314:
304:
283:
255:
140:
22:
201:
179:
80:
53:
212:
190:
168:
490:
I'm puzzled by the "copied with permission" notice: this article has been changed significantly over time, by multiple authors, and the IP that added the notice seems to have in fact added very little. Is it (still, or ever) an accurate description? And if so, can we factor it to make it less so?
411:
I don't think the article is quite right about application to modern warfare: the square law applies only to direct fire weapons engaging each other, and not to units or larger formations, nor to area fire weapons whose effectiveness depends on the density of targets in the target area. Specifically,
596:
The lead describes this as a model of a predator-prey relationship. That characterization is not supported by any text in the body, nor by any references. This is good, because it's facially ridiculous (the equations are of symmetric form, can only describe decreasing functions of time, etc.). I
557:
Hello from a newbie contributor. This exponent (between 1 and 2) arises from attempts to fit historical data to
Lanchester's Laws, as historical combat losses tend to fall between what would be expected from either the linear or square law. It is an approximation reflecting that portions of the
558:
armies involved may be subject to different laws depending on circumstances (terrain, cover, etc.). Most articles I've read give values for this in a range between 1.4-1.8. I'll get some citations to go with that. There are also applications of
Lanchester's laws for military combat modeling.
262:
63:
522:
of 1.5 makes no sense. Rather than changing this based on a conjecture, perhaps someone can check sources to see what formulas are actually used. And, while they're at it, perhaps they can substitute something more specific for that vague word "often".
446:
A few examples would be interesting and illuminating. If you have roughly three types of units (close combat, distance, aimed distance) you have six possible combinations... Hm. Do we have any data on the actual factors as measured in the field?
659:
664:
370:
153:
130:
92:
540:
I have seen research that suggest a better approximation would be 1.34 however I have never seen this value used in practice. Generally they use a factor of 1.5.
654:
120:
139:
491:
If it's simply being paraphrased in places, it seems to me to be unnecessary to have anything more than an acknowledgement by way of a reference. If there
674:
360:
336:
87:
58:
669:
96:
578:
527:
327:
288:
412:
it does not apply to field artillery (the example given in the article) except when engaged in targeted counter-battery fire.
392:
Does anyone know whether
Lanchester was influenced by Lotka and Volterra's 1910 work? It is not cited in his 1916 article.
33:
514:
The article states that as a compromise between the linear and square laws, "often a factor of 1.5 is used". An
531:
582:
635:
621:
602:
91:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
563:
518:
of 1.5 might be a suitable compromise between linear and square laws, depending on the situation, but a
437:
420:
397:
39:
313:
559:
21:
476:
544:
335:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
631:
617:
598:
452:
319:
303:
282:
432:
Done. Still not a great article, though. Perhaps an example? Not sure if that's encyclopaedic.
548:
433:
416:
393:
500:
472:
648:
448:
495:
wholesale copying, this makes it unsatisfactory as regards the GFDL requirement.
332:
254:
639:
625:
606:
586:
567:
552:
535:
504:
480:
456:
441:
424:
401:
309:
496:
597:
propose removing this and replacing it with something not wrong. --
79:
52:
15:
660:
Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
467:
WikiProject
Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
665:
Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
253:
138:
577:
There seem to be several typos, including in the graph.
613:
331:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
151:
This article has been checked against the following
263:
Military science, technology, and theory task force
236:
150:
471:Article reassessed and graded as start class. --
630:I have boldly removed the offending phrase. --
8:
277:
233:
147:
47:
415:I'll have a go at revising the article.
85:This article is within the scope of the
279:
49:
19:
105:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history
95:. To use this banner, please see the
655:Start-Class military history articles
108:Template:WikiProject Military history
7:
325:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
612:Wow, this has been in the article
14:
675:Low-priority mathematics articles
345:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
348:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
312:
302:
281:
210:
199:
188:
177:
166:
78:
51:
20:
365:This article has been rated as
125:This article has been rated as
1:
536:15:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
442:09:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
425:18:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
388:Relationship to other models?
339:and see a list of open tasks.
670:C-Class mathematics articles
402:11:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
88:Military history WikiProject
543:I put in some references.
691:
587:15:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
553:02:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
486:"copied, with permission"?
171:Referencing and citation:
568:01:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
505:16:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
481:18:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
457:08:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
364:
297:
261:
232:
124:
111:military history articles
73:
46:
640:23:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
626:23:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
607:23:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
371:project's priority scale
328:WikiProject Mathematics
237:Associated task forces:
182:Coverage and accuracy:
258:
215:Supporting materials:
143:
28:This article is rated
257:
142:
351:mathematics articles
204:Grammar and style:
157:for B-class status:
320:Mathematics portal
259:
144:
93:list of open tasks
34:content assessment
385:
384:
381:
380:
377:
376:
276:
275:
272:
271:
268:
267:
228:
227:
217:criterion not met
195:criterion not met
173:criterion not met
129:on the project's
97:full instructions
682:
407:Direct fire only
353:
352:
349:
346:
343:
322:
317:
316:
306:
299:
298:
293:
285:
278:
244:
234:
218:
214:
213:
207:
203:
202:
196:
192:
191:
185:
181:
180:
174:
170:
169:
148:
113:
112:
109:
106:
103:
102:Military history
82:
75:
74:
69:
66:
59:Military history
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
690:
689:
685:
684:
683:
681:
680:
679:
645:
644:
594:
575:
512:
488:
469:
409:
390:
350:
347:
344:
341:
340:
318:
311:
291:
242:
216:
211:
205:
200:
194:
189:
183:
178:
172:
167:
110:
107:
104:
101:
100:
67:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
688:
686:
678:
677:
672:
667:
662:
657:
647:
646:
643:
642:
628:
593:
590:
579:128.198.221.29
574:
571:
528:208.76.104.133
511:
508:
487:
484:
468:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
408:
405:
389:
386:
383:
382:
379:
378:
375:
374:
363:
357:
356:
354:
337:the discussion
324:
323:
307:
295:
294:
286:
274:
273:
270:
269:
266:
265:
260:
250:
249:
247:
245:
239:
238:
230:
229:
226:
225:
223:
221:
220:
219:
208:
197:
186:
175:
161:
160:
158:
145:
135:
134:
123:
117:
116:
114:
83:
71:
70:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
687:
676:
673:
671:
668:
666:
663:
661:
658:
656:
653:
652:
650:
641:
637:
633:
629:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
592:Predator-prey
591:
589:
588:
584:
580:
572:
570:
569:
565:
561:
555:
554:
550:
546:
541:
538:
537:
533:
529:
524:
521:
517:
509:
507:
506:
502:
498:
494:
485:
483:
482:
478:
474:
466:
458:
454:
450:
445:
444:
443:
439:
435:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
413:
406:
404:
403:
399:
395:
387:
372:
368:
362:
359:
358:
355:
338:
334:
330:
329:
321:
315:
310:
308:
305:
301:
300:
296:
290:
287:
284:
280:
264:
256:
252:
251:
248:
246:
241:
240:
235:
231:
224:
222:
209:
206:criterion met
198:
187:
184:criterion met
176:
165:
164:
163:
162:
159:
156:
155:
149:
146:
141:
137:
136:
132:
131:quality scale
128:
122:
119:
118:
115:
98:
94:
90:
89:
84:
81:
77:
76:
72:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
595:
576:
556:
542:
539:
525:
519:
515:
513:
492:
489:
470:
414:
410:
391:
367:Low-priority
366:
326:
292:Low‑priority
152:
126:
86:
40:WikiProjects
434:Cyclopaedic
417:Cyclopaedic
394:Colin Rowat
342:Mathematics
333:mathematics
289:Mathematics
193:Structure:
127:Start-class
68:Start‑class
649:Categories
614:since 2006
560:EastwoodDC
64:Technology
473:dashiellx
573:Spelling
516:exponent
154:criteria
545:8digits
510:Dubious
449:Shinobu
369:on the
30:C-class
520:factor
36:scale.
121:Start
636:talk
622:talk
616:. --
603:talk
583:talk
564:talk
549:talk
532:talk
501:talk
497:Alai
477:talk
453:talk
438:talk
421:talk
398:talk
632:JBL
618:JBL
599:JBL
361:Low
651::
638:)
624:)
605:)
585:)
566:)
551:)
534:)
526:--
503:)
493:is
479:)
455:)
440:)
423:)
400:)
243:/
62::
634:(
620:(
601:(
581:(
562:(
547:(
530:(
499:(
475:(
451:(
436:(
419:(
396:(
373:.
133:.
99:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
