1 L/OR/QJM

QUANTIFIED JUDGEMENT MODEL Introduction 1. Quantified Judgement Model (QJM) is a set of equations and rules arrived at by the author (Col TN Dupuy (Retd) ) and his team through extensive trial and error, by analysing the data of a large number of divisional level battles of World War II and proving the model by comparing the compiled results with the actual outcome. QJM, therefore, is a deterministic mathematical model which is non dynamic and is designed to predict the outcome of divisional and higher level engagements between the opposing forces using quantified data of force levels, modified by various quantified variables. Description of Model 2. Operational Lethality Index (OLI). The starting point for QJM is the OLI of each weapon system which is defined as a numerical value assigned to each type of weapon system and is a measure of its inherent capability to inflict casualties to personnel, weapons, equipment and material in a specified period of time. For calculating OLI, the weapons are classified into following two broad categories:(a) Non-Mobile Weapons. These weapons are either fixed in stationary emplacements and/or carried/towed or mounted on platforms eg. SP arty guns, small arms etc. Their OLI is given as :W = [ RF x PTS x RIE x RN x A x RL x SME x GE x MBE x MCE x AE ] x WHT / D Where RF = PTS RIE RN A RL SME GE MBE MCE AE WHT D Sustained rate of fire. = No of targets hits per strike. = Relative incapacitating effect. = Range factor. = Accuracy. = Reliability factor. = SP Arty factor. = Missile guidance effect. = Multi-barrel effect. = Multi charge arty effect. = Aircraft mounted weapon effect. = Wheeled/half tracked effect. = Dispersion factor.

(b) Mobile Fighting Machines. These weapon systems have a combination of fire power and inherent mobility for direct engagement of

2 L/OR/QJM

the enemy in the primary combat role. Examples are tanks, aircraft etc. Their OLI is given as:W = [ ( OLI of all wpns ) x MOF x RA + PF ] x RFE x FCE x ASE x AME x CL x 1 / D Where MOF RA PF RFE FCE ASE AME CL D 3. = = = = = = = = = Battlefield mobility effect. Radius of action. Punishment factor. Rapidity of fire effect. Fire control effect. Amn supply effect. Amphibious capability effect. Ceiling effect (for aircraft only). Dispersion factor.

OLI values of some weapon system are as follows :(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (j) (k) (1) (m) (n) (o) Rifle SLR 7.62 mm LMG MMG 81 mm mortar 106 mm RCL gun 105 mm Fd Gun 130 mm Fd Gun APC BMP APC TOPAS Tank T - 59 Tank T - 62 MIG - 23 MIRAGE - V 20 KT Nuclear air burst 0.32 0.82 1.04 50 133 152 317 328 75 405 767 1269 1550 12000

4. Variables. The QJM involves aggregating of the total OLI value of opposing forces in a specified combat and then modifying the total OLI value of each adversary, using certain quantified variables. These variables have been classified as environmental and operational variables, some of which are also intangible. 5. Environmental/Operational Variables. Environmental variables affect the performance or effectiveness of various types of weapon systems, while Operational variables influence the employment of weapons and the forces. Examples are:(a) Terrain. Limits field of fire of weapon systems. It also affects operational mobility and vulnerability of a field force.

3 L/OR/QJM

(b) Weather. Adverse weather limits visibility and consequently effects mobility and effectiveness. (c) Season. Rain, fog limit range/visibility thereby affecting mobility and vulnerability. (d) Air Superiority. Degrades effectiveness of hostile airforce and artillery and enhances the effectiveness of own tactical air support and artillery. It also affects the mobility and vulnerability of the opposing forces. (e) Mobility. Depends upon the relative size of the forces, their quantum of mechanical transport and the fighting power of their armoured columns. (f) Vulnerability. The attacking force is always more vulnerable. Factors affecting a forces vulnerability are personnel strength, combat deployment, exposure, relative firepower of opposing forces, air superiority, increased exposure due to defenders obstacle system etc. (g) Posture. Defensive posture enhances the effectiveness of a force and reduces its vulnerability in direct proportion to the state of readiness of the defences. (h) Surprise and Deception. This factor has a profound effect on the outcome of an engagement. Its impact has been quantified depending upon the degree/level of surprise achieved. (j) Leadership Training and Morale. These are intangibles and yet one cannot deny that determined leadership, good training and high morale can probably have more influence on the outcome of evenly balanced battles than any other quantitative variable of combat. (k) Intelligence, Time/Space, Momentum, Initiative etc. These also fall in the category of intangibles. (1) Logistics Support and Combat Effectiveness. Logistics support together with all the intangibles count towards the combat effectiveness of a force. 6. A total of 73 variables have been identified by the author that would have bearing on the outcome of the battle. About 70% of these variables have been quantified by the author. However, the remaining factors are intangible and some of these may be given consideration judgementally.

