Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
sfconsim-l
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Message search is now enhanced, find messages faster. Take it for a spin.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Lanchester's Laws   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #45945 of 81922 |
I stumbled over them on GamaSutra (registration required)
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040806/adams_01.shtml

These are old hat to military strategy theorist, so most
readers hear at sfconsim-l can stop reading right now.

Lanchester's laws are concerned with balancing military
strength of various units.

If one is dealing with ancient combat (i.e., pre-gunpowder)
Lanchester Linear Law applies, the common sense
"relative strength is proportional to number of combatants".
(e.g., if the unit Alfa has twice as many men as unit Bravo,
unit Alfa is twice as strong)
It applies because one man is engaging in combat with
only one hostile man. If each pair of combatants kills
each other, the number of men remaining after the battle
is the larger army minus the smaller army.

But post gunpowder, Lanchester Square Law applies.
The relative strength is proportional to the *square*
of the number of combatants.
If unit Alfa has three times as many men, it is 3^2 = 9
times as powerful.

This is because with gunpowder combatants can engage
more than one hostile and come under attack from
more than one hostile.

Unit Alfa is concentrating three times as much firepower
on unit Bravo compared to Bravo's firepower. And as
important, unit Bravo's firepower is being diluted over
three times as many targets.

The number of units remaining would be
R = sqrt( a^2 - b^2)

If Alfa's rifles are twice as efficient as Bravo's,
if the two units are of equal size, Alfa will win.
But the Square law makes it easy to overcome the
efficiency with mere numbers. If Bravo has three
times as many units, they will win even with
Alfa's advantage in weapons.

Specifically, if Bravo is three times bigger, it
has a strength nine times that of Alfa. Alfa's
weapons reduces that strength to "only" 4.5,
so Bravo still destroys Alfa.

As Dr. Paulos put it, it takes an N-squared-fold increase in
quality to make up for an N-fold increase in quantity.
That's a tall order.

Lanchester Laws do not take into account many other
important factors, but they can come in handy when setting
up the cost and production rate of different unit types.




Tue Aug 17, 2004 8:05 pm

nyrathwiz
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #45945 of 81922 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

I stumbled over them on GamaSutra (registration required) http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040806/adams_01.shtml These are old hat to military strategy...
Winchell Chung
nyrathwiz
Offline Send Email
Aug 17, 2004
8:06 pm

... Actually, I doubt that the key is gunpowder; the key is ranged combat. Note that in situations where stealth is applicable (such as urban combat) or when...
Anthony Jackson
ac_jackson
Online Now Send Email
Aug 17, 2004
8:25 pm

... IME with games it's main application is roleplaying games, naval/space wargames, and games where the units (and scales) are big enough that area fire looks...
Rupert Boleyn
gtrboleyn
Offline Send Email
Aug 17, 2004
9:12 pm

Have to differ with you on that one, Anthony. The biggest benefit of gunpowder other than range was cost. It was a *lot* cheaper and quicker to equip 100 men...
Matt P.
acehunter01
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
1:20 pm

... of ... quicker ... 16th ... I agree, though for a slightly different reason. I've never seen figures or estimates on the cost of a longbow v an arquebus;...
rmrobinson1227
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
2:14 pm

Thanks, Rick - that was exactly the point I was trying and failing to properly make. A longbowman (and knights, for that matter) required years of training,...
Matt P.
acehunter01
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
4:27 pm

... I agree with all that, but I fail to see how it's relevant to my statement. I've also seen suggestions that the decline of the longbow was in part due to ...
Anthony Jackson
ac_jackson
Online Now Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
4:23 pm

Where it's relevant is that troops in the post-gunpowder era are radically more effective than pre-gunpowder. 1. An individual man requires less training (and...
Matt P.
acehunter01
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
4:43 pm

... Yes, but we were discussing lancaster's laws, which are about the relative effectiveness of X troops vs Y troops, when the troops are of the same type. ...
Anthony Jackson
ac_jackson
Online Now Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
4:50 pm

And that's *why* the square law applies, whereas the linear law applies to pre-gunpowder. We're not talking two different constants, we're talking two...
Matt P.
acehunter01
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
5:01 pm

... No, we're not. The difference between linear and square law is that under the square law, any given enemy can be attacked by anyone on the opposing force,...
Anthony Jackson
ac_jackson
Online Now Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
5:11 pm

I just re-read the paragaph description in the article. You're right, my apologies. -Matt P....
Matt P.
acehunter01
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
7:07 pm

I would imagine the decline of the longbow was probably due to a number of factors, and my original statement is probably somewhat simplistic. -Matt P....
Matt P.
acehunter01
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
4:46 pm

*mutter, mutter* I've seen numerous "explanations" of why gunpowder weapons replaced bows/crossbows. I've found one that makes sense. Let's dismiss the most ...
Kirk Spencer
kspencer30720
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
5:55 pm

So, if I'm reading it right - we agree that the reason why "guns" replaced "bows" is because guns are less resource-intensive. The type of resource involved...
Matt P.
acehunter01
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
7:12 pm

Right. Kirk ... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around ...
Kirk Spencer
kspencer30720
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
7:27 pm

"Training" for the longbow was deceptive, though. One of the huge problems is that to effectively use a longbow at all (even semi-trained) required that you be...
Joey Browning
cargus10
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
7:28 pm

Joey, you missed a key point, which means I didn't explain very well. The Welsh Longbowman was a SPECIALIST. Arquebusers didn't just replace longbowmen, they...
Kirk Spencer
kspencer30720
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
11:58 pm

Ah, my bad. Yes, indeed, you are quite correct that the reasons for replacing the general bowman are different from the elite longbowmen or crossbowmen (some...
Joey Browning
cargus10
Offline Send Email
Aug 21, 2004
12:46 am

... well. The ... longbowmen, ... and right ... (tactically) ... Hmm, I'm jumping back in late, and haven't read all replies on this subject, but were BOWmen,...
rmrobinson1227
Offline Send Email
Aug 21, 2004
4:58 am

...fools rush in... I think that, perhaps, the steady improvement in armour technology into the 16th century has be underestimated in looking at the demise of...
les_howie
Offline Send Email
Aug 21, 2004
6:18 pm

In a message dated 20/08/2004 20:33:19 GMT Daylight Time, spaceace@... writes: The logistics argument makes a lot of sense. More so to me than ...
TimHughes149@...
timhughes_uk
Offline Send Email
Aug 20, 2004
8:21 pm

In a message dated 21/08/2004 06:15:33 GMT Daylight Time, Lyonesse@... writes: Hmm, I'm jumping back in late, and haven't read all replies on this ...
TimHughes149@...
timhughes_uk
Offline Send Email
Aug 21, 2004
8:00 pm

... this ... I believe the Japanese were found of the bow, and I believe it was a self bow rather than a composite. The Turks favoured a composite bow IIRC....
les_howie
Offline Send Email
Aug 21, 2004
8:12 pm

In a message dated 21/08/2004 21:13:00 GMT Daylight Time, les_howie@... writes: Given the medievel banning of the crossbow, it must have represented ...
TimHughes149@...
timhughes_uk
Offline Send Email
Aug 21, 2004
8:24 pm

... in the ... Still, it does underline that the crossbow was "controversial." The standard explanation, which sounds fairly plausible, is that common churls...
rmrobinson1227
Offline Send Email
Aug 22, 2004
5:14 pm

That edict specifically said crossbows may not be used against Christians. There is no mention regarding its use against pagans. Tangentially, this may be the...
Eric Henry
faux_pawn
Offline Send Email
Aug 24, 2004
1:07 am

Tim Hughes said... ... There's a joke there for the Theologians among you....:-) ... ...and, like all that followed, it failed....
Mike Dugan
thedugan
Offline Send Email
Aug 24, 2004
2:56 am

... control ... Crossbows don't kill people. Mongols kill people....
Ken Burnside
adastragames
Offline Send Email
Aug 24, 2004
3:27 am
First  | < Prev  |  Next > Last 
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help