<div class="description">
<p>Engineer command and control in a mechanized corps is a complex system. The current doctrine for engineer force structures is inadequate. Three command and control alternative force structures, identified in the Engineer Structure Study, are evaluated to determine which structure best supports a mechanized corps. The analysis is based on the results of a Stochastic, Timed, Attributed Petri Net timed stepped simulation. The model used in this simulation was constructed using an interactive graphical design tool, called Modeler, by a team including the software developer ALPHATECH, the U.S. Army Engineer Center, and the Training and Doctrine Analysis Command. This was the Army's first use of Modeler. The C2 performance of the engineer staffs is simulated for each of the three force structures by simulation message traffic and processing for 15 days of war in three settings, offensive, defensive and transitional from offensive to defensive. The force structures are then analyzed by comparing simulation output using three measures of performances: Processing Capacity, Message-Quality, and Message Processing Speed. The Division Engineer alternative consistently out performs the Base Case and Company Restructure alternatives for each measure of performance and in each of the three settings. Therefore based on these simulations, the Division Engineer alternative is the best force structure to support a mechanized corps.
</p>
<br>Subjects: Military planning.; Land Warfare; Military Planning; Military Science; Petri Nets; Command and Control; Combat Engineers</div>
<div class="fn value">
Tabacchi, Peter J.</div>
Internet Archive identifier