Message-Id: <200204162319.g3GNJGA14711@nitro.isi.edu>
To: rkf-tkcp@ai.sri.com, COtstott@aol.com
Subject: [rkf-tkcp] Critiques for the blue attack COAs
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:19:15 -0700
From: Jim Blythe <blythe@venera.isi.edu>
Sender: rkf-tkcp-bounce@ai.sri.com
Errors-to: rkf-tkcp-bounce@ai.sri.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: blythe@venera.isi.edu


Charley,

The COAs and their critiques that you've prepared for this scenario are
highly informative - thanks. We again looked at how these critiques, or
an approximation, might be generated automatically. Your feedback on the
critiques for Dadmamian swamp was quite encouraging, so we'd like to
continue this line and ask for your opinions on these.

thanks,
Jim and Jihie




Mission accomplishment
----------------------

Mission: Seizure of Obj JAYHAWK and destruction of 29th Guards

As in the Damamian Swamp scenario, we may use expected effects of the
COA and check the results from a normative simulation or detailed
simulation, including the location of the units and their remaining
strength.

- Remaining strength
  o RED: destroyed
  o BLUE: ;; SME may specify the expected strength after the attack

- Location of units
  o BLUE: are they now at JAYHAWK?


Speed
-----

We may retrieve the path/route of the moving operations involved in the
COAs and check if the units can traverse the path quickly.  We may also
compare the overall time taken to accomplish the mission.


Simplicity
----------

One simple check we can do is comparing the number of different tasks
assigned to the units.  We may also check the degree of
connections/coordination among the tasks.  For example, in COA #2 the
coordination of close fight, fires and aviation in the main attack may
require relatively complex links among the tasks.


Use of terrain
--------------

If we can assume that terrain features are known, we can show how they
are used in the tasks.  We are not sure how we can check for the
'lateral movement' of the battalion. Perhaps this can be done by the
geo/spatial reasoner, or it may be the case that noting when a unit
switches from one axis to another is adequate.


Fire support:
-------------

We can look at the tasks fire support is involved in in each COA:

COA 1:

Aviation artillery will attack deep initially on red artillery while
main attack is moving.  Aviation artillery in support of main attack
troops in contact.


COA 2:

Support main attack initially. On order, destroy retreating enemy forces
in deep battle area.


If the system were simply to count the artillery tasks, the two COAs
appear to make equal use of the artillery.  Is there an approach by
which we can tell that the two tasks in COA1 (attack red artillery &
support main attack) make better use of the artillery than the two tasks
in COA2 (support main attack & destroy retreating forces)?


Risk:
--------

As well as by using detailed simulation and summing up the other
features, as you mentioned in your last message, it seems important to
know when an attack is in the rear or in a flank as compared with
head-on. This is explicitly mentioned in the commander's intent in COA
1, and it would be simple to check if it was always explicitly mentioned
when present. Is this a reasonable thing to expect?  If not, it might be
computable from the sketch, by looking at the angles of approach and the
way that the enemy forces are arrayed, but this seems harder.

As well as attacking in the flank or the rear, the concept of
'enveloping' the enemy seems important here, and this may be easier to
detect at least in that the attack comes from several different angles.


Position from follow-on operations
----------------------------------

We are not sure how we could arrive at the prediction that the 2nd
brigade arrives intact in COA 1, while the reserve forces may have to
assist in the main effort in COA 2. Could this be inferred from the fact
that more forces may be required to mount the direct attack? There does
not seem to be an explicit mention of the extra task in the reserve
statement.


Not mentioned: force protection/ratios
----------------------------------------

Presumably the task force ratios are important to determine the risks
involved in the two COAs. However, it seems that more information is
needed to determine them. For example, what kind of tanks are used by
the 29th Guards, eg Abrams, M60 or T62/64/../80?


List of relevant criteria
-------------------------

As was discussed in the telecon, can we start to develop a set of
critique criteria, at least for the CP? We might be able to divide them
into two sets: those that are used frequently, like mission
accomplishment, use of terrain and risk, and those that appear less
frequently but still often enough to be of general use, like perhaps
speed and position for follow-on operations. Given these, one viable
approach might be for a user to select the criteria of interest in a
given situation. Another might be to always include the core criteria,
and append any of the less frequent criteria whose values differ across
the COAs under consideration.