Category Historical Analysis Annual Conference

Final Schedule for HADSS 2024

The Historical Analysis for Defence and Security Symposium (HADSS) is scheduled for 8-11 July at the University of York. The final schedule for the conference is here:

HADSS_programme_final

Description of the conference is here Historical Analysis for Defence and Security Symposium | ICMS – International Centre for Mathematical Sciences

York seems like a really cool city. I will be at the conference (and presenting). It does appear that registration is closed and they have capped attendance at 45 people.

Our third Historical Analysis Annual Conference (HAAC) is on 8-10 October near Washington, D.C. We are still looking for more presenters and attendees:  

Next Revised Schedule for the Third Historical Analysis Annual Conference (HAAC), 8 – 10 October 2024 – The Dupuy Institute

Army- and Division-level force ratio posts

I did five posts on analyzing force ratios using the campaign database. They are here:

Analysis for Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – The Dupuy Institute

Analysis for Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – continued – The Dupuy Institute

Analysis of Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – second continuation – The Dupuy Institute

Analysis of Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – third continuation – The Dupuy Institute

Analysis of Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – fourth and final continuation – The Dupuy Institute

 

I think this is actually kind of a big deal, and will be presenting it at HADSS in July: Updated Schedule for HADSS 2024 – The Dupuy Institute and at HAAC in October:  Next Revised Schedule for the Third Historical Analysis Annual Conference (HAAC), 8 – 10 October 2024 – The Dupuy Institute

 

Now, as part of that presentation, I do compare it to the division-level engagements. I have posted about this before. They are here:

The U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule versus the 752 Case Division-level Data Base 1904-1991 – The Dupuy Institute

The World War I Cases from the Division-level Database – The Dupuy Institute

The World War II Cases from the Division-level Database – The Dupuy Institute

Post-World War II Cases from the Division-level Database – The Dupuy Institute

Force Ratios at Kharkov and Kursk, 1943 – The Dupuy Institute

Force Ratios in the Arab-Israeli Wars (1956-1973) – The Dupuy Institute

 

And a summary of force ratios and 3-to-1 rule posts:

Summation of Human Factors and Force Ratio posts – The Dupuy Institute

Summation of Force Ratio Posts – The Dupuy Institute

JSTOR, Trevor Dupuy, Combat Data and the 3:1 Rule – The Dupuy Institute

 

And more stuff:

Force Ratios and CRTs – The Dupuy Institute

 

and most recently here: 

The 3-to-1 rule and the War in Ukraine – The Dupuy Institute

 

And in the first few chapters of my book War by Numbers.

 

Anyhow, we have discussed force ratios at the division-level and have now addressed them at the army-level by using the campaign databases. We do have the ability to look at them at Battalion and Company-level, which I will probably do at some point in the future. We do have a couple of databases to address this. They are no where near as robust as our division-level data base (752 cases) but as they are the only thing out there like that, they will have to do.

Battalion and Company Level Data Bases – The Dupuy Institute

At some point this will all probably be assembled in my future book More War by Numbers, which is half-written. Probably won’t get serious about that book until 2025. 

Updated Schedule for HADSS 2024

The Historical Analysis for Defence and Security Symposium (HADSS) is scheduled for 8-11 July at the University of York. The provisional schedule for the conference is here:

HADSS_programme v4

Description of the conference is here Historical Analysis for Defence and Security Symposium | ICMS – International Centre for Mathematical Sciences and here: Weighing the Fog of War (wordpress.com).

York seems like a really cool city. I will be at the conference (and presenting).

Analysis of Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – fourth and final continuation

This is the fourth and final continuation of our previous four posts: Analysis for Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org) and Analysis for Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – continued | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org) and Analysis of Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – second continuation | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org) and Analysis of Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – third continuation | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org).  It is a part of a briefing on forces ratios I will be giving at HADSS in UK: Schedule for HADSS 2024 | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org) and at HAAC near DC: Next Revised Schedule for the Third Historical Analysis Annual Conference (HAAC), 8 – 10 October 2024 | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

All of this analysis of the CaDB was for a reason, it was to determine if odds (force ratios) play out difference at higher level of operations (meaning army level). Are they different at the operational level vice the tactical level of warfare. The answer appears to be no. I do not know of anyone who has actually specifically explored this issue before, so I am not sure there is an existing or countervailing opinions out there.

