Incorporating Fractal Concepts into Equations of Attrition for Military Conflicts

  • G. C. McIntosh
  • M. K. Lauren
Chapter
Part of the The OR Essentials series book series (ORESS)

Abstract

Using an agent-based model as a ‘battlefield laboratory’, we explore equations of combat attrition which extend beyond the conventional Lanchester equations and which endeavour to encapsulate the more complex aspects of warfare. Our approach compares predictions from candidate attrition equations with casualty data generated artificially from an agent-based model. For situations where the initial regimented structure of the fighting forces breaks down, introducing fractal concepts into the attrition equations proves effective at encapsulating complex aspects of the battle; with details in the time dependence of the casualty data able to be reproduced. Furthermore, measuring the fractal dimension of a fighting force’s spatial distribution on the battlefield provides a sensitive probe of the combatants’ behaviour. Precise timesat which key events occur duringa battle can be pinpointed. This study furthers the body of work which considers warfare as a complex adaptive system and where fractal-like structures are expected to emerge.

Keywords

Fractal Dimension Standoff Distance Complex Adaptive System Sensor Range Fractal Concept 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bak P, Chen K and Creutz M (1989). Self-organized criticality and the ‘Game of Life’. Nature 342: 780–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bak P, Chen K and Tang C (1990). A forest-fire model and some thoughts on turbulence. Phys Lett 147: 297–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bitters DL (1995). Efficient concentration of forces, or how to fight outnumbered and win. In: Bracken J, Kress M and Rosenthal RE (eds). Warfare Modelling. Military Operations Research Society: Alexandria, VA, pp. 251–272.Google Scholar
  4. Bowen KC and McNaught KR (1996). Mathematics in warfare: Lanchester theory. In: Fletcher J (ed). The Lanchester Legacy, Volume 3 — A Celebration of Genius. Coventry University Press: Coverty, UN, pp. 141–156.Google Scholar
  5. Fricker RD (1998). Attrition models of the Ardennes campaign. Nav Res Log 45: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galligan DP (2004). Modelling shared situational awareness using the MANA model. J Battlefield Technol 7(3): 35–40.Google Scholar
  7. Grassberger P and Procaccia I (1983). Characterization of strange attractors. Phys Rev Lett 50(5): 346–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hastings HM and Sugihara G (1993). Fractals. A User’s Guide for the Natural Sciences. Oxford University Press Inc.: New York.Google Scholar
  9. Helmbold RL (1995). Personal Attrition Rates in Historical Land Combat Operations: Some Empirical Relations Among Force Size, Battle Durations, Battle Dates, and Casualties. Report CAA-RP-95–1, US Army Concepts Analysis Agency, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
  10. Ilachinski A (2004). Artificial War: Multiagent-Based Simulation of Combat. World Scientific Publishing: Singapore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lanchester FW (1914). Aircraft in warfare: the dawn of the fourth arm — No. V, the principle of concentration. Engineering 98: 422–423.Google Scholar
  12. Lauren MK (2000). Modelling combat using fractals and the statistics of scaling systems. Mil Opns Res 5(3): 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lauren MK (2001). Fractal methods applied to describe cellular automaton combat models. Fractals 9(2): 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lauren MK (2002a). A fractal-based approach to equations of attrition. Mil Opns Res 7(3): 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lauren MK (2002b). Firepower concentration in cellular automata combat models — an alternative to Lanchester. J Opl Res Soc 53: 672–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lauren MK and Stephen RT (2002a). Fractals and combat modelling: using MANA to explore the role of entropy in complexity science. Fractals 10(4): 481–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lauren MK and Stephen RT (2002b). Map-aware non-uniform automata (MANA) — a New Zealand approach to scenario modelling. J Battlefield Technol 5(1): 27–31.Google Scholar
  18. Lauren MK, Smith JM and Moffat J (2005). Using the fractal attrition equation to construct a metamodel of the MANA cellular automaton combat model. TTCP report for the Joint Systems and Analysis Group, Technical Panel 3 July 2005.Google Scholar
  19. McIntosh GC and Lauren MK (2006). Using Agent-Based Models to Derive Equations of Attrition for Military Combat. DTA Report 223, NR 1437, Defence Technology Agency, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  20. Moffat J (2003). Complexity Theory and Network Centric Warfare. The US Command and Control Research Program, Office of the Sec Defense, DoD, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Moffat J (2006). Mathematical modelling of information age conflict. J Appl Math Decis Sci, doi: 10.1155/JAMDS/2006/16018.Google Scholar
  22. Moffat J and Witty S (2002). Phase changes in metamodelling using the fractal dimension. Information and Security: An International Journal (Special Issue on Agent-Based Technologies) 8(1): 57–62.Google Scholar
  23. Richardson LF (1941). Frequency of occurrence of wars and other fatal quarrels. Nature 148: 598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roberts DC and Turcotte DL (1998). Fractality and self-organized criticality of wars. Fractals 6: 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thornton RC (1993). Historical Analysis of Infantry Defence in Woods. Volume I: Main Text. DOAC R 9321, Defence Operations Analysis Centre, MoD, UK.Google Scholar
  26. Williams GP (1997). Chaos Theory Tamed (Chapter 24). Joseph Henry Press: Washington, DC. pp 329–349.Google Scholar
  27. Woodcock AER, Cobb L and Dockery JT (1988). Cellular automata: a new method for battlefield simulation. Signal 41: 41–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. C. McIntosh
    • 1
  • M. K. Lauren
    • 1
  1. 1.Defence Technology AgencyAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations