Results 1 to 20 of 65

Thread: Force Ratios (the old 3-to-1 rule)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris jM View Post
    Falling further into the realms of doctrine-geekiness, I've become interested and obsessed with the golden rule in that we fight the enemy on a 3-to-1 ratio. From what I've seen it appears to reside in the area of corporate knowledge only, without it being doctrine in any ABCA nation.

    [snip]

    I don't doubt the validity of the concept when used as a very general rule for quick appreciations that are qualified by situational factors, however I do like to know as much about the tools I employ as is possible.
    I suggest that it is the standard rule of thumb. I would look in the Infantry Platoon in Battle and the Infantry Battalion in Battle both circa 1960 as I recall something about when your advanced patrols came into contact with a small unit of enemy with a machine gun (deemed then to be a section) the platoon commander would probably put in a platoon attack. The same or similar for a platoon or for a company.

    Another indication of why you will need this sort of ratio can be found in your SORHB (Staff Officers Reference Handbook) which lists the scale of casualties you can expect attacking positions in day/at night, with different type of field defences etc etc. Remembering also that as defences are organised in depth so must attacks be planned in depth.

    In training (in my experience) 3:1 in the attack was used as standard while accepting that operational circumstances may alter that. Wartime operational discretion would be up to the commander.

    A good example of this I remember from Slim's Defeat into Victory and I dug out my copy and paste as follows relating to ratios in the context of the war in Burma:

    Chapter IX
    The Foundations

    From page 187 – (paperback)

    Thus many of those who had scrambled out of Burma without waiting to get to grips with the invader or who had been in the rear areas in 1943 had the most hair-raising stories of Japanese super-efficiency. Those of us who had really fought him believed that man for man our soldiers could beat him at his own jungle game and that in intelligence and skill we could excel and outwit him. …

    … In August and September of 1942 Australian troops had at Milne Bay in New Guinea inflicted on the Japanese their first undoubted defeat on land. If the Australias in conditions very like ours had done it so could we. Some of us may forget that of all the allies it was Australian soldiers who first broke the spell of invincibility of the Japanese Army those of us who were in Burma have cause to remember.

    But all this could not be convincingly put over by talking and education alone. It had to be demonstrated practically. This is what my predecessors had tried in Arakan, but they had been, are amongst other things, too ambitious. A victory in a large-scale battle was, in our present state of training, organization, and confidence not to be attempted. We had first to get the feel through the army that it was a we who were hunting the Jap, not he us.

    All commanders therefore directed their attention to patrolling. In jungle warfare this is the basis of success. It’s not only gives eyes to the side that excels at it, and blinds its opponent, but through it the soldier learns to move confidently in the element in which he works. Every forward unit, not only infantry, chose its best men, formed patrols, trained and practised them, and then sent them out on business. As it was to be expected, that the superior intelligence of our officers and men told. The trials came back to their regiments with stories of success, of how the Japanese had walked into the ambushes, and how they had watched the enemy place their observation posts a day off today in the same place, and then had pounced on them, how they had followed their patrols and caught them asleep. …

    The stories lost nothing in the telling, and there was a are lack of competition for the next patrol. It went up with new men but under an experienced leader, and came back with more tails of success. Even if it returned with little to report, it had stalked its quarry without finding him, and that is one way to whet a hunter’s appetite. By the end of November our forward troops had gone a long way towards getting that individual feeling of superiority and that first essential in the fighting man - the desire to close with his enemy. …

    … Having developed the confidence of the individual man in his superiority over the enemy, we have now to extend that to the corporate confidence of the units and formations in themselves. This was done in a series of carefully planned minor offensive operations, carried out as the weather improved, against enemy advanced detachments. These were carefully staged, ably led, and as I was always careful to ensure in greatly preponderating strength. We attacked Japanese company positions with brigades fully supported by artillery and aircraft, platoon posts by battalions. Once when I was studying the plan for an operation of this kind submitted by the local commander, a visiting the staff officer of high rank said, “Isn’t that using a steam hammer to crack a walnut?” “Well,” I answered, “if you happen to have a steam hammer handy and you don’t mind if there’s nothing left of the walnut, it’s not a bad way to crack it.” Besides, we could not at this stage risk even small failures. We had very few, and the individual superiority built up by successful patrolling grew into a feeling of superiority within units and formations. We were then ready to undertake larger operations. We had laid the first of our intellectual foundations of morale; everyone knew we could defeat the Japanese, our object was attainable.
    Slim's book is a must read for certainly all officers and has lessons for Afghanistan.

    “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    A good example of this I remember from Slim's Defeat into Victory and I dug out my copy and paste as follows relating to ratios in the context of the war in Burma:
    Apologies, that the voice recognition software I use is not as accurate as I would like. This quote gives the idea but best to revert to the book itself.

  3. #3
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    I have never really considered the 3:1 "Idea" as having any validity in fact or theory. Never made sense to me. I would really like to know if the idea existed prior to WW1.
    Last edited by William F. Owen; 10-07-2010 at 07:04 AM. Reason: Sleepy
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  4. #4
    Council Member Chris jM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Thanks for the responses. Much appreciated, especially Tom and Tukhachevskii for the links. It'll take me a few days to get through them as I've got a 'healthy' work-load on, but it all looks like interesting stuff.

    Likewise JMA and SJP, cheers for the snippets.

    SJPONeill - firstly, I hope your new job is going well. Secondly, with regards to the 1-6 against a conventional enemy, I'd be interested if you dig anything out on that as all the info I have to hand indicates it is 3-1 against a conventional enemy when the ratio is normally applied (excluding Fuchs mentioning of it applying to Soviet theory - from 'our' side I haven't seen any mention of it, at least).

