Several people in their articles have referenced a 3-to-1 rule and then reference us as the source. The latest example is in a German article on Taiwan: Storming Taiwan by force of arms? | Telepolis
Of course, we are the people who are saying the 3-to-1 rule is really not correct. They obviously do not read that far.
This is the reference they use: The Source of the U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule – The Dupuy Institute. My final sentence in that article is “Are we training the next generation of George B. McCellans?”
Various links related to the 3-to-1 rule:
Trevor Dupuy and the 3-1 Rule – The Dupuy Institute
The U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule – The Dupuy Institute
The 3-to-1 Rule in Histories – The Dupuy Institute
The 3-to-1 Rule in Recent History Books – The Dupuy Institute
The U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule versus 243 Battles 1600-1900 – The Dupuy Institute
The U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule versus 49 U.S. Civil War battles – The Dupuy Institute
Summation of Force Ratio Posts – The Dupuy Institute
JSTOR, Trevor Dupuy, Combat Data and the 3:1 Rule – The Dupuy Institute
The 3:1 Ratio – The Dupuy Institute
Army- and Division-level force ratio posts – The Dupuy Institute
The 3-to-1 rule and the War in Ukraine – The Dupuy Institute
We have been talking about this for a while. It appears that some people are not listening.
You really don’t imagine they read articles when they web surf for proof do you?
Obviously not in this case. But this had happened multiple times before, where we end up getting referenced in someone’s article with a statement that we clearly do not support. This has even been done in marketing material for weapons systems.
While I appreciate the call-out, I would prefer that their articles reference us correctly.