ." , ,
*0 .1-//,,""" /.,x / ,.
0.5
I oa
0.4-
)h

C .

9-3

0.
1'0 -
 L

Inclosure 1-3, APP D: FASTCALC Correlation of Forces Report

SOVIET MANEUVER LIMITS (DIV-I)J

IATTRITJIN FACTORS) TOThLfCONEAT IJ(11I7
CIPRENTI
ORGANIC MRO TO MRR TR MRO TI ATB RECON l10 TYPE 'EFFECT CO08AT CONPAI
SUBUNITS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.0 1.0 WIlT ITOTAL POWER FiR E
NTRZO RIFLE ODIV4-33 1I *1 f I.uO 21.25 21.25
TANK DIVISION 4-106 **ff ****I*** **** 4I***** I 5.00 24.27 2-.22
NRR (BTR) 4-8 2 *** 0 ******t *************# 2 # 2.00 S.32 11.04
MRR (?MP) 4-26 1 I 0 i 2 ,1)0 7.02 14.0
TANK REST (MFD) 4-42 1 m*fto*f ) , I 1.00 1.13 (.79
TANK REST (1D) 4-101 #*##' 3 "" 0 ' 3.00
3,4"""i""""'"
6.24 13.87
MRB (IR) 4-4 6 IIs* 0 0 fi*I*#i***i**ffmfH f g.t.0 I! 6.00
MRII IBNF) 4-4 3 6 0 0 0 fl *"lifMll "" 9 f 9.00 1.50 13.0O
TKBN (HRR) 4-14 3 i"l 0 *ltlilil" 0 "li 3 4 3.00 1.0T 6.21
TK IN (IKRE6TI 4-IOU 3 9 tf'"t 0 If##* 0 'H"""l"l 12 12.00 1.53 19.26
ANTITANK BN 4-66 I*iiie*i** Ie*ei* ii 0 1*#1h**im 1 1.00 I.o 1.f)O
RECON IN 4-67 1 I 0 2 2. Z*e,1 ) .0o 0.8f
IND TANK IN 4-97 il tt1*l* t*l4* 4* l 4ll**. Q 0 0.00 2.60 0.03
RECON CO(REST) 4-15 4 4 0 0 ,,""*""''"*#fff ""**ff*8 f 8.00 0.10 1.60
ATM DTRY (REGT) 4-16 3 1 0 A44'ie4'4a4"l"li*"ii"i
41 4.00 0.25 1.00
ISOV NVR TOTAL: 49.41
SOVIET ARTILLERY UNITS
(ATIRIT
BUR HOV HOV HOY HOV
DIV REST IN SP ININ SP RIO SSH TOTAL'COI(IAT UNIT Ct(PRENT
ORGANIC ARTY ARTY 122mI22&nIS2smI52asBN IN TYPE 'EFFECT COMBAT COMBAT
SUBUNITS ATTRIT: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 UNIT 'TOTAL POWER POWER
ARTY REST 4-47 2 i*i* le4lil*44**h*l441l44 **4 412 * 2.00 23.0 46.00
MR (BTR) 4-8 M***1 2 **** e*44*4141*40144,*Q4 2 2.0O 2.00 4.uO
MRR (INP) 4-26 Mt 2 MIlI*44itliM0l0 tl*llllM lif 2 1 2.00 2.20 4.40
TANK REST 4-42 **ll* 4 il0lllllll1immulistllomilit 4 4.00 2..0 8.80
HOV BN 122 KM 4-51 4 2 0 lill""ll""tll"' 6 6.00 2.00 1 .00
HOW IN 122MN (SP)4-31 **# 6 fi 2 """l" iel' 8 f 8."') 2.20 17.60
HOV EN 152Hl 4-114 1§illiiltlll 0 lllill 0 0.00 2.50 0.00
NOV IN152MM (SP)4-62 2 M#""""o"""," 2 "1'1"" 4 4.i0 2.70 10.80
ROCKET LCHR ON 4-53 2 *""i'"##"""""' 3 5 ,O0 6.00 3C.')0
#i't
ROCKET LCHR AIRY 4-54 6 *oQ"""*"H* "'4"' ##### IS ' 15.00 . 20.0
SSm IN
B- l 2 2 o SO 3.10
!.S0
513ART' TOTAL "-.10
SOVIET CONBAT AVIATION
(ATTRITION FACTORS) f 0.0,.
AlK DIV f 0.00
HEL KEL T'TALIOYPA' UlT CRF.E!IT
ORGANIC PEGT SOON TYPE 'EFFECT CONPAT COMPAT
5UBUNITS ATTRII: I.al I.'9 UNIT 'IDIAL F,)YERPOVER
ATK MEL REGT 4-122 " 15 .00 33.?S 22.75
HINDSQUADRON 4-122 2 ''" 2' 2.00 13.50 27.'L
HIP SQUADRON 4-122 I *of## I I.Q0 E.75 6.?6
DIV HEL SOON 4-; i"i 2 2' ".1'm7,.f 54.00l
el-2 HOPLITE FLT 4-9? *M' 4 z 4.00 O.Su 2.0i
NI-8 HIP FLT 4-93 *ff 4 1.00 5.00 4.00
M[-24 HIND FIT 4-33 *mI 4 4 4.,jO2.00 1.00
17.7S

Uz:MANEUVER UNITS (DIV - IN)

70

70 q~.

* - V~ ~R
Inclosure 1-3, APP D: FASTCALC. Correlation of Forces Report

'ATTRIT IONFACTOR.S)
DIV REGT
PECH ARIIOR SEP AVN ACR INF ARMOR CAY CAY TOTAL'COWAT VN~ITCURTE'1T
ORGANIC DIV DIV ODE RUE RN BN SON SON TIPE 'EFFECT CeMPAT CO0lPAT
SUBUNITS ATTRIT: 1.00 1.00)1.00 1.00 1.0Q0 1.00 1.00 1.00 kl UNIT 1TOTAL FUVER POVER
MECH INFDIV 87-J f*II***tf4f*IiI**41** I T.01) !9.Qo
19u"
ARMOR DIV 81-3 #I# 0 *I*I*II****I*I**4 0 .0 29.?6 t0.
SEP DE O?-1003 m4~m 0 *4I0~e.**H~ *tO* Elfto 11.01 0.00
AVA ODE 01-2011 1 0 '"'' 0 " "" " " 1"~f
' .C0 EE CDrnON
ACR 1?-S12 f~ m efm m I I 1
I.61. ?.S1 9.!1
IMFBN 7-2453 5 0 0 "'i"" 0 "" "" " S .00 '.34 11.9'
ARMOR RN 17-2 93 5 U 0 '"""""""iff 0 '"""'"il 5'f S.11 I .1
Div CAY SON 17-7061 I fill# 0 """"#1"10 1 1If I.Vo 1.4u 1.40
HEST CAVSQN 17-52 ""'E""'ffiffi 4' 3 fiffff""""ff 0 3 f S.60 3.17 9.91
US MYR TOTAL: 38.81
LID AASLT ADN LID AASLT AIN LID AAS1.T ARK TOTAL'COMPAT UN4ITCL'PPENT
DIV DIV DIV IN BN ON CAP CAB CAB T)PE 'EFFECT COMBAT COMBAT
AITRIT: I.0u 1.1,0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.,X, UNIT $TOTAL P1) YERFOYER2
LIGHT INFDIV 77-L 0 I f (,.u (I.)
()4*#II#III*I~*I*II 0 o.0
AIRNORILE DIV 67-L I**I 9 0 60.00 13.50 0.00
AIRBORNE DIV S?-L mmfmII* 0 I*41144116*44* 0 q i.t, 13.5 1) .
LID RN 7-15L 0 mmfm#II 0 mm ofm m 0 '0.00 I.0 0
AASLT IN 7-55L 10 0 If1444 0 0 0.0-to .50 0.00
ADM RN ?-35L O#i4f###*O 0 1§**UI# 0 OflMM 1 0 # 4.1,11 1.50 0.10
LID CAB I-OOL 0 *11iammif1H61111m44 0 momm111 0 # 0.00 SEE CIT AV'N
LID RECON BK 17-185L 0 *III#I*##VII6**#II# 0 1 0.,X, SEE CIT AWN
AASLT CAB 1-200L 1 M 0 "IfH M I M 0 Mt#i 0 1 0.1)0 SEE CIT N
AIR RO SON 1-26S1 *#1# 0 #IIIit*S*I*II9I4f 0 1 0.00 SEE CST AYN
ADK CAB 1-101 MOM 0 44 M M M M 0 9 # u.00 SEE CPT AWN
AIR RECON SONK 1-75L M0461 0 *IMMMMOMMi****i4Iif* 0 f 0.00 SEE CDT AV N
0.00
US ARTILLERY UNITS
IATTRITION FACTOR)
DIV DIV DIV DIV 155 203 NIRS5 MIRS 105asTOTALCC'IIAT LIT (VP;.ENT
ARTY ARTY ARTY ARTY IN IN 10NBIRY TWO TYPE 'EFFECT COMPAT COTI?4T
HY LID AASIT ADK SP SP UNIT 'TOTAL FOYER FOVER
AFTRTT: 1.00 1.00 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OQ I!!'
DIVARTY tHVY) E-?00 1I 1 .I
f2Y 28
DIVARTY (LIO) S-tilt ')I4I,4I**4,**I***II41
DIVARITY (AASLI) 6-71. f##*W A ) *0r
1#*.49*,*4*#4464 .C 0.00
DIVARTY (ABM) 6-200L MOM M 0 #10MOI MMIM*H1116 0 ' i.00 .0 0.0
155Im SP 6-307J 3 3 IM 0 M M f 6 6.0Qo 1.61?
:'
203 ON SP 6-4473?2J2* .0 20 6.01
AIRS ON 6-5252 'f''6IiI*J*~I~ I mmf I*1'o 50
MLRS BTRY -3981 I Q M## 4~ .0) 8V
luAmm IN TVD ff# 0 0 0 41i*iimmiioi#* 0 0 ' 0.0 'o 00
UVSAF:T1 T3IAL: 3S.159

(PTAVIATION
tTTRITION FACTOR)
CAB CAI CAB CAR CAP CABATr TIlK AR
HY LID AASLT ARM HY CONlY BN RN AWN TOTAL'C0MPAT UNIlT ('2P.PENT
DIV CORP CORP AH1 A1115SON TYPE 'EFFECT 2OMAT COMBAT
ATRIT: 1.00 1.0i 1.001.00 1.09 1.00 !.001.00 1.00 UNI11 'TOTAL F(OOERPCOER
CAR (HVY) 17-201J I I1 ' .01j H0"il .'.
CAB (1101 I-OQL #1~ 0 **#I*III**4St*9I6 0 1 .00 ',.vu 0.00

71f
Inclosure 1-3, APP D: FASTCAL. Correlation of Forces Report

CAB(AASLTi I-201L1 0 .00iQ

28.5 'S
..00
CAD CAIN) 1-70L 0 II440*I4I144 Q 0O.001 0.30 0,.Oo
CAB (HV! CORPS) I-400L *i#~t',g~~* 0 0 0.0* 40.5'i 0.Uq
CAD (CON! CORPS) 1-4001. ff "t MFO M 0 IMMf~iM .*i 0 0.009 $1.00 C,.00
ATK MEL 6P (AH64) *H4 #*iit#i 0 0 """"""" 0 # 0.00 -2.00O0.00
A7K MEL SP (AHtS) 4u tHH I4 t# 0 44e*4444fl. .u I.00
9 U.too
ATK MEL SN(01164)1-385 2 "' Q ' 0 0 0 '#"" 2 ).v0f7.5'J 15.L00
AIK MEL RN(AHIS) " ' 0 0 0 0 "H"""if 0 ""# 'l *# .00 6.0) 0.uVO
AIR CAI SON "Itm "' 0 9 mt 9 ti mo I 1.01)8.50 8.5u
AIR TROOP (0.1S)) 2 t' ""I 0 ""' 0 *""""'f 3 5 ' QuO 1.50)7.59
AIK MEL CO (01164) 6 m"I 0 #m' 0 0 0 "" " 6 6.0012.5' 15.0')
AXK MEL CO (A111) ""'o 0 0 0 0 ""'I" 0 2 2 .o .') 10
US CarAYK Tar26350

EST
RATIO
U'S soy US:SOi
Concept by: MANEUVER: 218.948.5 1 :1.24
Majar David A.Faitabeid CST AIM: 26.5 47.8 1 1.80
82 3rd Infantry Road ARTILLERY:35.6 73.4 1 :2.06
Fort Leavenworth, 1KS,
66027
313-651-0356

72

~' - ~ '' %
Inclosure 2-1, APP D: Sample FASTPLAN Screen Image

A D E F G AH AIAJAKALAM
1 UNIT LEVEL: CORPS 1 C
2 S PLANNING TIME 33.00% 2 0 D B
3 DATE TIME 3 R I D B C
4 WARNING NOTICE IN 4 P V E NO
5 MISSION START TIME 14-Jul-87 12 0 5 S
6 PLANNING START TIME 12-Jul-87 0 0 6 ORDER (STAFF) * *
7 7 ORDER (CDR)
8 PREPARATION TIME 60.00 HRS 8 WRITTEN FRAGORDER* * * * *
9 PLANNING TIME. 19. 80 HRS 9 VERBAL FRAGORDER * * * * *
10 10 RADIO ORDER
11 -PLANNING SCHEDULE: 11
12 MISSION ANALYSIS 12-Jul-87 1 59 12 Concept by:
13 CDRS GUIDANCE 13 MAJ David A. Fastabend
14 WARNING NOTICE OUT 12-Jul-87 3 58 14 82 3d Infantry Road
15 FACTS 15 Fort Leavenworth, KS, 66027
16 ASSUMPTIONS 1 16 #913-651-0356
17 DEDUCTIONS 17
18 ANALYSIS & DECISION 12-Jul-87 15 50 1 18
19 WARNING ORDER 12-Jul-87 19 48 19
20 FORMAL ORDER 20
06-Oct-87 11:42 PM

73

i . M
Inclosure 2-2, APP D: Decision Graphic, Minimum Planning Time
Estimate vs Available Planning Time