Of course, my real interesting in looking at this (which I did last year) was because of the war in Ukraine and the upcoming Ukranian spring/summer offensive in 2023. I did brief this at the Second HAAC (October 2023) and in Norway (November 2023). The question I had was does a minor advantage in force ratios or combat power ratios lead to a bigger advantage at the operational level of combat. The answer appears to be no, as this was reinforced by limited movement of the front line in Russo-Ukrainian War since the fall of 2022. 

My final slide in the briefing was “Does this relate to the fighting in Ukraine?” I then asked two questions:

  1. What are the odds?
    1. What is the strength of the deployed Ukrainian Army?
    2. What is the strength of the Russian Army deployed in Ukraine?
  2. What other advantages does the Ukrainian attacker have?
    1. Artillery
    2. Air Support? (Drones?)
    3. Observations/Intelligence
    4. Morale
    5. Training

Now, as it appears that Russia will be on the offensive this spring/summer, then I may need to restructure this slide and also add another point “artillery ammunition supply.”

 

I am probably going to do some more blog posts on this subject, looking at other levels of combat.

 

Analysis of Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – third continuation

This is a continuation of our previous three posts: Analysis for Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org) and Analysis for Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – continued | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org) and Analysis of Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – second continuation | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org). It is a part of a briefing on forces ratios I will be giving at HADSS in UK: Schedule for HADSS 2024 | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org) and at HAAC near DC: Next Revised Schedule for the Third Historical Analysis Annual Conference (HAAC), 8 – 10 October 2024 | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

This is a continuation of Section IV of the briefing titled “What is necessary to have a good chance of generating a breakthrough?”

Having put together a table in the last post of force ratios and exchange ratios by outcome, I decided to take a moment to look at each of these cases. Each of these 94 cases is a fully mapped out campaign, many that you have heard of.

First looking at the 29 cases that were coded outcome IV (attacker advances). The average force ratios were 2.69-to-1 and the average exchange ratios were 1.51-to-1:

Force Ratio    Notes

0.58                 HUSKY – US Invasion of Sicily (39 days)

1.05                 HUSKY – UK Invasion of Sicily (39 days)

1.15                 Ardennes Allied Counteroffensive South II (15 days)

1.22                SHINGLE – Allied Landing at Anzio (10 days)

1.23                The West Bank 1967 (3 days)

1.34                 Ardennes Allied Counteroffensive South I (9 days)

1.38                 Graziani’s Advance (6 days)

1.44                 Moselle-Metz (6 days)

1.50                 Ardennes Allied Counteroffensive North (15 days)

 

1.75 to 1.98     3 cases

2.02 to 2.32     4 cases

2.51 to 2.92     6 cases

3.63 to 4.94     5 cases

6.04 to 10.00   2 cases

 

What I was really looking for is to see if there is any pattern in these low odds cases. Do they represent particularly odd or unusual cases? They really don’t. It does help to look at the cases though.

I then looked at those 21 cases that were coded as outcome five (defender penetrated). The average force ratios were 2.75-to-1 and the average exchange ratios were 0.64-to-1. There did not seem to be any unusual pattern, although there are a number of Arab-Israeli cases in these low odd penetrations. That is because human factors matter (morale, training, experience, leadership, motivation, etc.). In fact, they matter a lot (and are not considered in most U.S. DOD combat models). 

Force Ratio   Notes

0.78                The Cauldron: Battle of Gazala (21 days)

0.80                The Sinai, 1967 (5 days)

0.93                Golan Heights, 1967 (2 days)

1.01                BUFFALO: Anzio Breakout (9 days)

1.50                KADESH: Israeli Attack in the Sinai (8 days)

1.57                PO Valley Breakthrough (UK) (22 days)

1.67                Battle of Normandy, US Army (31 days)

 

1.82 to 1.93    2 cases

2.10 to 2.49    3 cases

2.52 to 2.92    2 cases

3.47 to 4.54    5 cases

6.58 to 7.01    2 cases

 

By the way, if someone is looking for some 3-to-1 rule in this data, good luck. Warfare is more complex than that.

One more post to come on this series of force ratios for army-level operations. Debating what I should discuss next.

Analysis of Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – second continuation

This is a continuation of our previous two posts: Analysis for Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org) and Analysis for Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – continued | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org). It is a part of a briefing on forces ratios I will be giving at HADSS in UK: Schedule for HADSS 2024 | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org) and at HAAC near DC: Next Revised Schedule for the Third Historical Analysis Annual Conference (HAAC), 8 – 10 October 2024 | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Section IV of the briefing is titled “What is necessary to have a good chance of generating a breakthrough?”

We coded some (94), but not all, of the 196 Army-level operations as to outcome. The outcomes are defined as (see War by Numbers for a more detailed description):

  • Outcome I is limited action
  • Outcome II is limited attack
  • Outcome III is failed attack
  • Outcome IV is attack advances
  • Outcome V is defender penetrated
  • Outcome VI is defender enveloped
  • Outcome VII is other.

These definitions are used to create the following table:

Outcome             I        II      III        IV       V       VI       VII

Cases                15        9     10        29      21      8          2

Force Ratios   1.88   3.35   1.80    2.69    2.75   1.86   8.50

Loss Ratios    3.77   1.56   1.66    1.51    0.64   0.05   0.01

 

Now, I put seven of those numbers in bold. They are worth looking at.

For those 10 operations that were coded as “failed attack”, the average force ratio is 1.80-to-1 while the average loss exchange ratio is 1.66-to-1 (i,e. the attacker lost more than the defender).

For those 29 operations that were coded as “attack advances”, the average force ratio is 2.69-to-1 while the average loss exchange ratio is 1.51-to-1.

For those 21 operations that were coded as “defender penetrated”, the average force ratio is 2.75-to-1 while the average loss exchange ratio is 0.64-to-1 (meaning the defender lost almost twice as many people as the attacker. Note that casualties included kill, wounded, missing and captured). 

One notices that the loss exchange ratio gets even more favorable in mop-up operations (defender enveloped). These are often the operation after “defender penetrated.”

A few other observations:

  1. Failed attacks tend to be lower average odds than successful ones (i.e. 1.80 versus 2.69 and 2.75).
  2. Attackers suffer higher losses than defenders until they are penetrated (1.61 and 1.51 versus 0.64)
  3. These are the same patterns as for division-level combat.

This last point is significant. Are operations with bodies of 60 thousand plus people the same as operations with 10-20 thousand people? At least in the patterns of force ratios required, loss exchange ratios, etc., they are very similar.

More to come (my briefings are long). The obvious next work step would be to finish coding the outcome of the other 102 operations in the CaDB. This is several man-weeks of effort. Not going to take that on now (I am trying to finish up another book).

Analysis for Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) – continued

This is the continuation of our previous post: Analysis for Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB) | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

In that post was a table showing the force and losses differences between battles won by the attacker, the defenders and those that are drawn. Below is a follow-up table, showing the force ratios for all the campaigns:

Force Ratio      Attacker wins   Defender wins *   Draws **   Notes

0.30                    1                                                                  Suomussalmi

0.52 to 0.73        6                         2

0.77 to 1.00        7                         5

1.01 to 1.25      14                         3                            1

1.27 to 1.50        8                         3                            1

1.55 to 1.75        9                         3

1.78 to 2.00       11                        5

2.02 to 2.50       10                        6                             2

2.51 to 2.92         8                                                       1 ****

3.01 to 4.00         8                      4 ***                       1 ****    Loos (3.97) – defender wins

4.02 to 4.94         8

5.79 to 7.33         5

10.00 to 11.21     2

 

 

Notes:

* Removed from this seven engagements coded as “limited action” and “limited attack.” Their ratios were 0.58, 1.51, 2.90, 2.90, 3.58, 6.55, 12.38

** Removed from this 15 engagements coded as “limited action” and “limited attack.”

*** Three World War one engagements (Festubert at 3.01, Chemin des Dames at 3.33 and Loos at 3.97) and First Cassino (US) at 3.12.

**** Gothic Line Stalemate I at 2.58 and Gothic Line Statement II (US) at 3.08

 

These are slides 19 and 20 of my briefing. Now, I do not make conclusions on this slide in this briefing or even observations, but…. there are a few that could be made looking at this table. First, a three-to-one rule doesn’t really apply. Second, the defender never wins above four-to-one. Third, clearly there are a lot of factors included in these campaigns beyond simple manpower counts, and…. fourth…. you tell me?

The next slide of my briefing goes into the Section III of the briefing:  “Influence of Human Factors on Combat.” This is all drawn from War by Numbers… so… read the book. I will skip that and my next post will pick up at Section IV of the briefing “What is necessary to have a good chance of generating a breakthrough.” Probably do that post next Tuesday.

Schedule for HADSS 2024

The Historical Analysis for Defence and Security Symposium (HADSS) is scheduled for 8-11 July at the University of York. The provisional schedule for the conference is here:

HADSS_programme v2

Description of the conference is here Historical Analysis for Defence and Security Symposium | ICMS – International Centre for Mathematical Sciences and here: Weighing the Fog of War (wordpress.com).

York seems like a really cool city. I will be at the conference (and presenting).

Analysis for Force Ratios using the Campaign Data Base (CaDB)

We have not made much use of our Campaign Data Base. (See: The History of the DuWar Data Bases | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)). We used it as part of the Enemy Prisoner of War (EPW) studies back in 2000-2001 and have not made use it in the last two decades. But, for a presentation I did last year on force ratios, I blew the dust off of it because I wanted to see if force ratios were different for army-level operations than for division-level engagements. I mean, in the ETO data we have (116 cases), in the force ratios ranging between 1.15-to-1 to 1.88-to1 the attacker won 79% of the time (so much for needing 3-to-1). See: The 3-to-1 rule and the War in Ukraine | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org). So the question became, is the pattern we see at army-level different than division-level?

The Campaign Data Base consists of 196 campaigns from 1905 to 1991. They from two days in length to 155 days in length. Only three were over 60 days in length. The problem is that the database is not complete. We assembled it, used it once and have not used it again. There are some holes. For example, we only had the starting strength ratios calculated for 163 cases, we only had the total casualty ratios calculated for 162 and only had the winner calculated for 156 cases. In most cases the missing data is available but has not been assembled. The database just needs a little tender loving care. 

The average attacker strength (99 cases) was 188,909. The average defender strength (96 cases) was 95,497. This comes out to a 1.98-to-1 ratio.

The average attacker losses (176 cases) was 36,076. The average defender losses (172 case) was 47,004. This comes out to a 1-to-1.30 ratio.

The average attacker percent losses per day (163 cases) was 0.69%. The average defender percent losses per day (162 cases) was 1.85%. This comes out to a 1-to-2.68 ratio.

The starting strength ratio (163 cases) was 2.24 (2.24-to-1). The total casualty ratio was (164 cases) 1.35-to-1.

Now, the holes in the database become an issue. This are holes that can be filled given time (read: budget). We have 97 cases where the attacker is coded as the winner, and 38 cases where the defender wins. We have draws in 21 other cases. The rest (40 cases) are currently not coded.

Anyhow, this all produces the following table:

                                                   Attacker   Defender   Draw 

Av. Attacker Strength               208,835    156,821     171,312

Av. Defender Strength                91,486    100,729       96,582

       Ratio                                   2.28           1.56           1.77

 

Av. Attacker Losses                    34,630      69,098       15,232

Av. Defender Losses                   52,466      64,271       12,632

      Ratio                                     0.66           1.08           1.21

 

Av. Attacker % per day              0.73           0.98           0.32

Av. Defender % per day             2.59           0.98           0.39

      Ratio                                      0.28          1.00            0.82

 

Starting Strength Ratio              2.42          2.24            1.79

Casualty Ratio                            1.04          2.51            1.22

 

Contemplate for a moment what this data is telling you. A few observations:

  1. There is a difference in force ratios between winning and losing engagements (2.28-to-1 vice 1.56-to-1).
  2. There is a difference in casualties between winning and losing engagements (0.66-to-1 vice 1.08-to-1).
  3. The data for these army-level operations does not look significant different than for a division-level operation. This is significant.

I will stop here for a moment. This is from slides 12 – 18 for my force ratios briefing. There is more to come (because my briefings, like some of my books, are never short).

 

Next Revised Schedule for the Third Historical Analysis Annual Conference (HAAC), 8 – 10 October 2024

This is the third provisional schedule for the third Historical Analysis Annual Conference (HAAC). We currently have 29 presentations scheduled by 20 speakers and two group discussions planned. We are looking for more presentations. Have slots still open for seven more presentations (although I can add more slots). Each slot is an hour long, so plan for a 45-minute presentation and 15 minutes of discussion.

The conference is at 1934 Old Gallows Road, Suite 350, Vienna, VA 22182. This is basically across the street by Tysons Corner Shopping mall and the Marriot Hotel on Route 7. It is right off the Route 7 exit from 495 (the Beltway). It is at the corner of Route 7 (Leesburg Pike) and Old Gallows Road. It is in the building above the restaurant called Rangos. Parking is in the parking garage next door to it.

Conference description is here: The Second Historical Analysis Annual Conference (HAAC), 17-19 October 2023 in Tysons Corner, VA | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Costs, Hotels and Call for Presentations (these are all 2023 postings but nothing has changed): Cost of the Second Historical Analysis Annual Conference (HAAC), 17 -19 October 2023 | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org) and Hotels for the Second Historical Analysis Annual Conference (HAAC), 17-19 October 2023 | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org) and Call for Presentations for the Second Historical Analysis Annual Conference (HAAC), 17-19 October 2023 | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org).

The cost of the conference is $150 for entire conference or $60 a day. This the same as the last two years. Please pay through PayPal (www.paypal.com) to SRichTDI@aol.com. The conference is priced to cover the costs of the conference facility. We are also set up to take credit card payments by phone. Call The Dupuy Institute during working hours at (703) 289-0007.

We are set up for virtual presentations and virtual attendees. We do record the presentations but most have not been published yet.

 

Schedule: Pike and Gallows Conference Center

Updated: revised 25 May 2024

 

Day 1: Analysis of Conventional Combat

0900 – 0930   Introductory remarks – Christopher A. Lawrence (TDI)

0930 – 1030   Studying Combat: The “Base of Sand” Problem – Dr. Shawn R. Woodford

1030 – 1130   Slouching Towards Wabash: The Withering of Historical Analysis in the American Profession of Arms – Ivan Torres (Major, U.S. Army, ret.)

1130 – 1230   Redux: Quantifying Warfare – Alexandru Filip (Canadian Center for Strategic Studies)

1230 – 1400   Lunch

1400 – 1500   Temporal and Geographic Patterns of Fatal Casualty Rates in WWI and WWII – Sasho Todorov, esquire  

1500 – 1600   Validation Challenges in Wargaming: What’s Real Here? – Dr. Doug Samuelson (InfoLogix)

1600 – 1700   Grinch in Ukraine – Carl Larson

 

Evening (1900):   Group Dinner – Rangos

 

Day 2: Analysis of Unconventional Warfare

0900 – 1000   Iraq, Data, Hypotheses and Afghanistan (old) – Christopher A. Lawrence (TDI)

1000 – 1100   Haiti: The Risks of a Failed State in the Western Hemisphere – Dr. Christopher Davis

1100 – 1200   Native American Wars and Conflicts, 1500-1900 – Dr. David Cuberes

1200 – 1300   Lunch

1300 – 1400   The Islamic State of Khorasan: The Evolution of Terrorism – Dr. Christopher Davis

1400 – 1500   The Gaza Death Numbers – Dr. Michael Spagat (Royal Holloway University)

1500 – 1600   HAMAS: A History of Terrorism (Jennifer Schlacht, M.A.)

1600 – 1700   Group Discussion: The Next Middle East Wars

 

Evening (1900):   Group Dinner – BJs

 

Day 3: Other Analysis of Warfare

0900 – 1000   Close Combat Overmatch Weapons (SLAMMER) – Joe Follansbee (Col., USA, ret.)

1000 – 1100   The Debate over French Armored Warfare Doctrine 1935 to 1940 – Dr. James Slaughter

1100 – 1200   Ground Warfare in 2050: How it Looked in 2017 – Dr. Alexander Kott

1200 – 1300   Lunch

1300 – 1400   The Red Army’s Offensive Operations in Ukraine, 1943-44 – Dr. Richard Harrison

1400 – 1500   Critique of Western Wargames of NATO-WP Conflict – Walker Gargagliano

1500 – 1600   Capabilities of FPV drones in Ukraine: Revolution or Continuation of Historical Quantitative Trend? – Dr. Alexander Kott 

1600 – 1700   Group Discussion: Russo-Ukrainian War

 

Evening:   Happy hour – Rangos 

 

 

Schedule: Einstein Conference Room

 

Day 1: Poster and Book Room

Opened at 0800

 

Afternoon Day 1: Air Warfare Analysis

1400 – 1500   open

1500 – 1600   Temporal and Geographic Patterns of Fatal Casualty Rates in WWI and WWII (part 2 or overflow presentation) – Sasho Todorov, esquire 

1600 – 1700   open

 

Day 2: Analysis of Conventional Combat – mostly virtual

0900 – 1000   Designing Computer Based AI Wargaming Systems for Simulating and Investigating Historical Battles – Clinton Reilly (Computer Strategies, Australia) – virtual

1000 – 1100   Beaches by the Numbers – Dr. Julian Spencer-Churchill (Concordia University, Quebec) – virtual

1100 – 1200   Surveying and Quantifying Naval Warfare – Alexandru Filip

1200 – 1300   Lunch

1300 – 1400   Urban Warfare: Myths and Reality – Dr. James Storr (UK) – virtual

1400 – 1500   Urban Warfare (old) – Christopher A. Lawrence (TDI)

1500 – 1600   open

1600 – 1700   Winfield Scott: Architect of American Joint Warfare (LtC. Nathan A. Jennings) – virtual 

 

Day 3: Other Analysis of Warfare

0900 – 1000   The Impact of Horses on Native Americans – Dr. David Cuberes

1000 – 1100   The Red Army’s Plans for a Preemptive Attack in 1941 – Dr. Richard Harrison

1100 – 1200   Mass Egress after an IED Explosion: Lessons Learned about Validation – Doug Samuelson (InfoLogix)

1200 – 1300   Lunch    

1300 – 1400   Political Science Pedagogy in Strategic Studies (A Contrast in Quantified History) – Dr. Julian Spencer-Churchill – virtual

1400 – 1500   open

1500 – 1600   open

1600 – 1700   open

 

The presentations from all three days of the first HAAC are here: Presentations from the first HAAC – all three days | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org).

Friday, October 11: Tour of a Civil War Battlefield – Antietam: bloodiest day of the U.S. Civil War (and in the Western Hemisphere?). –  we will arrange transport there and back ($20 charge for tour).