    Wilf - at the very least, I think the 3-1 "idea" is a good sanity checking device for a conventional commander in a conventional battle to determine if he is walking to his imminent doom, or if he has weighted success in his favour. It provided a good conceptual basis when I started to be assessed tactically - if you find a section, put a platoon up against it. If I find more than a section, get on the means and hit up the Company Comd for some more resources. I wasn't the smartest tactically so any and every idea available to me to simplify my job did help.
    Last edited by Chris jM; 10-07-2010 at 09:38 AM. Reason: lazy proof-reading
    '...the gods of war are capricious, and boldness often brings better results than reason would predict.'
    Donald Kagan

  5. #5
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris jM View Post
    Wilf - at the very least, I think the 3-1 "idea" is a good sanity checking device for a conventional commander in a conventional battle to determine if he is walking to his imminent doom, or if he has weighted success in his favour. It provided a good conceptual basis when I started to be assessed tactically - if you find a section, put a platoon up against it. If I find more than a section, get on the means and hit up the Company Comd for some more resources. I wasn't the smartest tactically so any and every idea available to me to simplify my job did help.
    Checks on sanity may be very necessary. 3:1 may not serve that purpose, and I believe we can do better. Essentially it MAY be an aid to planning, but after that it really fails the "So what" test of effectiveness, because it is at best simplistic and at worse very misleading.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Checks on sanity may be very necessary. 3:1 may not serve that purpose, and I believe we can do better. Essentially it MAY be an aid to planning, but after that it really fails the "So what" test of effectiveness, because it is at best simplistic and at worse very misleading.
    My opinion FWIW is that for a peacetime army 3:1 in training is probably essential. It certainly provides commanders (at junior levels) in battle for the first time with the ability to roll off a plan which will probably work just fine in most cases.

    Yes also to the fact that as one gains combat experience against a specific enemy in a particular environment one no longer needs this 3:1 crutch... but that takes some time and a number of contacts at varying ranges, durations and intensities.

    In our little war we did not have the resources in terms of helicopter lift and CAS to get anywhere near this sort of ratio on the bigger attacks into Mozambique and Zambia and subsequently had to rely heavily on the initial air strikes by aging Canberras and Hawker Hunters to get the comrades to adopt the swastika position and run into the stop lines. For example on Op Dingo - Zulu 1 - Chimoio of the 1,200 ZANLA fighters killed about half were killed by the airstrikes and the rest by the 184 men (96 SAS paras, 48 RLI paras, 40 RLI heliborne). Cost to us 2 KIA, 7 WIA. So it was a .04:1 ratio - made possible by accurate and decisive air strikes. In many cases the time of the daily muster parade when the whole camp was formed up on the parade square was a sitting duck for the Canberras and their cluster bombs.

    Two days later Op Dingo - Zulu 2 - Tembue was also a turkey shoot except that their morning parade had been delayed so they missed their appointment with the flechettes which were dropped that day from a Hawker Hunter.

    Op Barras - Sierra Leone - year 2000 the Brits applied a similar force level (180) against 600 West Side Boys to release hostages and suffered 1 KIA and 11 WIA. It is assumed that the aim was to free the hostages and not to get maximum kills. So 25 confirmed kills must be accepted. The ratio here was .3:1 ratio

    Now contrast all this with the final Dien Bien Phu attack of 25,000 Viet Minh against fewer than 3,000 garrison troops. An 8.33:1 ratio.

    In the end you do what you need to do to win... and to win you need to know your enemy!
    Last edited by JMA; 10-08-2010 at 10:08 AM.

  7. #7
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    My opinion FWIW is that for a peacetime army 3:1 in training is probably essential. It certainly provides commanders (at junior levels) in battle for the first time with the ability to roll off a plan which will probably work just fine in most cases.

    Yes also to the fact that as one gains combat experience against a specific enemy in a particular environment one no longer needs this 3:1 crutch...
    This reminds me of what I read about the German army in (surprise!) WW2:

    'Green' units were assigned especially simply tasks at first (if the situation allowed for it). A Battalion was tasked with what would be a veteran company's task, a green company would do what a veteran platoon would and so on.



    I do also remember having read that a study of historical battles showed no significant correlation between numerical superiority (of an army) and victory (in battle).


    It seems to be of much greater importance to fight when the opponent isn't really ready for a fight (that's another way to look at the topic of tactical surprise).

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Checks on sanity may be very necessary. 3:1 may not serve that purpose, and I believe we can do better. Essentially it MAY be an aid to planning, but after that it really fails the "So what" test of effectiveness, because it is at best simplistic and at worse very misleading.
    How? In what way? What would your prefered method of a "sanity/reality" check look like?
    Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 10-08-2010 at 12:11 PM.

  9. #9
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    How? In what way? What would your prefered method of a "sanity/reality" check look like?
    Start with education, so that training makes more sense. It requires skill and skills can be taught. Beyond anything else it is the ability of an attacking force the generate SHOCK, SURPRISE, SUPPRESSION and ISOLATION, that will see them succeed. It is the resources/training/skill etc to do those things that causes the other side to give up, NOT "throw a BN against a Company."

    The great fallacy of 3:1 is it assumes you know all about "1" so you can plan for "3." Time and space are relevant. If you can concentrate more of your force against a small part of the enemy and then exploit that success, you may roll him up with a very low loss exchange ratio - LER. LER is almost always the defining criteria of tactical success, in that a low/very low LER enables the winning side to exploit more effectively.

    Contrast and compare the Falklands War Battle of Mount Harriet, with Mount Longdon.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

Similar Threads

  1. Future Conflict
    By Reid Bessenger in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 08:58 PM
  2. U.S. Air Force Loses Out in Iraq War
    By SWJED in forum Equipment & Capabilities
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-20-2006, 02:41 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •