Logotyp: till Försvarshögskolans hemsida

Can decision-making styles impact victory and defeat in armed conflicts? To answer the question of whether decision-making styles are linked to the victories and defeats of individual tacticians, this study utilizes five general decision-making styles: Rational, Intuitive, Dependent, Avoidant and Spontaneous. The aim of this study is to examine whether one or several of the general decision-making styles (GDMS) have an impact on tactical outcomes in wargames. A total of 104 officers and academics participated in the study. The study’s foremost conclusion is that the Dependent style is significantly connected to defeat in the wargame’s dueling set up.

The purpose of this study is to form a model on effective tactics. We selected five theorists, three of which also provided support from quantitative analysis on winning battles. The theorists all advocate the use of maneuver warfare, developed from the German WWII-approach.[1] The analysis indicates the importance of accomplishing a sequence in battle of surprise attacks, followed by shock action, and prompt exploitation in order to accomplish an organizational breakdown of enemy force. Tactical defeat is foremost a result of psychological reactions by the enemy rather than from physical destruction by superior material resources at the point of assault.German WW II approach covering both the tactical and operational level of German ground warfighting until 1945. This is still the theoretical bas in maneuver warfare including features such as mission-type orders (Auftragstaktik), decisive point, centre of gravity (Schwerpunkt) and intent (Absicht). We have pointed out important parts from the German WWII warfare (mechanized) style in a model, although not flawless, in our discussion on victory in battle.

This study examines simulated battle settings, to analyze how tactics are performed and victory is achieved by observing tacticians dueling in wargames. In contemporary warfare, victory in battle relates to a wide variety of elements. According to military theory, these elements commonly involve deployment, reconnaissance, manoeuvre, breakthrough, tempo, surprise, exploitation, and shock, resulting in enemy organizational breakdown. Ideally, if one side in combat exploits all elements successfully, the likelihood of victory increases. Although the use of the tactical elements is not always obvious to the participants, the study indicates a correlation between using the elements and victory in a wargame setting. Although wargames inherent bias by not being the real world, they are used in training, education and analysis worldwide. The study also illustrates that the participants view tactical victory differently in battle.

Are our tactics effective compared to our opponent or not? Since tactics are about how to use time, units and resources in the best possible way to win or gain advantages in battle, it becomes important to be able to evaluate and measure the outcome. The purpose of this paper is to give an example of how a designed scenario in a specific military tactical situation can work as a frame for an ideal model of win or lose in combat. From the theories about how and why we are winning and losing in battles, an ideal model of the most important criteria has been compiled. The ideal model is not a “law” or the ultimate truth but more of an empirical path of knowledge and to be used as a hypothesis. A specific military combat scenario is used in visualising and to measure the quality of the tactician’s plan and action. The tactical scenario is operationalised in the narrative based on conventional warfare in future high-intensity and high-tech level conflicts. It is thus essential for the tactician to be proficient in knowing his/her units, resources and capabilities, regarding how their mobility and firepower can be optimised at different times and in different sequences. Tactical criteria can be tested in various scenarios but need to be measured more thoroughly by using wargames.