Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: OODA Loop and TCMA

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,111

    OODA Loop and TCMA

    Continued from YKW's thread http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...d-by-4-strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by -N- View Post
    Military people say to operate inside the enemy's OODA loop.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_...st)#References

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energ...ability_theory

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Conflict

    Interesting that US military strategy realized only in the 20th century what TCMA has known for hundreds of years.

    Some relevant sections from the listed articles:

    The OODA Loop

    Boyd's key concept was that of the decision cycle or OODA loop, the process by which an entity (either an individual or an organization) reacts to an event. According to this idea, the key to victory is to be able to create situations wherein one can make appropriate decisions more quickly than one's opponent. The construct was originally a theory of achieving success in air-to-air combat, developed out of Boyd's Energy-Maneuverability theory and his observations on air combat between MiG-15s and North American F-86 Sabres in Korea. Harry Hillaker (chief designer of the F-16) said of the OODA theory, "Time is the dominant parameter. The pilot who goes through the OODA cycle in the shortest time prevails because his opponent is caught responding to situations that have already changed."

    John Boyd during the Korean War

    Boyd hypothesized that all intelligent organisms and organizations undergo a continuous cycle of interaction with their environment. Boyd breaks this cycle down to four interrelated and overlapping processes through which one cycles continuously:

    Observation: the collection of data by means of the senses
    Orientation: the analysis and synthesis of data to form one's current mental perspective
    Decision: the determination of a course of action based on one's current mental perspective
    Action: the physical playing-out of decisions

    Of course, while this is taking place, the situation may be changing. It is sometimes necessary to cancel a planned action in order to meet the changes. This decision cycle is thus known as the OODA loop. Boyd emphasized that this decision cycle is the central mechanism enabling adaptation (apart from natural selection) and is therefore critical to survival.
    In order to win, we should operate at a faster tempo or rhythm than our adversaries--or, better yet, get inside [the] adversary's Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action time cycle or loop. ... Such activity will make us appear ambiguous (unpredictable) thereby generate confusion and disorder among our adversaries--since our adversaries will be unable to generate mental images or pictures that agree with the menacing as well as faster transient rhythm or patterns they are competing against.

    [...]

    The key is to obscure your intentions and make them unpredictable to your opponent while you simultaneously clarify his intentions. That is, operate at a faster tempo to generate rapidly changing conditions that inhibit your opponent from adapting or reacting to those changes and that suppress or destroy his awareness. Thus, a hodgepodge of confusion and disorder occur to cause him to over- or under-react to conditions or activities that appear to be uncertain, ambiguous, or incomprehensible.

    [...]

    The approach favors agility over raw power in dealing with human opponents in any endeavor. John Boyd put this ethos into practice with his work for the USAF. He was an advocate of maneuverable fighter aircraft, in contrast to the heavy, powerful jet fighters that were prevalent in the 1960s, such as the F-4 Phantom II and General Dynamics F-111. Boyd inspired the Light Weight Fighter Project that produced the successful F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet, which are still in use by the United States and several other military powers into the 21st century.
    E-M background
    Boyd was a US Air Force colonel who had developed the energy–maneuverability theory of air combat. This was based on formulas that revealed a fighter aircraft's ability to maneuver, allowing direct comparison between different designs using simple metrics. This work became extremely influential over time, resulting in changes to the design of the F-15 Eagle, and producing the basic design parameters of the F-16 Fighting Falcon.[3]

    Much of the E-M theory was based on the idea of generating rapid "transients", continual changes in position and maneuvering. The idea was for a fighter pilot to keep the enemy continually guessing his intentions, thereby delaying the decision-making process to the point that the enemy would be unable to predict the future position of his aircraft. To do this, a fighter craft would need to be able to quickly gain or lose energy, as well as having a high roll rate in order to generate out-of-plane maneuvers.[4]

    Patterns is essentially a generalization of this concept, applying to the entire war fighting experience instead of a single dogfight.

    Introductory material

    Patterns opens with a short discussion of the E-M theory, although not by name. It calls for a fighter that can "choose engagement opportunities - yet has fast transient ... characteristics."[5] It continues by stating that the idea of fast transients in a fighter suggests that the key to winning any engagement is to have a faster tempo of operations. Boyd then introduces the concept of the OODA loop,[6] and suggests that a fast enough response loop can "[c]ollapse [the] adversary's system into confusion and disorder by causing him to over and under react to activity".[7] The aim was to make a series of actions that were so confusing that the enemy would expend too much of his resources on small actions and not enough on large ones, eventually causing his forces to be out-of-place and subject to encirclement.
    How many times have you learned, heard, or seen this in TCMA?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    How you are going to change should be in your "plan" already. You have to think how your opponent may think. When you make a move, what's will be your opponent's options to counter your move?

    Also you should "fight in your opponent's territory instead of to fight in your own territory". Most of the boxing guard that you use your both arms to protect your head, IMO, it's just too conservative approach.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,111
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    How you are going to change should be in your "plan" already. You have to think how your opponent may think. When you make a move, what's will be your opponent's options to counter your move?
    Yes, it is about strategy.

    This is reflected in the shift in military approach from war of attrition to war of maneuverability.

    Boyd basically criticized the prior approach as brute force against brute force.

    He highlighted the ancient asian military approach of the mind battle, preemptiveness, flexibility, and targeted strategy.

    Sounds familiar?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by -N- View Post
    Yes, it is about strategy.
    Sometime when I talk to someone from other style, I asked him what strategy that he may like to use. Most of the time, he would tell me that he has no strategy and he prefers to react according to his opponent's reaction. This reminds me that most of the sparring that I have seen

    - A kicks, B steps back, B immediately kick back after that.
    - A punches, B steps back, B immediately punch back after that.

    B may just fight the way that A wants him to fight without even notice it. The funny thing is B may have never trained any kicking in his life. B kicks A back because A kicks him first. B just wants to prove that he can kick too. This also can be seen in some bar fight too. A pushed B's chest, B immediately pushes A's chest back.
    Last edited by YouKnowWho; 09-20-2014 at 03:47 PM.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Great Lakes State, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,645
    Assume Nothing / Expect Everything: http://www.plumpub.com/kaimen/2011/n...ands-and-feet/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,111
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    Most of the time, he would tell me that he has no strategy and he prefers to react according to his opponent's reaction. This reminds me that most of the sparring that I have seen

    - A kicks, B steps back, B immediately kick back after that.
    - A punches, B steps back, B immediately punch back after that.
    This is very common. And people focus at the tactical level, and just try to be stronger/faster.

    From one of the article links posted:

    Taking control of the situation is key. It is not enough to speed through OODA faster -- that results in flailing.
    Flailing is very common.

    If you learn TCMA system, you should be learning the strategy of the system. Or else there is no system or style, just a collection of techniques.

    Often, people never get past technique level.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by -N- View Post
    If you learn TCMA system, you should be learning the strategy of the system. Or else there is no system or style, just a collection of techniques.

    Often, people never get past technique level.
    This is very true. A safe and successful entering strategy followed a effective finish strategy should be everything that we will need from our TCMA training.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •