Combat Power Analysis is Combat Power Density

Abstract

Historically, the U.S. Army has had difficulty articulating and justifying force requirements to civilian decision makers. Most recently, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq reinvigorated the debate over estimated force requirements. Because Army planners have failed numerous times to provide force estimates acceptable to the President, the question arises, why are the planning methods inadequate and why have they not been improved? This research began with a thorough evaluation of current doctrinal methods for determining force requirements to determine the rationale for their creation. The evaluation revealed that current Army doctrine does not provide a coherent method for determining force density requirements in contemporary operating environments. Instead, doctrine developers have defined three distinct and separate methods for determining force requirements: Correlation of Forces Model (COFM), Relative Combat Power Analysis (RCPA), and Troops-to-Task (T2T). As distinct processes relegated to specific operational situations, they cannot provide a comprehensive picture of force requirements. As such, the processes are only useful in narrowly defined contexts. Doctrine also ignores older established models of combat power analysis such as Lanchester equations, Weapon Effectiveness Index (WEI), Weighted Unit Value (WUV), Armored Division Equivalents (ADE), and Unit Frontages. This research demonstrated that COFM, RCPA, and T2T can be usefully applied in specific circumstances, which explains why Army doctrine writers have retained these methods despite their shortcomings. However, the Army has failed to update the models to account for new operating concepts. The Army's new operating concept, unified land operations, envisions army forces conducting full-spectrum operations, operations that blend combined arms maneuver and wide area security. The Army needs an integrated approach to determining force requirements that reflects its integrated operational concept.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
May 17, 2012
Accession Number
ADA566701

Entities

People

  • James A. Zanella

Organizations

  • United States Army Command and General Staff College

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Energy and Power Technologies
  • Human Systems
  • Weapons Technologies

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Attrition
  • Command And Control
  • Databases
  • Doctrine
  • Employment
  • Geographic Regions
  • Governments
  • Indirect Fire
  • Military History
  • Military Operations
  • Military Science
  • Operations Research
  • Students
  • United States
  • Urban Areas
  • War Colleges
  • Warfare

Readers

  • Maritime Combat Support and Expeditionary Logistics.
  • Military History / Militaries and War Studies
  • Systems Analysis and Design