Unclassified Suppression and the Efficiency of Infantry Soldiers Dr. Eylam Gofer, Ben Levav, Yohay Gerafi.
Download ReportTranscript Unclassified Suppression and the Efficiency of Infantry Soldiers Dr. Eylam Gofer, Ben Levav, Yohay Gerafi.
Slide 1
Unclassified
Suppression and the Efficiency of
Infantry Soldiers
Dr. Eylam Gofer, Ben Levav, Yohay Gerafi
Slide 2
Unclassified
Background
Combat models tend to focus on:
The battlefield
The weapons
Both factors are physical and quantifiable
The soldier is less emphasized
2
Slide 3
Unclassified
Background cont.
Soldiers are expected to perform different tasks on
Fear
the battlefield and operate various weapons
results
from
the
They are also affected by:
obvious threat to
• Physiological factors
one’s life
• Psychological factors
Subjective and
• Human-weapons system interface
varied between
• …
soldiers
Most of these influences are subjective
therefore
Is theand
basis
to the
vary from one soldier to the other
phenomenon called
suppression
3
Slide 4
Unclassified
Suppression - Definition
Time-limited degradation of combat
efficiency of a unit or an individual
subjected to enemy fire
4
Slide 5
Unclassified
Quantitative Approach
“Macro” approach: Marshall, Wigram, and
Rowland
Mainly define degradation measures to combat
efficiency
We tried to use a “Micro” approach that
focuses on the soldiers activities in combat and
how they are affected by suppression
5
Slide 6
Unclassified
Objective
Describing, Quantifying and Analyzing Fire
Suppression Effect on Infantry Soldiers in
Combat
6
Slide 7
Unclassified
Method
General
Suppression Model
Soldier advancing
Soldier in a “foxhole”
or behind a temporary
cover
7
Slide 8
Unclassified
1st
3rd
2nd
8
Slide 9
Unclassified
Down Hill
9
Slide 10
Unclassified
Scanning
The Field
of Fire
Target
Acquisition
Aiming
Firing
“BDA”
10
Slide 11
Unclassified
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
Soldier Activity Cycle:
Length: Tw t1 t 2 t3 t 4 t5
Fire
Nominal
Rate Fire
in Training
Rate
Rate: w 1 / Tw
Scanning
Target
The Field
Combat condition
degradationAiming
Acquisition
of Fire
[Rowland, 1986]
0.66
0.1 (shots/sec)
(shots/sec)
Firing
“BDA”
11
Slide 12
Unclassified
Down Hill
12
Slide 13
Unclassified
Effect of Suppression
Scanning
The Field
of Fire
Target
Acquisition
Indirect
Fire
Aiming
Suppressing
Event
Suppressing events:
Time between events: Ts
Rate: s 1 / Ts
Duration of suppression:
Firing
“BDA”
Direct
Fire
t
13
Slide 14
Unclassified
Suppression Duration
Approximate duration: Seconds
Not deterministic, variance sources:
• Between soldiers
• Between events, for the same soldier
• Between the weapons or ammunition that
cause the suppression - mainly caliber
Therefore we regard t as a random variable
t~Gamma(,1/|cal)
14
Slide 15
Unclassified
Direct Fire Gamma Distributions
0.06
'5.0 קליע
12.7 mm (50
cal.)
7.62 mm מ"מ26.7 קליע
5.56 mm מ"מ65.5 קליע
0.05
הצפיפות
Density
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
80
76
72
68
64
60
56
52
48
44
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
0
Suppression
Duration
)(שניות
מתחמושת קליעית
(הדיכויSeconds)
משך
15
Slide 16
Unclassified
General Model
The Soldier
Activity Cycle
Length - Tw
Rate - w=1/ Tw
Suppression
Model
The Soldier
Suppressed Activity
Rate - ’w
Degradation rate
Suppressing Event
Length - Ts
Rate - s=1/ Ts
16
Slide 17
Unclassified
Results
Simulation:
On-going soldier activity cycle
A sequence of suppressing events - each
with a random duration
“Disturbing” the soldier activity cycle
Measuring the activity rate with the
disturbance
17
Slide 18
Unclassified
Direct Fire - Fire Rate Under
Suppression
0.090
מ"מ5.56
5.56 mm
(shots/sec)
Foxhole
Rate From
Fire)לשנייה
קצ ה ש
הנו ית
מהעמדה (כדו י
0.080
מ"מ7.62
0.070
7.62 mm
0.060
12.7 mm (50 cal.)