4 L/OR/QJM

7. Calculation of Force Strength(S). Sum of the OLI values of the weapons of a force modified by environmental variables is termed as Force Strength (S). S = ( WS + Wmg + Whw ) rn + Wgi x rn + ( Wg + Wgy ) rwg x hwg x zwg x wyg + Wi x rwi x hwi + Wy x rwy x hwy x zwy x wyy Summation OLI for small arms. Summation OLI for Machine Guns. Summation OLI for Heavy Wpns. Summation OLI for A/Tank Wpns. Summation OLI for Fd Arty. Summation OLI for AD Arty. Summation OLI for Armour. Summation OLI for close Air Support. Terrain factor for Infantry and A/Tank Weapons. Terrain factor for Arty weapons. Terrain factor for Armour. Terrain factor for Air support. Weather factor for Arty. Weather factor for Armour. Weather factor for Air Support. Season factor for Arty. Season factor for Air Support. Air superiority factor for Arty. Air superiority factor for Air support.

where WS Wmg Whw Wgi Wg Wgy Wi Wy rn rwg rwi rwy hwg hwi hwy zwg zwy Wyg Wyy

8. Calculation of Power Potential. Power Potential (P) of a force is the effective OLI value which is brought to bear upon the opponent. It is calculated by applying all identifiable operational variables to the calculated Force Strength(S). P Where = S x m x v x u x r x h x z x 1 x t x o x b S m v Us ru hu zu 1e t o b Force Strength. Mobility factor. Vulnerability factor. Posture factor. Terrain factor related to posture. Weather factor related to posture. Season factor related to posture. Leadership factor. Training factor. Morale factor. Logistic factor.

5 L/OR/QJM

9. Power Potential Ratio. P (attacker)/ P (defender) value of more than 1 indicates superiority of the attacker, while this ratio having a value less than 1 reflects successful defence. However, if Pa / Pd ratio is between 0.9 and 1.1, intangible factors could sway the outcome in favour of either of the adversaries. Rules of QJM 10. Rules for Defensive Strength (For Defender). Depending upon the size of the available force, frontage covered, number of days in position for preparation of defences and the availability of engineers support, the defences prepared by the defending force could be classified as:(a) (b) (c) Hasty defence. Prepared defence. Fortified defence.

11. Rules for Rates of Advance (For Attacker). Depending upon the Pa / Pd ratio, standard rates of advance have been worked out in tabular form against each type of defence. These standard rates are then modified by various factors to calculate estimated rates of advance as follows :Estimated rate of advance = x x x x x x Standard rate of advance Terrain factor Road quality factor Road density factor Obstacle factor Day/Night factor Main Effort factor

12. The standard rates of advance and the values for various factors have been tabulated for various contingencies. 13. Rules for Casualty Rates (Personnel). (a) Non Battle Casualities. following rates :(i) (ii) 16 Apr to 15 Oct 16 Oct to 15 Apr Intemperate climate this estimated at the 0.1% per day 0.2% per day

Under normal circumstances in non-temperate climate, non battle casualties are taken as 0.2% per day. (b) Battle Casualties. Standard casualty rate for attacker is 2.8% per day while for defender it is 1.5% per day. These standard casualty rates are modified by the following factors (which have been tabulated by the author):-

6 L/OR/QJM

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Strength/Size factor. Mission factor. Opposition factor. Day/Night factor.

14. Rules for Armoured Losses. Standard rates are 5.4 x personnel casualty rates per day. These standard rates are modified by the following factors :(a) Mission Factor (i) Normal Combat (ii) Main Effort Zone (b) Strength/size factor (i) (ii) (iii) Less than 100 Tanks 100 to 300 Tanks 300 to 600 Tanks 1.5 1.0 0.9 1.0 2.0

(c) Recovery Rates. 50% of the losses are recoverable over a 5 days period ie., 1/5 per day. 15. Rules for Artillery Losses. (a) Towed Weapons. 0.2 x personnel casualty rates per day.

(b) Self Propelled Weapons. 0.5 x personnel casualty rates per day. 50% of the losses are permanent while 50% of the losses are recoverable over two days. 16. Rules for Losses in other Weapons and Equipment: casualty rates. Procedure for QJM 17. Initial Requirement. To conduct a war-game between two opposing forces, the following information is required :(a) Force Inventory. Both sides to include starting location of all divisions and smaller independent units/formations with their weapons and equipment translated to OLI values and other related inputs. (b) Terrain. To classify the area of campaign scenario in terms of basic terrain eg. rugged and heavily wooded, rugged bare, rolling, flat, desert, swamp, urban etc. Same as personnel

7 L/OR/QJM

(c) Defence Works. To include field fortifications, minefields, major attk ditches etc and mark these on map. (d) Offensive Plans. Plan of the attacking force in terms of :(i) Overall force objectives related to geographic location of objectives (immediate, intermediate and final) and timings. (ii) (iii) (e) Planned axes of advance. Contingencies for commitment of resources. Plan of the defending force in terms of :-

Defensive Plans.

(i) Overall force objective related to defensive position, mission in each location and mission between each two locations. (ii) (iii) 18. Planned axes of withdrawal. Contingencies for commitment of reserves.

Sequence of Operations - Attacking Division. (a) Move to the first hostile contact position at specified advance rates, keeping in view the mobility of attacker, terrain configuration, weather and season etc. (b) Determine if there is opposition of sufficient significance to start engagement, else advance continues at specified rates. (c) At first encountered hostile defensive position, carryout QJM analysis to determine the following :(i) Pa/Pd Ratio. If Pa/Pd ratio favours the defender, advance stops at FEBA, otherwise the advance continues at specified rate. (ii) Duration of Engagement. If Pa/Pd favours defender, based on the engagement of the last two days, losses are calculated and there is no further significant action. However, if Pa/Pd favours the attacker, engagements ends when the (aa) Attacker advances through the depth of the defensive position; or (ab) Either defender or attacker receives reinforcements of 20% or more;

8 L/OR/QJM

or (ac) At the end of 5 days, if none of the above have occured, loss rates are calculated at holding rates. (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Distance advanced during the engagement. Total personnel losses during the engagement. Total armour and artillery losses during the engagement. Total vehicles and other weapon losses.

(d) If defender is successful or if attacker does not gain his objectives within five days, an inactive holding situation exists until either of the two sides initiates a new engagement. (e) If attaker is successful, he moves to contact next defensive position at estimated advance rates. (f) At the next encountered hostile defensive position, a new QJM analysis is performed as per sub para (c) above. This procedure will continue until the attacker reaches the final objective or the attacker is stopped at an intermediate position by a successful defence or is unable to take the objective in five days battle.

19.

Sequence of Operations - Attacking Corps/Army (a) All committed or first echelon divisions advance to first hostile contact together with all supporting and reserve units/formations at estimated rates along their proposed axes of advance. (b) Engagement outcomes in terms of time, space and attrition rates are calculated separately for each component (division) of the attacking force. (c) Reserve units/formations (divisions or major fractions thereof are treated as indep units) may be committed by the attacker or defender in a front line divisional sector or between the divisional sectors as per the following norms :(i) If committed between the divisional sectors, then new sector boundaries are established and new QJM calculations will be based on these new sectors.

9 L/OR/QJM

(ii) If committed in the sector of a division, then the new QJM calculations may be done for the combined forces (original plus reserve) in the previously established sector or alternatively for the two divisions separately depending upon the scenario. (d) At the close of each day, the location of each attacking and defending formation will be plotted-whether these are involved in engagement or are between the engagements. (e) The Corps/Army is assumed to have achieved its objective when half of its component divisions have reached their objective and no major defending reserves are immediately available to reverse the trend. Conclusion 20. Quantified Judgement Model is an empirical war-gaming model comprising of a set of equations and rules designed by a military historian based on the data of past wars. The model is based on the concept of Fire power score index and uses quantified judgemental values of various environmental and operational factors to predict the outcome of battles. The model has been applied to almost all divisional and higher level battles of World War 11- as also the Arab - Israel wars of 1967 and 1971 with fair degree of success. Never-the-less, it is a deterministic model which yields same results with same input data and is suitable for conduct of training and operational planning at corps and higher levels. ********** Reference: Dupuy TN Col : Numbers, Predictions and War (Macdonal and Jones, London, 1979).

Sep 01