Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Range Principle of Weapon Command
Message-ID: <1990Nov29.001730.17863@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 29 Nov 90 00:17:30 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Department
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl)
An army divides the front it covers up among its units, smaller units covering
a smaller front.  A platoon might cover a front of 100 yards, while a division
covers a front of 15 miles.  The different types of artillery units are
usually under the direct command of larger units corresponding to the range of
the guns.  The reason is fairly simple, commanders can concentrate the
firepower where it is most needed, to the maximum range of the weapon.  The
problem when a weapon is commanded by a unit with a front much smaller than
the range of the weapon is that commanders in one unit may concentrate on a
marginal target (their top priority), while another unit within range
desperately needs fire support.  Negotiations between peer units in combat are
notoriously unproductive.  For example, in World War II, division commanders
often had direct command of air units.  There were several instances where air
units were inappropriately used because division commanders kept the air unit
for themselves.

Should we apply the principle of commanding a weapon at a level corresponding
to its range uniformly to all weapons systems?  I've given one argument in
favor, are there other arguments for and against?

-- 
  Lawrence Crowl		716-275-9499	University of Rochester
		      crowl@cs.rochester.edu	Computer Science Department
		 ...!rutgers!rochester!crowl	Rochester, New York,  14627