Today, a quick note of Leonhard's concept of tempo using ArmA 3 and DCS Flaming Cliffs as examples.
In "Fighting by Minutes", rather than using the more popular expression "tempo", Leonhard uses the word "frequency". Frequency is a property that strikes closer to the world of physics and reflects the amount of times something happens per unit of time. Maybe Leonhard prefers the physics analogies as does Simpkin in "Race to the Swift". The caveats and pitfalls of analogies to explain warfare have been long pointed out, but these shortcomings can be kept at bay if one doesn't get carried away too far with them.
Frequency in war is the amount of times something happens within a time unit. The amount of offensives per year (strategic level), the daily pace of events in a campaign (operational level). At the lowest level, one could think about how many times one shoots at the enemy (tactical level).
In the one hand, before we embark into the thought that a high tempo or frequency is intrinsically beneficial, Leonhard points out that an extremely high frequency could render our actions irrelevant. On the other hand, a slow tempo will give the enemy the chance to adapt and counter our actions.
The take home lesson is that the right frequency/tempo depends on the enemy's capabilities to cope with our actions.
|Case A. DCS Flaming Cliffs. Both my missiles in a tight flight. The enemy F/A 18 has started violent, high G maneuvers to spoof these missiles.|
|Case B. DCS Flaming Cliffs. Just when the enemy aircraft has engaged defensive against my first missile, I fire my second R-27R. This is a low frequency/tempo compared to Case A.|
|Case C. ArmA 3. Enemy patrols were caught off guard while walking the perimeter of the obstacles in front of the strong point.|
As Leonhard explains in his book, the right frequency of your own forces actions at the strategic, operational and tactical level are all relative to the enemy's capabilities to cope with them.