Download

Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 4.8 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 Format Price
Add to Cart Paperback123 pages $35.00

Compares actual combat data with FAST-VAL simulation results for a 2-company U.S. Marine infantry attack on a North Vietnamese reinforced infantry platoon in a hastily prepared defensive position. The Marines used only small arms — rifles and machine guns; the NVA used both small arms and mortars. Information from official records and interviews with 3 participating Marine officers was sufficiently detailed to permit separate examinations of 3 portions of the 4-min engagement — a small arms exchange, an assault, and an NVA mortar attack. Simulation results agreed closely with combat results. Following the mortar attack, one Marine company withdrew from the fight. The company casualties were 24.6% at that time. The percent of casualties at withdrawal is consistent with the FAST-VAL criterion that an attacking company stops its advance at 23% casualties. Appendixes include the transcribed interviews and the expected damage patterns from mortars and from small arms.

This report is part of the RAND report series. The report was a product of RAND from 1948 to 1993 that represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.