AVAILABLE PLANNING TIME

CORPS THROUGH COMPANY
24-

22

20-/

16

0 14 -/A
aD

12RP - W-BE -C

I\ .
CORPS D O
BDE BN -- CO

4-a

~FULLY STAFFED MISSION ORDER

VERBAL FRAGORDER

RADIO FRAGORDER

AVAILABLE PLANNING TIME

74 1
 X" W1 -fx

Inclosure 2-3, APP D: Decision Graphic, Available Preparation

Times

AVAILABLE PREPARATION TIME

CORPS CORPS ThROUGH COMPANY
s0-

20 SN

40- -

0 I

75j
Inclosure 2-4, APP D: Planning Schedule Report

1k
UNMITLEVEL: CORPS I DIVISION I BR IGADE BATTALION I COrMPANY
I PLANNING TIME 33.001 1 33.001 1 33.001 33.001 33.001
DATE TIME DATE TIME I DATE TIME DATE TIME I
D DATE TIME
yARNING NOTICE IN 12-Jul-87 358 1 12-Jul-87 22 27 t 13-Jul-87 10 St1 13-Jul-87 1 9
MISSION START TIME 14-Jul-87 12 01 14-Jul-87 12 0 1 14-Jul-87 12 0 14-Jul-87 12 0 14-Jul-87 12 0
PLANNING START TIME 1 2-Jul-87 0 0 12-Jul-67 1948 1 13-Jul-87 9 3. 13-Jui-SI 1757: I3-Jul-87 Z3 54

PREPARATION TIME 60.00 MRS 40.20 MRS 1 26.93 MRS 1 18.05 PRS 12.0. MRS
PLANNING TINE 19.80 HRS 1 13.27 MRS I 8.89 HRS 1 5.56 MRS I 3.I MRS

PLANNIN6 SCHEDULE: 1 '

MISSION ANALYSIS 10.10 12-Jul-87 15910.10 12-Jul-87 21 8 :0.10 13-Jul-87 9 57 :O.1O13-Jul-87 1833 :0,10 13-'ul-87 0 18
CORS GUIDANCE 1 2 1 2 .1 1
WARNING NOTICE OUT10.20 12-Jul-87 3 58 10.20 12-Jul-87 22 27 10.20.13-Jul-87 10 51 10.20
13-Jul-87 15 51:0.20 13-Jul-Si 0 42
FACTS : i I
ASSUMPTIONS 1 1 I I

OOUCTIONS : 1 1 1
ANALYSIS & DECISION 10.80 12-Jul-87 150 :0.30 13-Jul-97 6 2510.80 13-Jul-87 1611 :0.80 12-Jui-87 22 43 :0.8- 12-jul-Si 3 6
WARNING ORDER :1.00 12-Jul-87 19 8 :1.0012-Jul-87 9 4:1.00 13-Jul-87 1757 :1.00 13-Jul-97 23SS !1.00 1t-;ul-87 354
FORMAL ORDER 1 1 1
MIN PLANNINI-TIMES: 1 1
ORDER (STAFF) 1 24 10 118 6 1 4
ORDER ICDR) 1 12 1 6 4 3 1 3
WRITTEN FRAGOROER 8 1 4 2 1.5 11
VERBAL FRAGORDER 4 1 2 1.5 0.7S 1 0.5
RADIO FRAGORDER 1 2 1 0.5 0.25 0.25 1 8.1

Nt

- -- ~-a, 19- - ~-

- ~ - ~tJ%.

76
 Inclosure 3-1, APP D: FASTMOVE1: Time Required for the
Advancement of a Subunit from one Region to
Another

A B C D E F G 1l
1 TIME REQUIRED FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF A
2 SUBUNIT FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER
3
4 T =D/V + Ts + Te
5
6 INPUT OUTPUT UNITS DEFINITION
7 T 26. 00 HOURS MARCHING TIME
8 D 280 KM ROUTE LENGTH
9 V 20 KM/HOUR AVERAGE TRAVEL SPEED OF ROUTE COLUMN
10 Ts 9 HOURS TOTAL STOPPING TIME DURING THE TRAVEL
11 Te 3 HOURS TIME TO DEPLOY IN NEW CONCENTRATION REGION
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
09-Oct-87 10:03 PM

77

i17
Inclosure 3-2, APP D: FASTMOVE2: Entry Time of a Route Column to
Arrive at a Designated Point

A B C D E F G H
1 ENTRY TIME OF A ROUTE COLUMN TO THE INITIAL LINE (POINT)
2 USED TO DETERMINE TIME FOR SIMULTANEOUS ARRIVAL AT LD OR SP
3
4 Tb = T - ((Di))/(Vp)
5
6 INPUT OUTPUT UNITS DEFINITION
7 Tb 19.33 TIME TRAVEL START TIME OF COLUMN
8 T 22 TIME TIME OF PASSAGE AT TGT POINT (LINE) BY
9 HEAD OF ROUTE COLUJMN
10 Di 40 KM DISTANCE FROM START POINT TO TARGET POINT
11 Vp 15 KM/HR TRAVEL SPEED OF THE ROUTE COLUMN
12
13 TIMES ARE IN DECIMAL FRACTIONS OF 14OURS
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
09-Oct-87 10:02 PM

78
Inclosure 3-3, APP D: FASTMOVE3: Concentration Time

A B C D E F G H
1 PASSAGE TIME OF A ROUTE COLUMN INTO A CONCENTRATION REGION
2 (USED WHEN THE DEPTH OF THE REGION IS LESS THAN THE DEPTH
3 OF THE MARCH ROUTE)
4
5 Tcon = (Dc -Dr)/Vp X 60
6
7 INPUT OUTPUT UNITS DEFINITION
8 Tcon 30.00 MIN TIME TO DEPLOY INTO CONCENTRATION REGION
9 Dc 7 KM DEPTH OF THE ROUTE COLUMN
10 Dr 2 KM DEPTH OF THE CONCENTRATION REGION
11 Vp 10 KM/HR TRAVEL SPEED OF COLUMN
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
09-Oct-87 10:00 PM

r- r
791
Inclosure 3-4, APP D: FASTMOVE4: Rail Transportation Time

A B C E F G H
1 TIME FOR TRANSPORTING UNITS BY RAIL
2
3
4 T =((D/V)+((N-1)/n))*24 + Di/Vi + D2/V2 + TI + Tu +To
5
6 INPUT OUTPUT UNITS DEFINITION
7 T 32.03 HOURS TIME FOR TRANSPORTING TROOPS BY RAIL
8 D 300 KM LENGTH OF RAILROAD ROUTE
9 V 720 KM/DAY AVERAGE DAILY RATE OF MOVEMENT OF TRAINS
10 N 12 # NUMBER OF TRAINS
11 n 87 # RATE OF TRANSPORT IN TRAINS PER DAY
12 DI 15 KM DISTANCE FROM START AREA TO LOADING AREA
13 VI 10 KM/HR AVERAGE RATE OF MOVEMENT TO LOADING AREA
14 D2 15 KM DISTANCE FROM UNLOADING AREA TO NEW CONCEN
15 V2 10 KM/HR AVERAGE RATE OF MOVEMENT TO THE NEW AREA
16 TI 7 HRS LOADING TIME
17 Tu 7 HRS UNLOADING TIME
18 To 2 HRS TIME FOR ORGANIZING TRANSPORT
19
20
09-Oct-87 09*59 PM

so'
 Endnot es

1. David G. Chandler, The.C-ampak.n.s.of Napolecn (New York: McMilIan

Publishing Co., Inc., 1966), p xxxix.

2. MAJ James F. White, Soviet.Automated T'roop Cont.rol:.The Mathematics. of

Dec-is.ion, MMAS Thesis, US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas, p 60.

3 MAJ T.R. Phillips, "Solving the Tactical Equation: The Logical Foundation
of the Estimate of the Situation", The_ Comm and .and (3eneral St.aff. Quarterly.
VOL XVII (September, 1937), p 5.

4 Carl Von Clausewitz, Qn War, Edited and Translated by Michael Howard and
Peter Paret, (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984). p
104.

5. Ibid, p 113.

6. Ibid, p 117.

7. Ibid, p 85.

8. John McLaughlin Gallagher, A._ omparat.ive..A na.'Iysis of -- the '.Theories of

E.f.f.ect.e.e.ss.C.ri.t.e.a..in.._.Sovi..e.t.andAmer.ican Mi..itarv Operations Research,
Naval Postgraduate School, June 1983, p 16.

9. MAJ John W. Seigle, The._Estimate_of......S.he..S.ituat.io.n,

Student Paper, Code
Number 19227, US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas, (undated), pp 2-5.

10. Ibid, p 3.
11. COL Oliver G. Haywood, Mi..itary.Dotrine.of Decision and the Von

Neumann Theory of Games, US Air Force Project Rand Report, 2 February 1951,
pp 76-84.

12. MAJ Brian A. Lovatt, An Appreciation of Tactical Agility asa Function

of the Decision.aking.Process, School of Advanced Military Studies
Monograph, US Army Command and General Staff College, 5 December 1986, p 1.

13. Tom McGinnis, Lecture at the School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas, October 1987.

14. The fascination with German WWII experiences is especially pronounced

among the military reform movement and some noted authors such as Martin
Van Creveld (Fighting Power, German Military Performance, 1914-1945) and
Trevor N. Dupuy (A Genius for War). I

15. US Army, Truppenfuehrung, US Army Military History Institute

Translation of the October 17, 1933 German Field Service Regulation.
Library of the National War College, p 1.

81
16. Generaloberst Dr. Lothar Rendulic, The Command Decision, US Army
Military History Institute (undated), pp 9-18.

17. Ibid, p 9.

18. MAJ John C. Faith, Centralization -- Crisis of Command, US Army Command

and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 4 December 1962.

19. John L. Romjue, From .ActiyDe'fense-to.AirlandBattle: The Development

----Army ine 1973-!982, TRADOC Historical Monograph Series, United
States Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia, p 24.

20. US Army Combined Arms Center, Tactical Operations System Tactical

Application Package, Phase I Coordination Draft, Volume 1, TOS Prioritized
Spbfunctions, Combined Arms Development Activity, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
November 1973, p 2-1.
21. Romjue, op cit, p 51.

22. US Army, FM 100-5,. Operations, Headquarters, Department of the Army,

Washington, D.C. 5 May 1986, p 16.

23. US Army, FM 101-.,StafQrganizationand.peratons, Headquarters,

Department of the Army, May 1984, pp 5-6 and E-8.
24. US Army, FC101-55,.Corps and Division Command and Control, US Army

Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 28 Feb 1985,p
3-7.

25. US Army, Student Text.100-9,...The Command-Estimate, US Army Command and

General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, July 1986, p 4-8.
26. Discussions with Col John Motes, a student and instructor at Fort
Leavenworth during this time period. During that time course of action
development and analysis instruction included a rigorous methodology that
considered estimated force ratios at each phase of the operation. During
the Academic Year 86-87, in contrast, specific force ratio calculations
were only required for one lesson. In Academic Year 87-88 Student Text
100-9 was issued but not a subject for direct instruction.

27. MAJ William A. Teter, Expert Systems: Tools in the.Commander's

Decisionmaking Process, MMAS Thesis, US Army Command and General Staff
College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1986, pp 2-35 to 2-37.

28. MAJ Robert L. Maginnis, "Harnessing Creativity", Military Review, March

1986, pp 13-20.

29. Thomas K. Littlefield, Control of Military Operations with PERT

(Program Evaluation and Review Technique), Naval Postgraduate School.
Monterey, California, March 1986, p 31.

82
30. V.M. Bondarenko, Automation of Troop Control, Moscow, 1977, p 13.

31. A. Ya Vayner, Tactical..Calcu.lations, Voennoye Izdatel 'stvo, Moscow,

1982, p 6.

32. COL I. Podubny, "Concerning the Commander's Decision", Voyenny Vestnik,

Issue No 17, dated September 1948, pp 39-41.

33. John Shy, "First Battles in Retrospect", Am2rica's First Battles., 776-
1965, Edited by Charles E. Heller and William A. Stofft, (Lawrence, Kansas:
University Press of Kansas, 1986), p 343.

34. W. Robert Reeves, "Soviet C3: Theory and Practice", Signal

Magaz.ine,December, 1985, pp 105-109.

35. Jeffrey Arthur Kern, Soviet Command.and Control in an Historical

Context, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, March 1981, pp
181-185.

36. R. Portugal 'skiy, Comma.nd.P.rocedure.....

in.. .he
....
Great.Patri.otic War, JPRS
66636, 21 January 1976, p 42.

37. LTC William P. Baxter, "The Scientific Soviet Commander", Army

Magz.i.ne, June 1980, p 41.

38. COL David M. Glantz, Lectures at the School of Advanced Military

Studies, 11-14 August 1987.

39. MAJ GEN V. Ryabchuk, "Troop Control: Effectiveness Evaluated", Krasnaya

Zveda, 12 June 1980, (JPRS 76624, 15 October 1980), pp 36-37.

40. Reeves, Op Cit, p 41.

41. A detailed description and explanation of the Program Evaluation and

Review Techniques is beyond the scope of this monograph. For an
explanation of this technique and its potential military applications I
recommend Thomas K. Littlefield's Naval Postgraduate School Thesis,
"Control of Military Operations with PERT (Program Evaluation and Review
Technique)".

42. One of the most common misperceptions among American officers is that
Soviet planners neglect the human element of the decision making process.
Soviet writings that contradict this view abound. The following quote,
presented by C. N. Donnelly in a 13 Oct 87 lecture at the US Army Command
and General Staff College School of Advanced Military Studies, is
illustrative:

D. Yakelovich:
"The first step is to model whatever can be measured. This is
okay as far as it goes.

83
ENUWNRWJJUWILVU NWR7. Vm PTI V,~ ' c&~ -,~ .k

The second step is either to disregard that which cannot be

measured or to give it an arbitrary value. This iz artificial
and misleading.

The third step is to assume that what cannot be measured easily

is not important. This is blindness.
The fourth step is to say that what cannot be easily measured
really does not exist. This is suicide."

43. Foreign Systems Research Center, Cour se on -Sovie-t .Troop .qntrl,

Science Applications, Inc., SAIC - 85/60980 & FSRC, 4-15 November 1985.
(This source does not have numbered pages)

44. The exact level of fielding of computers as automated decision aids is

classified information.

45. Kern, op cit, pp 134-135.

46. Michael Rybinski, Soviet Navy Decision.Sup ort Systems:.Intentions vs
Capabil..ties, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, March 1983.

47. Foreign Systems Research Center, op cit, (This source does not have
numbered pages).

48. Glantz Lecture, Op Cit.

49. Vayner, op cit, pp 66-67.

50. MAJ Steven J. Argersinger, AnOperational.C.onc-ep.t.or.J.heBat.tlefield

De-feat of the Soviets Based on an -Anlysisof the Soviet Decision Cycle,
MMAS Thesis, US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas, 1984, p 72.

51. Ibid. p 69.

52. V. Abchuk, "Commander Makes a Decision", Krasnaya.Zveda, 20 September

1974, p 4.

53. V. Prokofyev, Means. of Mechanization and Automation .in Staffs

(Departments), US Army Foreign Science and Technology Center Translation,
29 April 1977, p 271.

54. CPT Mark C. Gilbert, Sov.iet..Computers and.Cybernetics: Shortcomings and

Military_.Applications, Student Research Report, US Army Russian Institute,
Garmisch, Germany, June 1980, p 18.

