Concentrating simultaneous fire disfavors large weapons while duels favor them

Evidence

In animal duels, too, the best fighters usually win, whereas in scrambles they may not. Head-on encounters are relatively predictable and straightforward, without surprises. In these fights it is harder for a poor quality male to usurp a bigger, better male. As with ancient warriors, strength, stamina, and weapon size prevail. … All else being equal, we expect species where males fight each other one-on-one to be more likely to evolve extreme weapons than species where males fight less predictably. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 245 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

But it’s his linear law that is most relevant to the evolution of extreme weapons. By contrasting ancient and modern warfare, Lanchester helped define the circumstances in which large weapons will, and will not, be cost-effective. When opponents can concentrate their fire—gang up on an opponent simultaneously—investing in large weapons is probably a mistake. On the other hand, when soldiers duel each other at close range, face-to-face and one-on-one, then the better fighter is likely to win. Because fighting ability often depends on the size of a weapon, duels can lead to situations where bigger and bigger weapons prevail. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 238 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The genius of Lanchester’s models was his realization that the capacity to concentrate fire—to have multiple soldiers confronting a rival simultaneously—utterly changed the formula for victory. Based on his models, military strategists quickly recognized that investing substantially in the training and arming of individuals was not cost-effective, because the fighting effectiveness of each man was less likely to determine the outcome of battle than the numbers of men brought to the fight. Obviously, some training and equipment were needed, since soldiers armed more poorly than their opponents would be less effective. But given the choice of allocating resources to weapons and training, on the one hand, or to adding more soldiers on the other, the winning strategy was clear. Add more soldiers. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 236 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Burrow-guarding constrains fights to duels and drives weapon evolution; Big weapons only pay off when fights are one-on-one duels — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 238; Dueling plus competition and defensibility is the general rule for extreme weapons — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 266 (+8 more)

Related

• Big weapons only pay off when fights are one-on-one duels (similarity 0.94)
• One-on-one duels favor weapon evolution while chaotic scrambles do not. (similarity 0.92)
• Animal and human fights both hinge on whether duels or gang-ups occur (similarity 0.89)
• Dueling plus competition and defensibility is the general rule for extreme weapons (similarity 0.88)
• Medieval combat structured even battlefield clashes as ritualized one-on-one duels (similarity 0.87)
• When balancing selection fails, bigger weapons win every round and escalate the race. (similarity 0.87)
• Intense competition without duel structure does not drive weapon evolution. (similarity 0.86)
• Deterrence amplifies the evolutionary payoff of extreme weapon size. (similarity 0.85)
• Symmetrical one-on-one fights are a neglected prerequisite for weapon arms races (similarity 0.85)
• Concentrated fire makes quantity of soldiers beat individual weapon quality (similarity 0.84)
• Specific conditions are required before weapons escalate into an arms race (similarity 0.84)
• Cheap weapons let untrained commoners overcome heavily armored elites (similarity 0.83)
• Weapons work primarily as deterrents that prevent fights rather than win them (similarity 0.82)
• Three conditions must align to trigger an animal weapons arms race. (similarity 0.82)
• Fortification-artillery escalation mirrors predator-prey arms races, not rival contests (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• One-on-one duels favor weapon evolution while chaotic scrambles do not. #corroborates (0.90) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 245
• Big weapons only pay off when fights are one-on-one duels #corroborates (0.85) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 238
• Concentrated fire makes quantity of soldiers beat individual weapon quality #corroborates (0.80) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 236
• Symmetrical one-on-one fights are a neglected prerequisite for weapon arms races #expands (0.70) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 226
• Dueling plus competition and defensibility is the general rule for extreme weapons #expands (0.60) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 266
• Deterrence amplifies the evolutionary payoff of extreme weapon size. #expands (0.55) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 387
• Medieval combat structured even battlefield clashes as ritualized one-on-one duels #exemplifies (0.50)