Demystifying Desired Effects

By CW3 David Brown

Article published on: June 2, 2024 in the Summer 2024 edition of Field Artillery

Read Time: < 7 mins

Commander’s guidance drives Targeting: The Decide, Detect, Deliver and Assess (D3A) process. Clear guidance — comprised of what targeting must achieve when, where and why — has cognitively clarifying downstream effects on the entire targeting team. It determines high-payoff targets (HPTs), fire support tasks, (FSTs), Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs), the collection plan, battle damage assessment (BDA) requirements, fire orders, asset allocations and nominations to our higher headquarters, among other things. Yet, translating commanderg’s uidance into concrete attrition goals we can meaningfully measure is a place where staffs routinely struggle. Few rotational units at the National Training Center (NTC) identify the force ratios they need to achieve or how much of the enemy they need to affect in the deep in order to effect subordinate success in the close. Turning a commander’s guidance into specified desired effects requires the staff to qualify and quantify the specific enemy formations and functions they wish to target.

Commanders have a range of terms to choose from when formulating their targeting guidance; ATP 3-60 lists 14 terms on pages 1-2 and 1-3. See below for a summarized list:

The key point to remember about targeting task terminology — despite our doctrine conflating desired effect terms with types of artillery fire, tactical tasks, defeat mechanisms and Field Artillery specific computational effects jargon that varies from maneuver and joint doctrine — is that the commander’s guidance applies to the total target taxonomy: this is to say, individual target elements and targets; target components; and, finally, target systems. This target taxonomy roughly corresponds to the three component elements of BDA and forms the doctrinal basis for quantifying and qualifying specified desired effects in terms of enemy formations and functions. This is why the best BDA is more than just a numeric rundown of destroyed systems and includes functional damage and target system assessments; the latter two assessments detail remaining enemy mission capabilities, reactions and counteractions to friendly targeting efforts.

Figure 1: Target Taxonomy correlated with BDA elements: adapted from JP 3-60 page II-6

Therefore, simply listing an effect term (destroy, neutralize, or suppress, for example) in the desired effect column of an attack guidance matrix (AGM) and stopping there is not enough. Units must ensure that those terms match the effects expressed by the commander or are the effects required for the success of the friendly mission relative to the total target taxonomy. In short, the targeting plan should include specified attrition goals against specific targets by target system or target category. Even at the brigade, where targeting is less formal and resourced than it is at higher echelons where Operations Research/ Systems Analysts (ORSAs) reside, the staff can still identify, establish and enumerate required shaping goals according to the commander’s battlefield framework. The targeting team should be able to determine desired force ratios from threat, situation, or event templates in the military decision-making process (MDMP) via relative combat power analysis (course of action development) and war-gaming (course of action analysis).

Typical planning force ratios: adapted from ATP 2-01.3 page B-9

During targeting working groups (TWGs), if we decide our HPTs in a fashion that resembles an abbreviated or informal war-game (action— reaction—counteraction), then it should be a simple verbal matter of asking the S2 and S3 representatives at the end of a “turn” what degree of attrition or strength percentage reduction is necessary in a target system or category to render it combat ineffective or reduced to the level desired by the commander, keeping in mind the goals of favorable force ratios and enabling success for the friendly course of action’s tactical tasks.

Figure 2: Notional Action, Reaction, Counteraction Sequence

This is how we might determine, for example, that we need to destroy six T-90s and nine AT-5 positions of the 801st Brigade Tactical Group’s (BTG’s) maneuver forces in vicinity of Strawberry Fields by D Day plus 2 after the seizure of an objective in order to defend it. Regardless of the phase, critical event, or Air Tasking Order day (ATO), specificity makes “shaping” more than a buzzword and allows us to tell the commander how we plan to meet his intent.

Figure 3: Example Attack Guidance Matrix with desired attrition goals in remarks

In fact, this is how effective units translate their commander’s desired effects into specified goals. They determine which and how many high value targets (HVTs) in the enemy order of battle (EOB) need to become HPTs according to the friendly scheme of maneuver, tactical tasks and commander’s desired end state. Determining what to shape where and when by priority constitutes condition setting before the friendly action and orients the targeting team on achieving effects before subordinate unit direct fire contact. It may be a bridge too far for anyone at a brigade level TWG to whip out a Correlation of Forces and Means (COFMs) calculator, but the targeting team can still prompt the S2 for enemy strength assessments and threat capabilities by warfighting function by zone as they are deciding their HPTs. The TWG is one of the few places where the staff can plan condition setting for subordinate units. As such, it is imperative that the staff qualify and quantify the commander’s desired effects against enemy formations and functions, turning them into tangible attrition goals.

Figure 4: Example D3A sync

Effective targeting guidance tells the team what it must do when where and why. The staff owes the Commander how it intends to meet his intent. Hopefully, this paper provided illustrative examples of how to do just that during MDMP and TWGs and helped demystify desired effects.

References