Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

I disagree with Germany's position. IMHO this has more to do with German army's reputation rather than their current capabilities. Germany belongs to the near-peer status.

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

In considering the OP question and not addressing terminology, I have thought of this.

We know how public reaction in the US to the casualty levels in Iraq and Afghanistan was portrayed.

I just quickly grabbed these numbers to see how it related as a % of total force.

1,429,995 total US Military Strength (at some point)

AFGHANISTAN

2,386 KIA in Afghanistan as of October 18th, 2016
20,049 WIA

22,435 total 2.46 % of total force


IRAQ

4,424 KIA as of June 29, 2016
31,952 WIA

36,376 total 6.47 % of total force

So if you are searching for a figure to be an upper limit of unacceptable casualties (US), perhaps 2% for start of political dissent, 6% for serious dissent and 10% for collapse of government? (4% between the different levels) of total forces involved.

Not etched in stone, just a quick calculation to test the theory.

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

I'd look at Vietnam too.

9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the official Vietnam era from August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975.
2,709,918 Americans served in uniform in Vietnam.
58,148 were killed in Vietnam.
75,000 were severely disabled.
23,214 were 100% disabled.

But there is one MAJOR factor numbers can't account for.
Public perception.
If the public totally supports (WW II), generally supports (the "War on Terror"), is kept generally ignorant (the Russia vs the Ukraine), or is generally opposed (Vietnam) to a war the "acceptable casualties" vary considerably.

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

I agree that it is a very 'sliding scale' type of approach. Historical battles could more easily be analyzed to use this method as a rough guide to determine victory/defeat levels by casualties rather than victory points.

To increase casualty effects in the game currently a creator must edit the units to increase a loss effect to be greater/less for a particular side.

It could be done easier if an option in the game could be added during battle/scenario/campaign creation to add/decrease victory point modifiers between the forces to give more/less weight to casualty points for a side or even a 'political effect' modifier to reflect external support or even world reaction to a conflict.
This could offer battles that a player could tactically win but suffer defeat or draw in a larger context. Could add three victory results? Military (or tactical)/Strategic/Political ? Decisive Military Victory/Strategic Draw/Political Minor Defeat ?

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

Interesting.

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

Not sure it could be done in a scenario but you could in a campaign as you can set the victory levels.

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

You can do it yourself just set up Excel with the formulas you want & enter the scores.

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

Thinking it further, maybe different terms for each?
military battle results: (current) decisive defeat/minor defeat/draw/minor victory/decisive victory
Strategic: planning disrupted/operations delayed/no effect/ position improved/ operational advantage
Political: world condemnation/ citizen dissension / draw/ prestige gain/ global acclaim

Anyone with better terms?

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

I may steal the Political ones for the opening scenario in my forever-in-development campaign.

After all gunning down hordes of rock tossing civilians that may be in your way is generally frowned on ... well ... most places.

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

Defining battle results in terms of political, military, and strategic is intriguing. Imp has suggested scenario designers use Excel in an effort to determine the outcomes of a battle within the game.

In the game guide the difference of damage points determines the outcome as either “Decisive Victory (8:1 ration),” “Marginal Victory (less than 8 but greater than 2),” “Draw (less than 2 but greater than 1),” and a “Defeat (less than 1).”

Not much wiggle room for a draw, but a designer could slice up the categories to include additional definitions with a lot of space to play with in decisive victory and defeat, with about 6 points to play within the marginal victory category, but we have no room for a draw to add additional categories.

I’ve been playing with what I call a “Battle Calculation Sheet” that calculates the difference between total scores of the two sides as follows:

=IF($N11/$O11>7.999,"DV",IF($N11/$O11<1,"DF",IF(AND($N11/$O11<=8,$N11/$O11>=2),"MV",IF(AND($N11/$O11<=2,$N11/$O11>=1),"DR")))).

Column N and O contain cells of the total scores between the two sides.
DV is a decisive victory, DF is a defeat, MV is a marginal victory, and DR is a draw.

Next step would be to pin down, based upon force values how much damage is acceptable within the scenario to say obtain a political, military, or strategic advantage.

=====

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

Can set values as you like if want more outcomes, The Blitz Score Sheet uses
Overwhelming
Decisive
Medium
Minor
Draw
So a total of 9 outcomes

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

I have not advanced the Battle Calculation Sheet beyond the Excel formula herein. What I'd like to do is develop a method to determine acceptable outcomes based upon initial force values between the two sides.

Given that, the sheet could be used to assess acceptable loss as we've discussed thus far, in particular, to what jp10, and other commentors have brought to the table.

=====

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

Mispost

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

I believe this discussion really is appropriate when talking about a dominant power vs a non-peer adversary, as we'd find in the most recent SEAL operation in Yemen. There, we had Senator McCain of Arizona decrying the raid as a failure using the following language: "When you lose a $75 million airplane and, more importantly, an American life is lost and wounded I don't believe you can call it a success...” Collins, Eliza, USA Today 9 Feb 2017.

So, I'm thinking in game terms, can losses be expressed as a ratio against the force value.


Where, FL is force losses and FV is the force value. The FL then would be determined by FVa - FVb. Such that, FVa is the initial force value at start of battle and the FVb is the force value at end of game.


