Comparing Success Rates In Simulated Combat: Intelligent Tactics vs. Force

Abstract

Bakan categorized military tactics according to their reliance on "force" or "intelligence" suggesting that tactics that rely on the latter are more effective. Intelligence refers to an emphasis on local creativity, surprise, stealth, and adaption, while force relates to an emphasis on central direction, direct power, and hierarchical structure. Bakan's hypothesis was tested in realistic field exercises (n = 237) that employed tactical engagement simulation of weapons to simulate casualties and record events. The field exercises consisted of platoon-level, light infantry offensive operations. Intelligence was defined in terms of the extent of previous training (in stealth); force was defined by the personnel force ratio, reflecting the degree of numerical predominance on offense. Training in intelligent tactics increased the odds of the offense winning in simulated battle by 30 to 1, compared with the force ratio, which only increased these odds by 3 to 1-highlighting the importance of intelligent tactical training.

National Training Center Research Element, Fort Irwin, California 1986-1996.

“…The TES field training research demonstrated that the value of added training time or repeated practice for engagement skills greatly increased the odds of winning offensive battles (Hart & Sulzen, 1988;Sulzen, 1987;Sulzen, Whitmarsh, & Hart, 1989).…”

List of ARI Conference Papers, Journal Articles, Books, and Book Chapters: 1982-1991

“…Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA. Sulzen, R.H. (1988). Development of observer/controller (O/C) guidebooks.…”