55. White, Op Cit., p 42.

56. LTC Evgen'ev, "PERT Charts Aid Army Field Exercise", Krasnaya Zveda, 21
January 1971.

84

LX
57. P.V. Skacho, G.T. Volkov, and V.M. Kulikov, P.1-anning f..Combat
Operations and the Command_of _Troops. w.ith the Aid of NetworK Graphs.
(Foreign Technology Division Machine Translation of Planirovaniye Boyevykh
Deystviy i Upravleniye Voyskami s Pomoshch'yu Setevykh Grafikov,
Voyenizdat, Moscow. 1968), 14 Jan 1985.

58. Littlefield, op cit, p 30.

59. White, op cit, Appendix B.

60. The indices shown are extracted from D.A. Ivanov, V. P. Savel'yev and
P.V. Shemanskiy, Fundam.entals -P.of
..T.ac.tiqa1.Cqmmad-and Control,: A Soviet
Vie w, US Air Force Soviet Military Thought Series, 1977, except for
AIRCRAFT, an index listed in a CGSC Soviet Operational Art practical
exercise. It is reasonable to expect that the exact indices caicuiated may
vary from level to level, so that relative aircraft combat power is not
calculated at lower echelons such as battalion or regiment.
61. Foreign Systems Research Center, op cit. (This source does not have
numbered pages).

62. ST 100-9, op cit, p 4-9.

63. Foreign Systems Research Center, op cit, (This source does not have
numbered pages).

64. Martin Van Creveld, Fighting. Power: German Military Performance. 1941-
1945, US Army War College Reprint, November 1983, p 194.

65. Romjue, op cit, p 36.

66. Col. L.D.Holder and Major Edwin J. Arnold, Tactical Movement of the

Heavy.Diyi.so.n, Unpublished Manuscript, June 1987, p 1.

67. Foreign Systems Research Center, op cit, (This source does not have
numbered pages).
68. William A. Reitzel, BackgrOun.d to D.ec.i.sioPnmaKing, Naval War College, I
July 1958, pp 39-40.

69. Ibid, p 41.

70. Lt. Col. Frederick Timmerman, "Of Command and Control and Other
Things", Army iMagaine,
May 1985, p 58.

71. Argersii;ger, op cit, p 138.

72. Vayner, op cit, p 5.

73. Barbara J. Bowyer, Toward..a The.oryof. Military Decisionmaking, Naval

Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, June, 1983, p 38.

85
74. Romjue, op cit, p 36.

75. Holger H. Herwig, "From Tirpitz to Schlieffen Plan: Some Observations

on German Military Planning", The ..
Journal of Strategic Studies, March 1986,
p 58.

76. Reitzel, op cit, p 40.

77. Trevor N. Dupuy, mers, Prdtion and War, (Indianapolis/New York:

The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1979), p 15.

78. COL-GEN P.K. Altukhov, Principles of the Theoryof_.Troop C;Qontr ol,

Moscow Military Publishing House, 1984, p 186.

79. Altukhov, op cit, pp 186-204.

80. V.S. Frolov, "Electronic Computing Technology in Military Operations

(Chapters VIII, IX and X)". Translated in Sviet Qy)beretic..Review. May
1973, pp 47-48.

81. Bowyer, Op Cit, p 10.

82. FM 100-5, op cit, p 16.

83. Robert Allan Doughty, The-Seeds of Disaster, (Archon B3oks: Hanen,

Connecticut, 1985), p 179.

84. Teter, op cit, p 1-4.

85. MAJ E.S. Johnston, "A Science of War", The_Command and Genera Staff
School Quarterl, VOL XIV, June, 1934, No 53., p 100.

86. MAJ-GEN Ary M. Ionov, "On the Methods of Influencing an Opponent's

Decisions", Voyeppa Mys, No 12, December 1971.

87. B.H. Liddell Hart, "What is Military Genius", Marine Corps Gazette, Vol
43, No 1 (June 1959), p 21.

NA
 BIBL IOGRAPHY

Books

Aitukhov, Colonel-General P.K. Pr.inc.iplesf.. ..the Theory._of Troop Control.

Moscow Military Publishing House, 1984.

Anureyev, I.I., Bokarev, V.A. et al. Automation of the Commandof Trops.

(Avtomatizatsiya Upravleniya Voyskami, Moscow 1977). Foreign
Technology Division Translation FTD-ID(RS)T-1946-78, 4 January 1979.
Bondarenko, Col Y.M. Scientific-Technical Progress and Troop Contro.l.

Selected Soviet Military Writings 1970-1975, US Air Force Soviet

Military Thought Series, 1977.

Bondarenko, V.M. Automation of Troop Ccntrol, Moscow, 1977. JPRS Li 8199,14

1979.

Chandler, David G. The Can..ai.gns.fN pqiepn. New York:MacMillan Publishing

Co., Inc., 1966.

Chuyev, Yu. V. Research..of'_M'ilitary Opeati ons. (Issledovaniye Operataiy v

Voyennom Dele, Moscow, 1977).*(Reproduced by National Technical
Information Service), 15 June 1971.
Chuyev, Yu. V. et al. Priflci;plsfOertosRercInoig Military
EqpUipme.nt. Moscow, USSR, 1965.

Clausewitz, Carl Von. On.War. (Edited and Translated by Michael Howard and
Peter Paret), New Jersey:Princeton University Press, 1984.

Doughty, Robert Allan. The Seeds....ofDisast.er. Hamden, Connecticut:Archon

Books, 1985.

Druzhinin, V.V. and Kontorov, D.S. Decision-Making. and Automation -

Concpt.,....Algorithm,.Decision _A Soviet View). (Moscow, 1972), US Air
Force Military Thought Series, 1975.

Dupuy, Trevor N. Numbers., Prediction and War. Indianapolis/New York: The

Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc, 1979.

Eccles, Henry E. Mil.itar.y Conc.epts and P.hilosophy. New Jersey:Rutgers

University Press, 1965.

Frolov, V.S. El.ectron g C mut.. echnology..n i.itary Derat.ions

(Chapter I...IX,.....andK)". Foreign Technology Division, Wright
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 26 March 1974.

Hemsley, John. Soyiet Tro.op. Qnrol.:.._The Rqle_pf Command. Technology in the

Sov.iet..M..ita.ry. Oxford:Brassey's Publishers Limited, 1982.

87

W wI
Ivanov, D.A., Savel'yev, V.P. and Shemanskiy, P.V. Fundamentals of Tact ica!
Command andControl: A Soviet View. (Moscow, 1977), U S Air Force
Soviet Military Thought Series, (undated).
Prokofyev, V. Means of Mechanization and Automation in Staffs

(Deartmets). (Sredstva Mekhanizatsii i avtomatizatsii v Shtabakh,

Moscow, 1976), U.S. Army Foreign Science and Technology Center
Translation, 29 April 1977.

anized Warfare. Oxford:Brassey 's

in Mech'
Simpkin, Richard E. Human__F __actors..
Publishers Limited, 1983.

Simpkin, Richard E. Red Armour. Oxford:Brassey's Defence Publishers. ' 4.

Van Creveld, Martin. Comm ad. School of Advanced Military Studies Reprint,
U.S, Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas, (undated).

Van Creveld, Martin. Fightijng Power:.German Mil.it-ary_perfprmance,. 1941-

1945. US Army War College Reprint, November 1983.

Vayner, A. Ya. Tac.t.i_.a!_C.a.lC..cula.tio.ns. Moscow:Voennoye Izdatel 'stvo, 1982.

