Simulation-based comparison of doctrinal and boundary-consistent placement in finite linear hazard fields

This study compares a doctrinal placement rule and a new boundary-consistent placement rule for anti-vehicle effectors in a one-dimensional finite linear hazard field. Using Monte Carlo simulation, the comparison is performed in terms of hit probability during perpendicular vehicle traversal and per-effector efficiency across 36 combinations of field length and inter-effector spacing. In Model 1, effectors are placed according to the doctrinal rule with a fixed initial offset and a doctrinally defined effector count. In Model 2, placement is restricted to an admissible interior interval, and the row phase is adjusted by a constrained shift rule that preserves regular spacing while accounting for finite-length geometry. The simulations show that Model 2 outperformed Model 1 in all tested configurations, producing higher hit probability and higher per-effector efficiency throughout the full parameter grid, with the strongest gains observed for shorter rows. In addition, Model 2 yielded a highly stable per-effector efficiency profile for a given field length, whereas the doctrinal model generally became less efficient as spacing increased. These results indicate that the explicit treatment of finite-length boundary conditions is an important modelling factor in the effectiveness and efficiency of finite linear hazard field design under the adopted assumptions.