- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Does the CF train officers in areas like attrition calculation (Lanchester Equation, etc.), maneuver vs. methodical battle approaches, and other operational/strategic level considerations?
Question
- Thread starter Glorified Ape
- Start date
C
copper
Guest
One would think that things like attrition calculations would be more for the top brass and the host of civilian Ministerial support they have when formulating what its gonna cost to run the machine for another year and how many (min) they have to recruit in order to keep it from crashing until they can retire in relative luxury.
"Maneuver VS Methodical battle approaches" does explain some of the larks I have been on, but really how can you learn maneuver if you can't understand the methodical??
As for Operational/Strategic level considerations <<< this is what we are best known world wide for, doing bloody well everything with next to NO Support from Ottawa.
"Maneuver VS Methodical battle approaches" does explain some of the larks I have been on, but really how can you learn maneuver if you can't understand the methodical??
As for Operational/Strategic level considerations <<< this is what we are best known world wide for, doing bloody well everything with next to NO Support from Ottawa.
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Ape, you would receive some related training in the operational planning process (OPP) and wargaming on the Army Operations Course conducted for junior captains at the Canadian Land Force Command and Staff Course.
http://armyapp.dnd.ca/clfcsc-cceftc/FAQ.asp#What%20is%20the%20AOC
http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/olc-cad/Course_info/AOC/AOC_Info.v3.pdf
http://armyapp.dnd.ca/clfcsc-cceftc/FAQ.asp#What%20is%20the%20AOC
http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/olc-cad/Course_info/AOC/AOC_Info.v3.pdf
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,792
- Points
- 1,110
Ape,
The old "Staff Data Handbook" had casualty rate tables and such based on historical data. I've never met the Lanchester Equation before as such in formal training (I went into Political Science to avoid having to squaring things). The US Army had a combat ratio table that gave each type of unit a value and was used to predict outcomes but that may have fallen out of favour (it wasn't terribly useful IMHO). Math is one thing that I do not want to do in the field.
Our doctrine and schools emphasize "manoeuvre" and place the emphasis on shattering the will of the enemy as opposed to achieving his physical destruction. That being said, in my opinion we are a methodical army and not truly manoueverist. Our roots are in the deliberate attack and defence. We now seem to try to turn every attack into a deliberate attack and are shunning "advancing to contact." We talk manoeuvre, but in my opinion we practice methodically. Perhaps this will change over time.
Going back to attrition, perhaps there is an element of attritional exchange equations in the rule of thumb that the attacker should have at least three to one odds. Defenders normally get the first shot (or shots), so sending three tanks over the crest for every defending tank should mean that when the exchange of fire is done one or two attacking tanks are destroyed, the defending tank is destroyed but at least one attacking tank is left to breakthrough...I've seen this in JANUS, JCATS and SIMNET (CCTT) which are simulations/simulators. In these scenarios the side that brings the most guns to the fight (and masses them at the right time and place) seems to win the exchange most of the time (fastest with the mostest). We tried some one to one attacks against prepared defences in JANUS two years ago and my "virtual" combat team was vaporized in about ten seconds (darn full-defilade mode for the defence).
What can allow us break out of the "exchange ratio attack" are superior training, tactics or equipment. The rapid advances of coalition forces in '91 and '03 were, in my opinion, due to the armour of the M1 and Challenger. They could take a hit and not be destroyed. This threw any "exchange" calculations out the window. Superior training gave the Israelis and edge while combined arms doctrine was the German ace in the hole.
Sorry, I've rambled and haven't answered your question :blotto:. The short answer is that you will meet principles of war and ideas such as battlespace and manoeuvre warfare that you will recognize from your studies (I'm making some assumptions here) in future training. You will meed the tactical, operational and strategic levels of war as well as the spectrum of conflict. Just remember, high level war-fighting theory is one thing, crew commanding a vehicle or leading a section attack in Gagetown is another.
Cheers,
2B
The old "Staff Data Handbook" had casualty rate tables and such based on historical data. I've never met the Lanchester Equation before as such in formal training (I went into Political Science to avoid having to squaring things). The US Army had a combat ratio table that gave each type of unit a value and was used to predict outcomes but that may have fallen out of favour (it wasn't terribly useful IMHO). Math is one thing that I do not want to do in the field.
Our doctrine and schools emphasize "manoeuvre" and place the emphasis on shattering the will of the enemy as opposed to achieving his physical destruction. That being said, in my opinion we are a methodical army and not truly manoueverist. Our roots are in the deliberate attack and defence. We now seem to try to turn every attack into a deliberate attack and are shunning "advancing to contact." We talk manoeuvre, but in my opinion we practice methodically. Perhaps this will change over time.
Going back to attrition, perhaps there is an element of attritional exchange equations in the rule of thumb that the attacker should have at least three to one odds. Defenders normally get the first shot (or shots), so sending three tanks over the crest for every defending tank should mean that when the exchange of fire is done one or two attacking tanks are destroyed, the defending tank is destroyed but at least one attacking tank is left to breakthrough...I've seen this in JANUS, JCATS and SIMNET (CCTT) which are simulations/simulators. In these scenarios the side that brings the most guns to the fight (and masses them at the right time and place) seems to win the exchange most of the time (fastest with the mostest). We tried some one to one attacks against prepared defences in JANUS two years ago and my "virtual" combat team was vaporized in about ten seconds (darn full-defilade mode for the defence).
What can allow us break out of the "exchange ratio attack" are superior training, tactics or equipment. The rapid advances of coalition forces in '91 and '03 were, in my opinion, due to the armour of the M1 and Challenger. They could take a hit and not be destroyed. This threw any "exchange" calculations out the window. Superior training gave the Israelis and edge while combined arms doctrine was the German ace in the hole.
Sorry, I've rambled and haven't answered your question :blotto:. The short answer is that you will meet principles of war and ideas such as battlespace and manoeuvre warfare that you will recognize from your studies (I'm making some assumptions here) in future training. You will meed the tactical, operational and strategic levels of war as well as the spectrum of conflict. Just remember, high level war-fighting theory is one thing, crew commanding a vehicle or leading a section attack in Gagetown is another.
Cheers,
2B
Similar threads
