Does the 3-1 rule apply to air combat?

A common rule of thumb is that the attacking force must have a 3x or
greater combination of quantity and quality to succeed in its attack.
Does this rule apply to air combat?


I believe I could argue it no longer applies to ground combat either.
Technology makes a good force multiplier, up to a point. I don't believe
coalition ground forces outnumbered Iraqi forces 3-1 in 1991 or 2003.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

A common rule of thumb is that the attacking force must have a 3x or
greater combination of quantity and quality to succeed in its attack.
Does this rule apply to air combat?

No. There have been numerous instances in which a single airplane
snuck up on an unususpecting formation, knocked down a couple, and got
away.

Butch O'Hare comes to mind.

vince norris

"Hobo" wrote in message
...

A common rule of thumb is that the attacking force must have a 3x or
greater combination of quantity and quality to succeed in its attack.
Does this rule apply to air combat?

No! You are not trying to seize and HOLD any airspace like the ground forces
are trying to do with the land. Actually I would rate skill, tactics, and
equipment over pure numbers.

Beside a couple of F-18's can easily beat a whole bunch of Piper Cubs. That
is if they don't run out of fuel.

Red

On or about Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:40:41 -0500, vincent p. norris
allegedly uttered:

A common rule of thumb is that the attacking force must have a 3x or
greater combination of quantity and quality to succeed in its attack.
Does this rule apply to air combat?

No. There have been numerous instances in which a single airplane
snuck up on an unususpecting formation, knocked down a couple, and got
away.

Indeed, most air combat is more akin to ground skirmishing than full
up battles. The rule of thumb I'd put forwards is the oldest one.

Whoever spots the enemy first, wins. He who fails to spot the enemy at
all, dies.

Even now the spotting tends to be done by sensors rather more
farsighted than the Mk.1 eyeball, it still remains true.

All IMO as a non pilot.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Subject: Does the 3-1 rule apply to air combat?
From: Hobo
Date: 10/26/03 2:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


A common rule of thumb is that the attacking force must have a 3x or
greater combination of quantity and quality to succeed in its attack.
Does this rule apply to air combat?


We tried to maintain at least a 7:1 advantageallways. More when possible. Crush
the enemy with overwhelming force is the rule in warfare by attritrion.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

A common rule of thumb is that the attacking force must have a 3x or
greater combination of quantity and quality to succeed in its attack.
Does this rule apply to air combat?

I don't know how you would calculate the variables, especially if you
are speaking of WWII. One Me-262 could really proved worrisome to a
formation of B-17s (though the Forts did prevail).

In addition, in aerial combat the intention is not to hold ground.
There are not many instances where an aerial formation can be said to
have "prevailed". Who prevailed in the Schweinfurt raid, for example?

I suppose we can say that the British prevailed in the Battle of
Britain. Certainly they didn't have a 3X advantage over the Germans.
More like 1.1X.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Butch O'Hare comes to mind.

But he didn't prevail. The Japanese bombers did bomb the fleet. (They
didn't prevail, either, since they didn't sink it.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
A common rule of thumb is that the attacking force must have a 3x or
greater combination of quantity and quality to succeed in its attack.
Does this rule apply to air combat?


I believe I could argue it no longer applies to ground combat either.
Technology makes a good force multiplier, up to a point. I don't believe
coalition ground forces outnumbered Iraqi forces 3-1 in 1991 or 2003.

True. No US ground force trains under conditions where it enjoys a
3:1, or even 2:1, superiority in terms of raw numbers. This
discrepancy in mass is made up by two factors--first, use of superior
ISR and mobility (maneuver) to acheive a brief localized parity or
minor superiority at the decisive point (this is where BAI can help
tremendously, in isolating the decisive area from enemy reinforcement
or internal reorganization/maneuver), and second, use of additional
firepower, and more importantly precision fires (including CAS), to
give you a 3:1 advantage in *firepower* (number of crunchies, tanks,
etc., itself is meaningless--their combined firepower capability is
the key consideration) at that point.

Brooks


BUFDRVR

True. No US ground force trains under conditions where it enjoys a
3:1, or even 2:1, superiority in terms of raw numbers.

The original poster said "quality and quantity." Arguably, the U.S.
had a better than 3-1 superiority over the Iraqi army and the fedayeen
when the quality of American weaponry is considered.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

How about First generation technology vs third generation technology i.e if
numbers are equal being at least two generations ahead in technology is
required.


"Hobo" wrote in message
...

A common rule of thumb is that the attacking force must have a 3x or
greater combination of quantity and quality to succeed in its attack.
Does this rule apply to air combat?