I've mentioned quantitative analysis issues when models try to measure troop effectiveness based on weapons quality. Terrain and weather are thrown in too a lot of times. But troop quality is a great variable that can make a hash of the whole thing. Is that measurable?
In an early publication I wrote:
Although there appears to be a consensus among military strategists and policy-makers that the United States must maintain its technological edge, the troops must be trained and motivated to take advantage of that technology. The critical advantages provided by highly trained soldiers with good morale are not easily quantifiable in peacetime. The lack of quality becomes quantifiable, indirectly, when one counts the burned-out armored vehicles of an army whose troops did not know how to use their equipment and who lacked the will to fight on in adversity.
The Importance of this invisible edge that the United States Army works hard to maintain cannot be overestimated. The disasters that can follow from incorrrectly believing you have a trained army are appalling.
There is an effort to fix that hole in quantifying battle:
Assessing enemy morale is crucial to warcraft. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, a political scientist at New York University, reckons human will matters enough for four wars in ten to be won by what starts off, in strict military terms, as the weaker side. Behavioural scientists are now, however, bringing the power of modern computing to bear on the question. Defence planners have long used computers to forecast the results of conflicts by crunching data on things like troop numbers, weapons capabilities, ammunition supplies and body- and vehicle-armour. The next step is to extend the idea into the area of morale, by quantifying the psychological variables that determine whether troops will flee, or stand and fight. ...
Crucially, this fieldwork revealed much about the casualties various types of units can take before survivors lose the will to fight. A typical fighting force, it is generally thought, will collapse sometime before a third of it has been destroyed. Some Kurdish and IS units in Iraq, however, fought on in a co-ordinated fashion after sustaining far more grievous losses. Artis therefore tried to classify and measure the belief systems behind such remarkable bravery.
In one post I noted the issue of the then-pending ground battle between British and Argencinian forces in the Falklands:
I still remember being in a political science class that year at the University of Michigan and hearing some guy who styled himself an expert explain that Britain couldn't possibly get a 3:1 ratio--which everyone knows you need to prevail in an attack--so couldn't dislodge the Argentinians.
I explained what went into that 3:1 calculation (it isn't just comparing numbers) and assured him that if the British got their troops ashore they'd trounce the Argentinians.
One effort described focuses on interviewing troops and then embedding with them in combat where possible to test the survey results. That's obviously a hard thing to do for potential enemies who won't cooperate. But it is a start. And if it works maybe proxies that don't count on cooperation of the troops of interest will be devised.
This is also interesting:
The research, he adds, has already led to greater emphasis in [Air Force] training on the transcendental ideals that underpin America’s support for its own driving ideological creed: liberal democracy.
I was bewildered in basic training by a survey I completed for some contractor:
This journal entry reminds me that we were given a marketing survey about why we joined. Of all the questions, only a couple focused on service to country. I found that odd even though I knew most join for money or training. Not that this made any of us mercenaries as our more liberal brethren like to say. The basic patriotism comes in by thinking of the military as an honorable and good option for training, education, and money. How many who also need training, education, or money would never even think for a moment about joining the military?
I'm not sure why the entry reminded me of it, but I still remember sitting in the room at desks while a civilian oversaw the survey we took. And here we are more than 30 years later and protecting the American free democracy is now recognized as a troop motivator.