מ"מ
2.7
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
)לשנייה
( כדוEnemy
כלפי העמדה
קצ ה ש הנו ית
Fire יRate
(shots/sec)
18
Slide 19
Unclassified
Direct Fire - Degradation Rate (%)
100%
90%
ההנחתה קצ
) ( ה ש מהעמדהRate
(%)
Degradation
80%
70%
60%
50%
מ"מ5.56
5.56 mm
מ"מ7.62
7.62 mm
12.7 mm
(502.7
cal.)
מ"מ
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
)לשנייה
( כדוEnemy
כלפי העמדה
קצ ה ש הנו ית
Fire יRate
(shots/sec)
19
Slide 20
Unclassified
Indirect Artillery Fire
Direct fire is usually more accurate due to
range and system accuracy - It is reasonable to
assume the majority of the shots fired will hit
the vicinity of the post close surrounding,
therefore suppressing the soldier in it
Indirect fire is statistical - Not every round will
cause suppression
20
Slide 21
Unclassified
Probability of Suppression
[Mueller & Pietsch, 1978] - empirical study
Ammunition calibers examined: 155mm, 81mm
The main result: formulation of the probability of
suppression when the ammunition caliber (D) and
impact distance (r) are given: P(suppression|r,D)
We have transformed that into P(suppression|R,D)
R - the distance of the position from the aiming
point (assuming artillery fire CEP is 30 meters)
21
Slide 22
Unclassified
81 mm
Probability of Suppression
155 mm
P(suppression | R) 0.89 exp 8 10 5 R 2 0.02
Distance of the Artillery Aiming Point from the Post (meters)
22
Slide 23
Unclassified
Suppression Duration
[Mueller & Pietsch, 1978] give a rather low
empirically-based estimate
This, we assume, is due to the absence of real
danger to the subjects during the experiment
Again, based on [Rowland, 1986], it is
reasonable to assume figures are about ten
times larger
23
Slide 24
Unclassified
Indirect Fire - Fire Rate Under
Suppression
Position Fire Rate
(shots/minute)
Time Between
rounds (seconds)
Position Distance From Aiming Point (meters)
24
Slide 25
Unclassified
Concluding Remarks
The suppression model is one of the building
blocks of the methodology for comparing
force configurations based on operational
efficiency
The mathematical results can be, and already
have been, incorporated in different models,
modules and combat simulators
25
Slide 26
Unclassified
Thank you!
26
Unclassified
Suppression and the Efficiency of
Infantry Soldiers
Dr. Eylam Gofer, Ben Levav, Yohay Gerafi
Slide 2
Unclassified
Background
Combat models tend to focus on:
The battlefield
The weapons
Both factors are physical and quantifiable
The soldier is less emphasized
2
Slide 3
Unclassified
Background cont.
Soldiers are expected to perform different tasks on
Fear
the battlefield and operate various weapons
results
from
the
They are also affected by:
obvious threat to
• Physiological factors
one’s life
• Psychological factors
Subjective and
• Human-weapons system interface
varied between
• …
soldiers
Most of these influences are subjective
therefore
Is theand
basis
to the
vary from one soldier to the other
phenomenon called
suppression
3
Slide 4
Unclassified
Suppression - Definition
Time-limited degradation of combat
efficiency of a unit or an individual
subjected to enemy fire
4
Slide 5
Unclassified
Quantitative Approach
“Macro” approach: Marshall, Wigram, and
Rowland
Mainly define degradation measures to combat
efficiency
We tried to use a “Micro” approach that
focuses on the soldiers activities in combat and
how they are affected by suppression
5
Slide 6
Unclassified
Objective
Describing, Quantifying and Analyzing Fire
Suppression Effect on Infantry Soldiers in
Combat
6
Slide 7
Unclassified
Method
General
Suppression Model
Soldier advancing
Soldier in a “foxhole”
or behind a temporary
cover
7
Slide 8
Unclassified
1st
3rd
2nd
8
Slide 9
Unclassified
Down Hill
9
Slide 10
Unclassified
Scanning
The Field
of Fire
Target
Acquisition
Aiming
Firing
“BDA”
10
Slide 11
Unclassified
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
Soldier Activity Cycle:
Length: Tw t1 t 2 t3 t 4 t5
Fire
Nominal
Rate Fire
in Training
Rate
Rate: w 1 / Tw
Scanning
Target
The Field
Combat condition
degradationAiming
Acquisition
of Fire
[Rowland, 1986]
0.66
0.1 (shots/sec)
(shots/sec)
Firing
“BDA”
11
Slide 12
Unclassified
Down Hill
12
Slide 13
Unclassified
Effect of Suppression
Scanning
The Field
of Fire
Target
Acquisition
Indirect
Fire
Aiming
Suppressing
Event
Suppressing events:
Time between events: Ts
Rate: s 1 / Ts
Duration of suppression:
Firing
“BDA”
Direct
Fire
t
13
Slide 14
Unclassified
Suppression Duration
Approximate duration: Seconds
Not deterministic, variance sources:
• Between soldiers
• Between events, for the same soldier
• Between the weapons or ammunition that
cause the suppression - mainly caliber
Therefore we regard t as a random variable
t~Gamma(,1/|cal)
14
Slide 15
Unclassified
Direct Fire Gamma Distributions
0.06
'5.0 קליע
12.7 mm (50
cal.)
7.62 mm מ"מ26.7 קליע
5.56 mm מ"מ65.5 קליע
0.05
הצפיפות
Density
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
80
76
72
68
64
60
56
52
48
44
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
0
Suppression
Duration
)(שניות
מתחמושת קליעית
(הדיכויSeconds)
משך
15
Slide 16
Unclassified
General Model
The Soldier
Activity Cycle
Length - Tw
Rate - w=1/ Tw
Suppression
Model
The Soldier
Suppressed Activity
Rate - ’w
Degradation rate
Suppressing Event
Length - Ts
Rate - s=1/ Ts
16
Slide 17
Unclassified
Results
Simulation:
On-going soldier activity cycle
A sequence of suppressing events - each
with a random duration
“Disturbing” the soldier activity cycle
Measuring the activity rate with the
disturbance
17
Slide 18
Unclassified
Direct Fire - Fire Rate Under
Suppression
0.090
מ"מ5.56
5.56 mm
(shots/sec)
Foxhole
Rate From
Fire)לשנייה
קצ ה ש
הנו ית
מהעמדה (כדו י
0.080
מ"מ7.62
0.070
7.62 mm
0.060
12.7 mm (50 cal.)
מ"מ
2.7
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
)לשנייה
( כדוEnemy
כלפי העמדה
קצ ה ש הנו ית
Fire יRate
(shots/sec)
18
Slide 19
Unclassified
Direct Fire - Degradation Rate (%)
100%
90%
ההנחתה קצ
) ( ה ש מהעמדהRate
(%)
Degradation
80%
70%
60%
50%
מ"מ5.56
5.56 mm
מ"מ7.62
7.62 mm
12.7 mm
(502.7
cal.)
מ"מ
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
)לשנייה
( כדוEnemy
כלפי העמדה
קצ ה ש הנו ית
Fire יRate
(shots/sec)
19
Slide 20
Unclassified
Indirect Artillery Fire
Direct fire is usually more accurate due to
range and system accuracy - It is reasonable to
assume the majority of the shots fired will hit
the vicinity of the post close surrounding,
therefore suppressing the soldier in it
Indirect fire is statistical - Not every round will
cause suppression
20
Slide 21
Unclassified
Probability of Suppression
[Mueller & Pietsch, 1978] - empirical study
Ammunition calibers examined: 155mm, 81mm
The main result: formulation of the probability of
suppression when the ammunition caliber (D) and
impact distance (r) are given: P(suppression|r,D)
We have transformed that into P(suppression|R,D)
R - the distance of the position from the aiming
point (assuming artillery fire CEP is 30 meters)
21
Slide 22
Unclassified
81 mm
Probability of Suppression
155 mm
P(suppression | R) 0.89 exp 8 10 5 R 2 0.02
Distance of the Artillery Aiming Point from the Post (meters)
22
Slide 23
Unclassified
Suppression Duration
[Mueller & Pietsch, 1978] give a rather low
empirically-based estimate
This, we assume, is due to the absence of real
danger to the subjects during the experiment
Again, based on [Rowland, 1986], it is
reasonable to assume figures are about ten
times larger
23
Slide 24
Unclassified
Indirect Fire - Fire Rate Under
Suppression
Position Fire Rate
(shots/minute)
Time Between
rounds (seconds)
Position Distance From Aiming Point (meters)
24
Slide 25
Unclassified
Concluding Remarks
The suppression model is one of the building
blocks of the methodology for comparing
force configurations based on operational
efficiency
The mathematical results can be, and already
have been, incorporated in different models,
modules and combat simulators
25
Slide 26
Unclassified
Thank you!
26