Skip to main content
  • 131 Accesses

Abstract

This article looks at the overlap between C3 and combat simulation, from the point of view of the developer of combat simulations and models. In this context, there are two different questions. The first is: How and to what extent should specific models of the C3 processes be incorporated in simulations of combat? Here the key point is the assessment of impact. In which types or levels of combat does C3 play a role sufficiently intricate and closely coupled with combat performance that it would significantly affect combat results? Conversely, when is C3 a known factor or modifier which can be simply accommodated without a specific detailed model being made for it?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Theater-Level Gaming and Analysis Workshop for Force Planning, Vol. I-Proceedings, SRI International, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Military Strategy and Tactics, R. K. Huber, L. F. Jung, E. Reine, eds. Plenum, NY, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  3. “C3 — The Last Ten Years,” Lt. Gen. H. Dickinson, Military Electronics/Countermeasures, January 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  4. “Desert Fox,” Strategy and Tactic, Vol. 87, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  5. “Seatag,” Center for Advanced Research, Naval War College, Newport, R.I., 2nd Ed., 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  6. “Janus,” Conflict Simulation Code, C.A. Buzzell and G.C. Smith, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA., January 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  7. “Modeling Tactical Military Operations,” A.W. Dobieski, Quest, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  8. “Weapons and Tactics Analysis Center (WEPTAC) Operation Instructions,” NWC Technical Memoradum 4217, September 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  9. “The Ship Combat System Simulation,” Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA. 92152, May 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  10. “Divisional Electronic Warfare Combat (DEWCOM) Model Overview,” Concepts Analysis Agency, Bethesda, Md., undated.

    Google Scholar 

  11. “The Warfare Environment Simulator (WES),” R.L. Brandenburg, NOSC, presented at CORS-TIMS-ORSA Meeting 3-6 May 1981.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1984 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Erickson, S.A. (1984). C3 and Combat Simulation—A Survey. In: Huber, R.K. (eds) Systems Analysis and Modeling in Defense. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9370-6_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9370-6_17

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4615-9372-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-9370-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics