Defense at Low Force Levels: The Effect of Force to Space Ratios on Conventional Combat Dynamics

Abstract : This paper develops, tests and applies a systematic theory relating force to space ratios and conventional combat outcomes, and describes a simple PC-level computer model developed to automate the calculations associated with that theory. The paper is intended in part to illuminate policy issues relating to conventional force reductions in Europe, and the development of post Cold War strategy and force structure for the NATO Alliance. More broadly, however, it is also intended to contribute to an improved understanding of the dynamics of conventional warfare at low force levels generally-and to the development of an improved body of theory for explaining the outcomes of armed conflict at the theater level. The paper concludes that the widespread perception that there exists a minimum force to space ratio for successful defense is largely incorrect. While the force to space ratio does affect combat outcomes, and while lower force to space ratios do tend to favor attackers over defenders, this effect need not be decisive, and the relationship between force density and defense effectiveness is not independent of the size of the attacking force or the doctrine and weapons used by the two sides.

[1]  N. Polsby,et al.  Case Study and Theory in Political Science , 1975 .

[2]  D. Segal,et al.  The Soviet Soldier: Soviet Military Management at the Troop Level. , 1977 .

[3]  Brereton Greenhous.  Firepower: British Army Weapons and Theories of War 1904-1945, by Shelford Bidwell and Dorninick Graham , 1983 .

[4]  P. Bracken.  Models of West European Urban Sprawl as an Active Defence Variable , 1975 .

[5]  S. V. Evera.  The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War , 1984 .

[6]  David M. Glantz.  Operational Art and Tactics , 1988 .

[7]  M. Howard.  Men Against Fire: Expectations of War in 1914 , 1984 .

[8]  James K. Cockrell.  Prediction of Advances in Ground Combat , 1975 .

[9]  Robert L Helmbold,et al.  Combat History Analysis Study Effort (CHASE) , 1986 .

[10]  Earl Frederick Ziemke,et al.  Stalingrad to Berlin: The German Defeat in the East , 1968 .

[11]  S. Labuc,et al.  Modelling the Red Force — Simulating Soviet Responses in Battle , 1984 .

[12]  J. Mearsheimer.  Numbers, Strategy, and the European Balance , 1988 .

[13]  Chaim Herzog,et al.  The War of Atonement , 1975 .

[14]  Stephen J. Flanagan,et al.  Arms control and stability in Europe: Reductions are not enough , 1988 .

[15]  Hew Strachan,et al.  European Armies and the Conduct of War , 1983 .

[16]  David C. Isby.  Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army , 1981 .

[17]  Alan F Karr.  Lanchester Attrition Processes and Theater-Level Combat Models. , 1981 .

[18]  B. Reid.  J. F. C. Fuller's theory of mechanized warfare , 1978 .

[19]  C C Johnson,et al.  Analysis of Factors That Have Influenced Outcomes of Battles and Wars: A Data Base of Battles and Engagements. Volume 1. Main Report. Selected Battles 1600 - 1973. , 1984 .

[20]  J. Dean.  Alternative defence: answer to NATO's Central Front problems? , 1987 .

[21]  Joshua M. Epstein.  The Calculus of Conventional War: Dynamic Analysis without Lanchester Theory , 1985 .

[22]  Stephen D. Biddle.  The European conventional balance: A reinterpretation of the debate , 1988 .

[23]  R. Goad.  Predictive Equations for Opposed Movement and Casualty Rates for Land Forces , 1975 .

[24]  G. Ritter,et al.  The Schlieffen Plan: Critique of a Myth , 1958 .

[25]  Alexander L. George,et al.  Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison , 2018, Alexander L. George: A Pioneer in Political and Social Sciences.

[26]  C. L. Hart.  The Ratio of Troops to Space , 1960 .

[27]  Arend Lijphart,et al.  Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method , 1971, American Political Science Review.