|
Author
|
Topic: OLI and attack and defence
|
WAKEN unregistered
|
posted 07-12-2011 11:03 AM
I've developed my own bespoke model, taking the formulas from NPW as my starting point); in order to evaluate battalion level firepower during the Normandy campaign. It struck me that a generic OLI for certain weapons isn't accurate. For example if you're attacking, the utility of a towed anti tank gun will be less than if you're defending. Similarly attacking infantry will typically be able to carry less ammunition for their crewed weapons (machine guns, light mortars, hand held anti tank etc.), than the defenders will have to hand.I'd be interested to hear the views of others on this.
IP: Logged |
Joseph Scott Senior Member
|
posted 03-04-2012 10:14 PM
It seems like a reasonable thought. One challenge might be resolving how much a weapon's 'assault factor' if you will, affects it's value in attack, since many of the attacking forces may be providing fire support, and therefore acting identically to a defending weapon. In fact,all the attacking forces may have been acting in such a role at some point during the engagement. Trying to ascertain to what degree with any accuracy may by quite a task. As I see it, OLI are actually pretty rough estimates that require a lot of circumstantial tweaking in general, not just in this area. While many people, including myself when I first read Dupuy's work, have tried to take them as hard numbers that were supposed to convey a very precise estimate of combat utility, I don't think they were actually conceived of, or are useful as such. As I understand it, Dupuy wanted a set of broad guidelines for rating weapons that would allow the rest of the QJM to have a structure. They haven't really been taken apart and analysed factor by factor against a large body of data to determine how exactly and in what proportion each relates to casualties or combat outcome, whether all their proportions are just right, a process that involves quite a lot of time, and access to a lot of data that is often hard to find (sometimes because there is none yet). And a process I suspect Dupuy would have regarded as more trouble than such demanding work was worth. He wanted a broadly applicable model, with reasonably rough tolerances, if you will, they he could put often aggregate and estimated data into the formula to get a general answer, which could then be revised with reasoned inferences. Since battles are chaotic affairs, highly variable and poorly recorded, the more precise the model, the tighter it's tolerances, the less battle data it will accept without giving absurd results from time to time. In that sense, the posture factors and terrain factors are already supposed to provide for any differences in the utility of the weapons on the assault or not.
IP: Logged | |