When conducting IPB, you should endeavor to acquire facts and develop detailed products appropriate for the specific METT-T situation under consideration. This involves a significant amount of research about the threat and the battlefield environment. However, this information will not always be available.

Fortunately, you can still produce quality IPB products even when some of the conclusions are built using "ballpark" figures based on assumptions. This appendix provides guidelines for each step in the IPB process when more exact information is not available.

In 1939 the British and French Armies used a rule of thumb to classify the Ardennes Forest as unsuitable for use by German Panzer units. In 1944 the American Army assumed an economy of force posture in the Ardennes for similar reasons. In both cases the Allies paid dearly for not having forecast and wargamed the COA the Germans actually chose.

The guidelines listed below are statistical averages, or are based on specific forces, and will sometimes be misleading when applied to a particular situation. For example, the guidelines in this appendix under Evaluate the Threat are based on Soviet style and US style forces. If you are evaluating a threat that does not follow one of these two models, you must develop the data base to the point where you can construct similar guidelines for the force under consideration.

Avoid relying on "ballpark" figures. Acquire the information that is pertinent to your specific circumstances. Tailor your evaluations to the specific equipment types, organizations, and training status of the units you are evaluating. For example, if a unit is especially skilled in night operations, periods of low visibility or illumination are likely to have little effect on its operations. Units equipped with a particular vehicle type may be less affected by mobility constraints than the tables herein indicate. However, judicious use of these tables and guidelines can help you through most situations.

The AO will almost always be established by higher headquarters. In those cases where it is not, your commander establishes its limits based on his intent and desired end state.

The AI should be drawn to include the terrain in which activity may occur that would affect the upcoming mission. In a conventional war a typical mission for a maneuver battalion might last 12 hours. Therefore, the AI should be drawn to include any characteristics of the battlefield, including threat units, that can affect the mission's success within the next 12 hours. Figures B-1 and B-2 give rules of thumb for establishing the limits of ground and air AIs.

Products of this step in the IPB process depict the effects of the battlefield environment on the operations and broad COAs available to threat and friendly forces (see Chapter 3 for examples). Regardless of the detail in the initial overlays, the final product should show the options for the employment of both threat and friendly forces.

The final product prepared to support planning for a conventional operation by a friendly mechanized or armor unit, regardless of who is attacking or defending, should include--

The final product prepared to support planning for a conventional offense by a light infantry command (threat or friendly) should include--

The final product prepared to support planning for a conventional defense by a light infantry battalion (threat or friendly) should include--

See Chapters 4 through 6 for ideas on conducting IPB under conditions not listed above. Figures B-3 through B-21 provide some rules of thumb for describing the battlefield's effects.

Evaluating the threat comprises two efforts: building the data base and using the data base to construct threat models.

Use the traditional OB factors to evaluate the threat (see FM 34-3). IPB analysts may often find it necessary to construct their own OB files using the following tools from the processing step of the intelligence cycle:

"Composition" can be described using standard line and block charts; "disposition" can be described using a SITMAP. Similarly, other graphic aids can be used to show many of the OB factors.

The "tactics" portion of the OB files requires significant effort for effective presentation. The analyst should first build "threat models" by observing, or studying reports of, threat training or combat operations. Once the analyst gains an understanding of threat procedures, he can document the threat model using the following techniques:

Fortunately, there are certain constants affecting the operations of the military forces of any nationality. These fundamentals of tactics can be learned through--

• Effective battle-focused training.

• The study of military history.

• Mentoring by battle-seasoned soldiers.

You will discover that sustained pursuit of "battlefield common sense" greatly simplifies the development of threat models.

Learn the tactics of your own forces. This gives you a common framework that enables you to communicate with your commander and understand how best to support his operations. It also provides you with a basis against which to compare the doctrine of any threat you may face:

For more ideas on developing threat models, refer to the techniques on building threat COAs in the final section of this appendix. Remember that threat models are generalized procedures; they do not depend upon the specific battlefield environment. Threat COAs are tied to specific METT-T situations.

Figures B-22 through B-53 offer some guidelines for evaluating the threat.

As mentioned in the previous section, threat models are generalized procedures. Threat COAs are the situational application of the threat model. Furthermore, one threat model may generate a number of threat COAs when applied to a specific battlefield environment. For example, a "typical guerrilla ambush" threat model may spawn several ambush threat COAs along a specific route.

A threat COA model has three components:

When developing threat COAs for a traditional mechanized or armor defense, consider the general threat COA options by studying the options for defense identified during your evaluation of the battlefield environment's effects on operations. Where are potential defensive positions and engagement areas? Fully consider:

For each threat COA identified, situationally template (in order):

For each threat COA, situationally narrate or depict in a matrix the timing and sequencing of--

When developing threat COAs for a traditional mechanized or armor offense, consider the general threat COA options by studying the effects of the battlefield environment on military operations. Fully consider--

For each threat COA, situationally template--

For each threat COA, situationally narrate the scheme of maneuver through the duration of the attack. A particularly effective technique is to use a matrix similar to that used in scenario 2 of Chapter 3. Do not limit the description to only the maneuver forces. Examine how each BOS supports the COA. If time permits, the IPB analyst should prepare a full BOS synchronization matrix for each threat COA.

Another technique is to show "snapshots" of the threat COA at different times during the battle. This would include a set of situational templates with narratives to describe each threat COA at various points during its execution.

Usually, the most effective way to present threat COAs is to use the US methodology and symbols described in FM 101-5 and FM 101-5-1.

Another technique is to use the actual operational graphics of the threat force. This technique is effective only if all unit personnel who will use the IPB products are familiar with the threat's graphics and symbology techniques.

Event templates always focus on features of the threat's COAs that will allow you to confirm or deny their adoption. In the offense and defense, consider the following:

Offense:

Defense: