Search results

Simply put, while there are many historical cases where an attacking force with a 3-1 numerical advantage succeeded, there are also many cases where attackers won with less than a 3-1 advantage, and even with a numerical inferiority

A 3-1 ratio based on a simple numerical total of troop numbers has not only thus limited use as a general rule-of-thumb guide for military planning, but is useless for analytical purposes .

It also showed that attackers won between 58% and 63% of the time when attacking with between a 1.5-1 numerical disadvantage and less than a 3-1 advantage. Attackers also managed to obtain a manpower advantage of 3-1 or greater in just 106 of 598 cases (17.7%) examined.

In 1984, Dupuy’s Historical Evaluation Research Organization (HERO) compiled a database of battles from 1600 to 1973 for the U.S. Army Concepts Analysis Agency (CAA; now known as the U.S. Army Center for Army Analysis). CAA’s examination of the numerical force ratios in the database showed that...

[W]hat is the force ratio to be used with the 3:1 force ratio planning factor? Is it numbers of men, or weapons? Is it firepower? Is it some other calculation of a combat power ratio? In any event, it is clear that neither numbers nor firepower tells us much unless we know the circumstances...

It is not exactly clear to what exactly it refers, and there is no known original statement of the rule that can be consulted for clarification.

The so-called “3-1 rule” is a military aphorism that holds that attacking forces require a 3 to 1 advantage over defending forces in order to succeed. Although this rule has become widely-known and widely-held, especially in Western militaries, its origin is unknown and unattributed.

:blob_hmm: I will think about it.

:blob_neutral: Do what?

It depends on your tradition and background whether it is a numbers game, but that is a vast topic.

Not sure that I agree. Taking a trench requires some sophistication. But more importantly, the attack always gets through. The question is the price.

Because it is so completely and utterly wrong in every way ... It is painful. The guys who wrote it must have been high.

“[T]he famous ‘3:1 rule,’ according to which the attacker and defender suffer equal fractional loss rates at a 3:1 force ratio if the battle is in mixed terrain and the defender enjoys ‘prepared’ defenses…”

:blob_whistle:

:blob_teary: So what is this series exactly?

:blob_teary: No need to call me a dummy ...

Kr? :blob_neutral: Can you eat that?

:blobtaco: