Element contents
Series: Elements in Defence Economics
How Important are Superior Numbers?
A Reappraisal of Lanchester's Square Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 February 2021
Summary
A century ago Frederick Lanchester formulated a mathematical model of combat which suggested that the combat power of a military force was proportional to the product of the individual effectiveness of the units in the force and the square of the number of units deployed. This model reinforced a long-established faith in the importance of superior numbers. However, successive historical studies failed to identify any clear relationship between the numbers and losses in opposing forces. This Element analyses American Civil War battles, and shows that the ratio of losses incurred was inversely proportional to the ratio of numbers effectively engaged. This result demonstrates that the numbers of fighting units in a military force are less important than the ability of those units to get into action and inflict losses on the enemy. This result demonstrates the limitations of the Square Law, and should prevent it from being applied indiscriminately.
Keywords
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Defence EconomicsOnline ISBN: 9781108973458Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 04 March 2021
References
Augustine, N. (1983) Augustine’s Laws, New York: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Busse, J. (1971) An Attempt to Verify Lanchester’s Equations, Proceedings of the Third Israel Conference on Operational Research.Google Scholar
Chandler, D. (2002) The Military Maxims of Napoleon; Maxim 29, London: Greenhill Books.Google Scholar
Eccles, N. (1999) Validation and Tactical Decision Making in Generalised Lanchester Combat Models, Cranfield University thesis, unpublished.Google Scholar
Engel, J. (1954) A Verification of Lanchester’s Law, Operations Research, Volume 2, pp. 163–171.Google Scholar
Epstein, J. (1985) The Calculus of Conventional War, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Fain, J. (1977) The Lanchester Equations and Historical Warfare, History, Numbers and War Volume 1, pp. 34–52.Google Scholar
Fricker, D. (1998) Attrition Models of the Ardennes Campaign, Naval Research Logistics Volume 45, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Halpern, P. G. (1994) A Naval History of World War I, London: University College London Press.Google Scholar
Hayman, P. (1980) References on the Lanchester Theory of Combat to 1980, England: RMCS.Google Scholar
James, L. (1998) Raj: the Making and Unmaking of British India, London: The Softback Preview.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, D. (1985) Do Lanchester’s Equations Adequately Model Real Battles? RUSI Journal June pp. 25–27.Google Scholar
Lanchester, F. (1916) Aircraft in Warfare; Dawn of the Fourth Arm, London: Constable and Co.Google Scholar
Livermore, T. (1901) Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America, Ohio, Riverside Press.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. (1982) Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction, New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Mead, G. (2008) The Good Soldier – the Biography of Douglas Haig, London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
Weiss, H. (1957) Lanchester-type Models of Warfare, Proceedings of International Conference on Operational Research pp. 82–99, Oxford September.Google Scholar
Weiss, H. (1966) Combat Models and Historical Data; the US Civil War, Operations Research Volume 14, pp. 759–790Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by