Army Operations Research—Historical Perspectives and Lessons Learned

References

• Adams H. E., Forrester R. E., Kraft J. F., Oosterhout B. B. CARMONETTE: A computer-played combat simulation. (1961) (Operations Research Office, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD) . Technical Memorandum ORO-T-389Google Scholar
• Anderson B., Bracken J., Healy J. G., Hutzler M. J., Kerlin E. P. IDA Ground-Air Model I (IDAGAM I). (1974) (Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, VA) . Report R-199Google Scholar
• Army Combat Developments Experimentation Command (1971) . Basic Attack Helicopter Team (BAHT),(USACDCEC Experiment 43.5), Final report. Fort Ord,CAGoogle Scholar
• Army Combat Developments Experimentation Command Tactical effectiveness testing of antitank missiles. (1972) (Phases I and II, Fort Ord, CA). 1973Google Scholar
• Army Concepts Analysis Agency CEM IX User's Handbook. (1995) (Monterey, CA). CAA-D-85-1Google Scholar
• Army Materiel Systems Analysis Agency Report on support provided by AMSAA/BRL for TATAWS III computer simulations. (1969) . Technical Memorandum Number 20. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. SECRETGoogle Scholar
• Army TRADOC Analysis Center—White Sands Missile Range, CASTFOREM Documentation, February, 2001Google Scholar
• Ballistic Research LaboratoryProject STALK (1960) (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD). Memorandum report number 1307Google Scholar
• Boehner E., Bailey T. Hierarchical linkup of attrition and ammunition expenditures between models. Systems Analysis and Modeling in Defense (1982) (Plenum Press, New York) 531–545Google Scholar
• Bonder S. Summary of a verification study of VECTOR-2 with the Arab-Israeli war. Systems Analysis and Modeling in Defense (1982) (Plenum Press, New York) pp.155–170Google Scholar
• Bonder S. Defense planning in the new global security environment. ARMY, Assoc. United States Army. (1993) 43(8Google Scholar
• Bonder S., Farrell R. Development of analytical models of battalion task force activities. (1970) (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) . Report No. SRL FR 70-1 (U), Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Industrial EngineeringGoogle Scholar
• Bonder S., Honig J. An analytic model of grand combat: Design and application. Proc. 27th Military Oper. Res. Sympos. (1971) (Military Operations Research Society, Montgomery , AL) Google Scholar
• Bonder S., Thompson D. The Bonder-Farrell methodology: Historical perspectives on the differential models of combat. Military Oper Res.ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Buzzell C. A., Smith G. C.JANUS (1980) (Conflict Simulation Code, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA) Google Scholar
• Clark G. The combat analysis model. Proc. 24th Military Oper. Res. Soc. Sympos. (1969) (Naval Training Center, San Diego, CA) Google Scholar
• Clark G. Low resolution small unit model (LORSUM). (1982) (The Ohio State University Research Foundation, Columbus, OH) . ADB067235Google Scholar
• Farrell R. MACRO: An aggregate model of central-region combat with corps-level submodels. (1986) (Vector Research, Incorporated, Ann Arbor, MI) . VRI-OHD WP85-6Google Scholar
• Hawkins G. Structural variance and other related topics experienced in the SHAPE armour/anti-armour study. Systems Analysis Modeling and Defense (1982) (Plenum Press, New York) 627–635Google Scholar
• Institute for Defense Analyses The IDA tactical warfare model: A theater-level model of conventional, nuclear and chemical warfare. (1975, 1977) (Arlington, VA). IDA Report R-211, Volumes I and II, October 1975; Volume III, Parts I and II, November 1977Google Scholar
• Johnson J. W., Zimmerman R. E.Quick Gaming (1963) . Research Analysis Corporation, RAC-TP-76, originally classified SECRETGoogle Scholar
• Kerlin E. P., Cole R. H. ATLAS: A Tactical, Logistical, and Air Simulation. (1969) (Research Analysis Corporation, McLean, VA) . RAC-TP-338Google Scholar
• Kimball G. F., Morse P. M.Methods of Operations Research (1951) (John Wiley and Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Lanchester F. W.Aircraft in Warfare: The Dawn of the Fourth Arm (1916) (Constable and Company, London, U.K.) Google Scholar
• Miller G., Johnston C. Analysis of alternative structures for U.S. Army forces in Europe. Proc. 33rd U.S. Army Oper. Res. Sympos. (1994) 7–9 NovemberFt. Lee, VAGoogle Scholar
• Research Analysis CorporationTheater Force Evaluation System for CONAF (Conceptual Design for the Army in the Field) (1972) (McLean, VA). Vol. I through IV. RAC-R-136Google Scholar
• Robinson J., Fallin H. US Army Model Improvement Program (AMIP). Systems Analysis Modeling and Defense (1982) (Plenum Press, New York) 517–529Google Scholar
• Systems Research Group The tank weapon system. (1964) (The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH) . SRG Report RF-573 AR 64-1Google Scholar
• Vector Research, IncorporatedThe BATTLE Model Prototype (U) (1973) . VRI-WSEG-2 FR73-1, Vol. I through V. SECRETGoogle Scholar
• Vector Research, Incorporated VECTOR-1, A theater battle model. (1974) (Ann Arbor, MI). WSEG Report 251Google Scholar
• Vector Research, Incorporated The Battalion Level Differential Model (BLDM) planner-user's manual. (1975) (Ann Arbor, MI). Report Number VRI-BDM-CLGP-1 TR75-8Google Scholar
• Vector Research, Incorporated Multinational forces in NATO, quick response analysis of rapid reaction forces. (1991) (Ann Arbor, MI). Final Report, VRI-G-91-29Google Scholar
• Young J. P., Eckles A. J., Parsons N. W., Koehler L. F. Project pinpoint: Disclosure of antitank weapons to overwatching tanks. (1958) . Technical Memorandum ORO-T-362,Operations Research Office,Johns Hopkins University,Baltimore, MD. CONFIDENTIALGoogle Scholar