Venitsel, Ye. S. Introduction to OpoerationsResearch. (Vvdeeniye v

Issledovaniye Operatsiy), Soviet Radio Publishing House, Moscow 1964.

88
 Rep3orts, Monographs,...and Government, Documents

Adams, Donald L. "The.Decision Making Process Util.zed by Field Grade

Officers in the United States Army". University of Tennessee, May 24,
1972.
Argersinger, kAJ Steven J. "An.peratonal Concept for the Battlefield
Defeat of the Soviets Based On An Analvs.is of the Soviet_ Decision
Cyqe." Masters of Military Arts and Science Thesis, US Army Command
and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. 1984.

The BDM Corporation. "Commander's Battle Book with Battle Book Calculus"
(Fort Ord, California) (undated).

Baskeyfield, Mark E. "Soviet Application of Decision Aids in tne Military

Decision-Making.Process". Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
California, March 1985.

Bellman, Dr. Richard. Russian Progress in-Cybernetics and Its Relevance to

Miliar. Power. F.W. Dodge Company Study, January 1966.

Blumentritt, General der Infanterie Guenther. Technique of Command.

Historical Division, Headquarters, United States Army Europe. 1947.

Bondarenko et al. Contemp'orary' Staaeof. the Revolution .inMilitary Affairs

dan.DemandsonMiit.aryCadres. Foreign Technology Divi.Zon, ight-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 6 November 1969.

Bowyer, Barbara J. Toward a Theory. of Military Decisionmaking. Naval

Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, June, 1983.

Chotikul, Diane. The_ Soviet Theory of Reflexive Control in Histcrica! and

Psychocultural Perspective: A Preliminary. Study". Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, California, .uly 1986.

Colvin, Commander Robert D. War Games: Their Use in the DeciZion Process.
US Army War College, 6 February 1968.

Defense Intelligence Agency, Highway Methodology for Force Movement: R.a:e

of Advances. DDB-2010-8-83, 1 October 1982

Duncan, MAJOR Frank E. A Logical Approach to Decisionmaking for the

Battalion Cormander on the Modern Battlefield. MMAS Thesis. US Army
Command and General Staff College, Fort -eavenworth, Kansas, 1978.

Faith, MAJ John C. Centralization -- Crisis of Command. US Army Command and

General Staff College Student Paper, 4 Decemner 1962.

Fields, MAJOR William E. Soviet Troop Control. US Army Command and Genera:
Staff College School of Advanced Military Stucies Colirse , .
87-8.
A7-Rigi 436 FIOHTING BY THE NUVNER: THE ROLE OF QUANTIFICATION IN 2.12
TACTICAL DECISION MAIINO(U) ARMYCONNRNO ANDGENERAL
STAFF COLL FORT LEAVENWORTH KS SCNOO. D A FASTRIENO
LCRSFE 01DEC 87 F/G 13/6 U
 -ii

6 i111

I. 136

1.
1.25i 11I.6
Filiberti, MAJ Edward J. The Army Standard Operations Order: Has It kept
SP.....ac_w.ith the Changing Qperational Environment. Masters of Science
Thesis in the Graduate School of Central Michigan University, June,
1987.

Gallagher, John McLaughlin. A Comparative Analysis. of the Theories of

American .Mi it.ary Operations
E ffec tive ess Crite.riain Sovi.et and ..
Research. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, June 1983.
Gallenkamp, General der Artillerie Curt, Examples Taken From War as an

...M
Empitrical Basis for.the..Arrangement__of Exercises_ and Field
Discussions. Foreign Military Studies Branch, Historical Division
European Command, (undated).

Garner, David W. P.lann in.e.:- -An.- An.a .sis...

and.-Mo.d e oD.......f-...Dec.i.s.i.o.n
M.ak..i
g. US
Army Command and General Staff College Student Paper, Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas, April 1974.

Gilbert, Captain Mark C. Soviet Computersand Cybernetics: Shortcomings and

Mi.i.t.ary Appl.icati .o
ns. Student Research Report, US Army Russian
Institute, Garmisch, Germany, June 1980.
Haywood, Colonel Oliver G. Military .Doctrine of_Decision and the Von

Neumann Theor. ofGames. US Air Force Project Rand Report RM-528, 2

February 1951.
Jansen, COL Joseph A. Centralization: Peacetime Virtue and Wartime
Liabi.lity?. US Army War College Student Essay, Carlisle Barracks,
Pa., 13 January 1967.
Kalb, MAJ John F. Measurin2g Command and Control -- Considerationfo...rfr.Force

Design. School of Advanced Military Studies, US Army Command and

General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1 December 1986.
Kern, Jeffrey Arthur, Soviet Command and Control in An Historical Context.
Naval Postgraduate School Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, California, March, 1981.

Kopec, MAJ R. Joseph. The -..

pp...'ic_'at ion of_ a.Decisionmaking Model to the
Tactical Decisionmakine Situation. Research Paper for the US Army
Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 10
January 1975.

Littlefield, Thomas K. Jr. Control of Military Operations with PERT

.(Program Evaluation and Review Technique). Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, California, March 1986.

Livingston, George D. A.Quantitative. Approach...tq.Determining An Enemy's

--.. Probable
r...MostCourse of Action. US Army Command and General Staff
College Student Paper, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, January, 1972.
Lovatt, MAJ Brian A. An Appreciation_of Tactic-al Agility as a Function of
theDeci.sio.nma.ing Proqesqs. School of Advanced Military Studies
Monograph, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas, 5 December 1986.

Manzo, Joseph J. and Hughes, James M. A S._urmrogate..for_..oviet D.iv.sion-L.evel

Automated Tro.p_ Control Systems. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
California, June 1984.

McElwee, MAJOR Jerry W. A....F.ir.st ..

C.ut-at ..
Do.citrtne. for...Automation. of.. Division
Command and Control. School of Advanced Military Studies Monograph,
US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas,
2 December 1985.

McKinney, MAJOR Joseph W. Computer.s f or Command and. Cont.rol: .An ..Ai r -land
Bat tle .Rgquirement'.t. MMAS Thesis, US Army Command and General Staff
College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1984.
Morris, Nancy M. and Rouse, William B. Adaptiye.Aiding for.Human-Computer
Control.: E~erimental Studies of Dynamic Task *A.il.!ocat iotn. Aerospace
Medical Research Laboratory Report AAMRL-TR-86-O005, January, 1986.
Murray, MAJ William K. A. An Examinationas to. the Emphasis Placed on the
C.omun.i.c..at..ion_..Proc.es.s, .._Deci.sionP.r.o....ess..and .Com.and I...
nv.ol ..v.ement in
Tactical _Command and Control Systems. US Army Command and General
Staff College Student Thesis, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, March 1972.

Pipes, Richard E. "Correlation of Forces" in Soviet Usagpe Meaning and -_Its

Imp.lications. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Report SSC-

TN- 4383-2, March 1978.

Quade, E.S. Analysis for MilitaryDecisions. A Report Prepared for United

States Air Force Project Rand, Report R-387-PR, 1964.
Reitzel, William A. Background to.Decision Making. Naval War College
Pamphlet, 1 July 1958.
Rendulic, Generaloberst. Combat Orders, CARL Translation N-16927.2,
Historical Division Headquarters, United States Army Europe, 30 April
1947.
Rendulic, Generaloberst. Th"
e -Co...mm*and_Dec.is'i.on. U.S. Army Military History
Institute, United States Army Europe, (undated)

RomJue, John L. Fr 'om Active_. De fe nse...to ..Ai rland

I - Batt le: The Develop ment of
Army .octrine_ 1973-1982. TRADOC Historical Monograph Series, United
States Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia,
June 1984.
Rouse, William B. and Rouse, Sandra H. A Framework- for.Research on Adaptive
Decision Aids. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory Report
AFAMRL=TR-83-082, Alphatech, Inc, October 1983.
Rowe, MAJ Richard J. Command andControl of the U.S.Heavy.Division on he
Nuclear Battlefield. School of Advanced Military Studies Monograph,
US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas,
5 December 1986.

Schnabel, MAJ David E. A__Final!_..port.of Student Study Project #S014,

Cours.e_.of_A.ction Analyzer. US Army Command and General Staff College,
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 30 April 1986.

Schoof, MAJ Maury W. TheO.p.erations .Analyst_ versus The Decision-maker".

Irependent.Res.earchElective Paper, US Army Command and General
Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, December, 1973.
Seigle, MaJ John W. The Estimat.eof the Situation. Student Paper, Code

Number 19227, US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort

Leavenworth, Kansas, (undated).

Sidorsky, Raymond C. and Mara, Thomas D. Trainin&_Aspets of Computer-Aided

DecisionM.aking. General Dynamics Electric Boat Division, Technical
Report NAVTRADEVCEN 1329-3, July, 1968.

Skacho, P.V. Volkov, G.T. and Kulikov, V.M. Planning..pfCqmbat gperations

and .. .......
.........
...
Command .... T
of ro
.. . . ...
Troopos ........
...
with h .t.the
b A.i ..of
Aid .... .... . ---.-
_...
Network_ .G. Graphst. (Planirovaniye
P-a-riy
Boyevykh Deystviy i Upravleniye Voyskami s Pomoshch'yu Setevykh
Grafikov, Voyenizdat, Moscow, 1968) Foreign Technology Division
Machine Translation, FTD-ID(RS)T-0337-84, 14 January 1985.

Striler, MAJ Raymond J. Information Flow to the Commanderfor_Sound

Decision Making. US Army Command and General Staff College Student
Paper, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, December 1973.

Teter, Major William A. E.xperj.stems: Tools in the Commander's Decision-

Making Process. MMAS Thesis, US Army Command and General Staff
College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1986.
US Air Force. A GeneralReview-of Cybernetics in the _Soviet Union. Foreign
Technology Division Project White Stork, 30 June 1966.

US Air Force. Ev.a..lua.tio.n... o..f I.rnstruc..t.ionI..,!,n .St.af .f Action. and D.ecision-

MakiLng. Air Research and Development Command Human Resources Research
Institute Technical Research Report Number 16, December 1953.

US Army. Auftragstaktik i.n the U..S-. Army. United States Army Training Board
Discussion Paper 1-86, Ft Monroe, Virginia, 12 June 1986.

US Army. Commander's .Decision. Extracts from College Policy, C&GSC, 1949-

50". US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas, 1950.

US Army. FM_..IQ-.5.: Oper.ati.ons.. Headquarters, Department of the Army,

Washington, D.C. 1986.

92
US Ar:,r:. FC 100-15-1: Ccrps Deep.Operations (SECRET). US Army Command and
-.neral Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 30 June 1985.

US Army. FC 101-5-2: Staff Officers Handbook. US Army Command and General

Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, March 1987.

US Army. F__101-5: Staff Organizationand Operations. Headquarters,

Department of the Army, May 1984.

US Army. FM.. O-0:1,__StaffOfficer's FieldManual, Organizational,

Technic al. Logi.sti~a_ a(UnclI ass.i fied .Data). Headquarters,
Department of the Army, July 1976.

US Army. Guidance for -C2,.- P.lanning.and...Orders IUnstSruc.ion,_cY8-88. us

Army Command and General Staff College Memorandum, Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas, (undated).

US Army. Man.ua.forCommand _andComb a.....m.pl..oy;mnt..ofm.__S

naI l.er_.Un.i.ts (Based
on German ExpR.[ienr.es.in World..War.). Department of the Army,
Office of the Chief of Military History, Washington D.C., 1952.

US Army. per.ations Research.Eurasian-Comm ist.Countr.ie s. US Army

Materiel Command Foreign Science and Technology Center DST-1830S-187-
75, Defense Intelligence Agency, I May 1973.

US Army. Student Text 100-9: The Command Est.imate US Army Command and
General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, July 1986.

US Army. TruPppqenf4eghrung. US Army Military History Institute Translation of

the October 17, 1933 German Text, Library of the National War
College, 26 Feb 1943.
US Army Armor Human Research Unit. AProposalfor Studyof.Compound Event
P.Qbab.i-I it2-...Es i-mati-n-in-Co.m.a.nd.-.eD.eiesion-Mak.ing. The George
Washington University Human Resources Research Office, January 1965.

US Arrdy Combined Arms Center. Tactical Operations Syst.emTactical

ApicationPakag,_ Phase I Co.rdination.Draft,. Volume I, TOS
P.r..ri.oiti.ze.d_-.ub.fu.nctio..nls.. Combined Arms Combat Developments Activity.
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, November 1973.

US Navy. Sou nd"'Mili'tary Dpecision. US Naval War College Serial No 7.

Newport, Rhode Island, 1936.

Walter, MAJOR Francis J. TheAp..Ap.lication of the N*etwork_Analysis System in

OQprat.ionalPlanning ..the FieldArmy Engineer ... A Doctrine. MMAS
Thesis, US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas, 1965.

White, MAJ James F. Soviet Automa.ted..TroopCQntrql:. The Mathematics of

D-ecislion. US Army Command and General Staff College MMAS Thesis, Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas, 1987.
Wohl, J.G. et al. Modeling Human Decision Processes _in Command and Control.
Alphatech, Inc Report TR-137, January, 1983.
Wohl, J.G. et al. Toward a Unified Aproach to Combat-Sy-stemsAnalysis.

Alphatech, Inc Report TR-151, January 1983.

94

'I'
 Periodicals

Abchuk, V. "Commander Makes a Decision". Krasnaya Zveda, 20 September 1974,

FTD Translation FTD-ID(RS)T-0746-78, 18 May 1978.
Akimov, Colonel A. "A Commander Takes a Decision". Soviet_MiitaryReview,
No. 10 October, 1978.
Anureyev, Major-General. "Mathematics Investigates Combat". Soviet.Military
Review, No. 3 March 1975.
Bartov, Omer. "Indoctrination and Motivation in the Wehrmacht: The
Importance of the Unquantifiable". The Journal of Strategic Studies,
March, 1986.
Babiy, Vice Admiral and Volgin, Capt N. "On the Problem of Evaluating the
Relative Strength of Opposing Forces". Morsk.y Sbornik, No 12. ,1980,
pp 18-23.
Baxter, LTC William P. "The Scientific Soviet Commander". Army Magazine,
June 1980.
Berezkin, Col A. "On Controlling the Actions of An Opponent". Vo.yennq
Mysl', No 11, November 1972, FPD 0049, 3 December 1973.

Dapra, LTC Lawrence G. "The Application of Soviet C3 Concepts in

Afghanistan". Signal, May/June 1981., pp 125-131.
Dement'yev, A. and Petrov, S. "Situation Change and New Decision". Vpyenna
Istoricheskiy Zhurnal, 7 Jul i978

Evgen'ev, Lt Col. "PERT Charts Aid Army Field Exercise: translation of

excerpt from "According to a Network Diagram"", Krasnaya Zveda,
January 21, 1971.
Frolov, Colonel B. "Rates of Advance". Soviet Military Review, No. 1
January, 1981.
Gapanov, Col A. "Correlation of Forces and Rate of Advance". Voyenna Mysl,
No. 10, 1971.

Gorbatenko, Colonel D.D. "The Time Factor in a Modern War". Strategic

Review, Winter 1974, pp 92-94.
Hayward, Philip. "The Measurement of Combat Effectiveness". Operat-ions
Research, vol 16, 1968, pp 314-323.
Hemsley, Colonel John. "Command Technology: Voennaya Sisteroteknika. An
Algorithmic Approach to Decision-making". RUST, Journal Pf the Royal
United Services Institute for Defence Studies, September 1980, p 58-
64.

95
Herwig, Holger H. "From Tirpitz to Schlieffen Plan: Some Observations on
German Military Planning". T.he_J.ourna.1 .Of..Str.at.egicStudies., March
1986.

Hines, John G. and Petersen, Phillip A. "Changing the Soviet System of

Control". International_Defense-Review, No. 3/1986, pp 281-289.

Ionov, Maj Gen Ary M. "On the Methods of Influencing an Opponent's

Decisions". VoyA.nn~a Mysl', No. 12, December 1971, FPD 0003, 17
January 1974.

Johnston, MAJOR E.S. "A Science of War". The Command and _General Staff
SchoolQurteriy, VOL XIV, June, 1934, No. 53., pp 89-142.

Kalashnikov, Eng-Col V. "Automated Control Systems: User Problems Noted."

Krasna.Zved, 17 June 80. JPRS 76624, 15 October 1980.

Korzun, Major-General, "Operational Efficiency of Troop Control", Soviet

MilitaryRevew, No. 12 December, 1981.

Linblom, Charles E. "The Science of "Muddling Through"". Pub.ic.

Administration Review, Volume XIX, Spring 1959 Number 2. pp 79-89.

Login, Colonel V. "Commander's Thinking in Action", SovietMilitary.Review,

No. 3 March, 1977.

Lukava, Colonel G. "Scientific Principles of Troop Control". Soviet

Military Review, No. 5 May, 1982.

Maginnis, MAJ Robert L. "Harnessing Creativity". Military Review, March

1986, pp 12-20.

McMahon, Lt Col Timothy L. "Decisionmaking in Modern War". Military Review,

October 1986, pp 33-37.

Phillips, MAJ T.R. "Solving the Tactical Equation: The Logical Foundation
of the Estimate of the Situation". The Command.._and General St-aff
Quarterly, VOL XVII (September, 1937), pp 5-51.

Popov, Lt Gen N.G. and Maramzin, Col V.A. "On the Question of the Work 0
Methods of Front Commanders and Staffs in Preparing for Offensive
Operations During the Great Patriotic War". Vcyenpo-Istoricheskiy
Zhurnal No 9, Sep 85, pp 14-19

Portugal 'skiy, R. "Command Procedures in the Great Patriotic War". JPRS

66636, 21 Jan 76. 0

Reeves, W. Robert. "Soviet C3: Theory and Practice". SIGNAL_Magazin.e,

December, 1985, pp 105-109.

Reznichenko, Lieutenant-General V. "Commander's Decision". Soviet Military

Review, NO. 5 May 1981.

96o

W1
Reznichenko, Lieutenant General V., "Command and Control". Krasnaya ZYeda
No 289, 13 December 1977.

Ryabchuk, MAJ GEN V. "Troop Control: Effectiveness Evaluated". Krasnaya

Zveda, 12 Jun 80. JPRS 76624, 15 October 1980.

Savelyev, Colonel V. "The Commander Assigns a Mission". Soviet Military

Review, No 3. March 1975.

Timmerman, Lt. Col Frederick W., Jr. "Of Command and Control and other
Things" A_.magg ine, May 1985, pp 55-58.

Tyushkevich, Col S. "The Methodology for the Correlation of Forces in War".

YoyengaMy"s.', No 6., June 1969, FPD 0008/70, 30 January 1970.

Tyushkevich, Col. S. "Science and Military Affairs". SovJet Military

Revi.ew, No. 5 May 1966.

Vorobyov, Major-General I. "The Time Factor". SoYiet Military. Review, No. 1

January, 1982.

Vorobyov, Major-General Ivan, "The Time Factor on the Battlefield", Soviet

M.iitar Reyi.ew, No 6 June 1986.
Yaremko, Colonel Valentin. "Commander Organises Battle". (Parts I-III),
Soviet MilitaryRevie , April-June 1986.
Zabelyy, Maj Gen N. Ye. "A Specific Sequence is Necessary". Voyenny
Vestnik, Moscow, 1980, pp 39-42.

Zubkov, Col N. "General Principles of the Approach to Appraising the

Effectiveness of Combined Arms Control Systems". VoyennaMysl', No.
11, November 1971, FPD 0004/74, 22 January 1974.

97!
I
 Unpublished Documents arnd Other Sources

Donnelly, C.N. Lecture at the School of _Advancei Military St_5udies. Fort

Leavenworth, Kansas, 13 October, 1987.
Holder, Col L.D. and Arnold, Major Edwin J. "Tactical Movement of the Heavy
Di~isi~fl'. Unpublished Manuscript, June 1987.
McGinnis, Thomas M. Lecture at the School of Advanced Military.,Studies.
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, October, 1987.
Motes, Col John M. Discuss-ions on..C.GS.C Instruction.Dvur-ing-R.-cent.Years.
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, October, 1987.

98I

kh'

1111:11 15t i
 Classified Sources
Central Intelligence Agency. Sqviet Research Applicable to the Enhancement
ofDecisio!ming. Science and Technical Intelligence Report,
November 1971.

Defense Intelligence Agency. USSR: Impact of QgrKoy..o.. Automated Decision-

M*aing. DIAIAPPR 19-77, 28 January 1977.

Foreign Systems Research Center. C.oure.pn.So.vYie_ T.roop...Control. Science

Applications, Inc., SAIC - 85/60980 & FSRC, 4-15 November 1985.

Foreign Systems Research Center. Soviet Division-Level D.e ci'sion Making.

Science Applications, Inc, SAIC 85/6006&FSRC, 26 June 1986.

Kahn, Herman and Smernoff, Barry J. SovietR.&D__De.cisionmaking. Hudson

Institute, Inc., 31 August 1971.

Mayer, Dr. Hugo E. and Lee, Mrs Helen G. Soviet Command Control: Motorized
Rifle Regime'nt. Studies and Analysis Directorate, TRADOC Analysis
Command, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, TRAC-F-TR-187, January 1987.

Podubny, Col I. "Concerning the Commander's Decision". Voyetnny.Ves.tn.ik,

Issue No 17, dated September 1948, pp 39-41.
Rybinski, Michael. Soviet Nayy Decision Support Systems: Intentions vs
1983.
Capabilities. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, March

US Army. FC!A -55: CorpsanmdDivision_Co mmand and Control. US Army Command

and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 28 Feb 1985.

Whittier, Henry S. and Scarangella, Henry M. Soviet Ground Force

Correl ation: -Philosophy, .P.rocess and Implications. Unclassified
Extract from Naval War College Center for Advanced Research Report,
1983.

INI

Z. elI
 I,

Lle
,,

..
%

JD .AA'L2 fJL
Alli