Now, if we could evaluate the ratio in an expression.


We could say, for example that this battle earned (in jp10's language) "global acclaim."

=====

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

I'll frequently adjust Searching for 1st World forces to 150% when fighting vs 3rd World.

Depending on which 3rd World forces we're talking about I may adjust their Hitting to 60-80%, for say Vietnam I wouldn't adjust at all, for some Arabic forces I'll reduce their accuracy as many make extensive use of the "unaimed spray and pray" method.

I almost never adjust Tank Toughness, they may not be as reliable but that doesn't effect their armor.

I often increase Infantry Toughness to 120% to represent body armor, tho I sometimes reduce opposition Infantry Toughness to 80% instead if I'm dealing with say Korean War human wave type situations.

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

Personally I just chalk this sort of thing up to political maneuvering. Believe me, SEALs know what they're signing up for, and while the loss of a man pains them they don't consider it remotely unacceptable or unexpected if their mission was accomplished. And I seriously doubt anyone in any of the worlds "elite commando" organizations view it any differently.

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

I would think he would be hesitant to talk about losing aircraft.
He lost two Navy aircraft while piloting them. One crash was found to be be McCain's fault, the other due to an engine failure of undetermined cause. He also returned from a training mission to the USS Intrepid with a busted oil line and trailing several feet of electrical cables. Seems he knocked down some power lines while flying too low over southern Spain. As he later wrote. "My daredevil clowning had cut off electricity to a great many Spanish homes and created a small international incident."

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

I am changing FL from (FVa-FVb) to SCb/FVa, where SCb represents the Standard Score of player B and FVa is the Force Value of player A.

Now, we may easily get the forces lost of player A, as the standard score of player B from the Battle Report screen at end of game. The force value of player A is obtained from the Editor in the Deploy screen at the end of game (to keep yourself honest) as well.

With such a tool, we may talk about the military outcomes as taken from the Battle Report and political outcomes as taken from manual calculations, to be determined by the scenario designer, or between players in a PBEM game.

=====

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

Finally, after playing several scenarios whilst in the process of authoring a few, I turned my attention to the Battle Calculation Sheet to develop a tool whereby players may account for political consequences, in particular where dominant forces engage non-peer adversaries.

The Excel worksheet is self explanatory. I have protected Columns C, D, and K as these cells contain formulas. The other cells are open to insert data.

<br>
The political results are coded from suggestions from this thread as follows:

GA Global Acclaim
PG Prestige Gain
AP Apathy
CD Citizen Dissension
WC World Condemnation


The Data tab houses the settings for the political and military outcomes.


<BR>

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

This spreadsheet is pretty fun, I like it!

Steves308

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

In Avi Kober's (2008) 'The Israel defense forces in the Second Lebanon War: Why the poor performance?' frames a compelling discussion whose nexus is that Western soldiers fighting a "non-existential" war are not willing to scarifice fellow soldiers to accomplish the unit's mission.

According to IDF’s Chief of the Manpower Branch Major General Elazar Stern, part of the explanation for the IDF’s failure in the war was over-sensitivity to casualties.

An investigation committee headed by Major General (res.) Yoram Yair found that during the war commanders’ sense of responsibility for the lives of their troops over shadowed their commitment
to fulfill their missions.

The ‘post-heroic’ style of warfare, which characterized the Israeli conduct of the Second Lebanon War, is not a new innovation. Post-heroic warfare has two main rules: (a) the avoidance of casualties to your own troops, and (b) the avoidance of killing enemy civilians.

Its roots are demographic, social and moral, and it is characteristic of Western democracies conducting non-existential wars in which their readiness to sacrifice is relatively low, as per Edward Luttwak who penned the term "post-heroic warfare." Accordingly, when an IDF company attacked the mountain town of Bint Jbeil in the Second Lebanon War, losing eight men in one night, that number was perceived in Israel and broadcast around the world as a disastrous loss.

Juxtapose the scarifice of American forces on D-Day, an operation deemed "existential" where most reports put fatalities at 29000 while all of Iraq war we find reports of 4800 deaths.

Or, consider the lines of Americans during the weeks following December 7, 1942 against the paltry number of volunteers following 9/11.

Hence, we may have an additional tool, "non-existential" or "post-heroic" warfare to understand the complexities of what are acceptable casualities today.

Kober is from the Department of Political Studies and, BESA Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.


<br>

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

US fatalities were 29,000 on D-Day? Some sources say more like 10,000-plus total casualties with over 4,000 KIA. Similar casualties for the Germans. Please correct me if that's wrong.

Quibble aside, the concept of post-heroic or non-existential warfare bears repeating. Without the prospects of plunder or glory it's hard to see how Western troops' morale and motivation can be maintained on a battlefield. Perhaps special forces with classic warrior's spirit and a taste for danger are the answer? In any case missiles, jets, drones, long-range artillery and eventually robots may render the question moot as warfare becomes increasingly mechanized. Stay tuned.

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

You know I have to wonder about this all somewhat. I really don't think these judgements can really be made until that war or this war is actually going on. I was just a young kid watching the nightly news on TV during the Vietnam War,I saw the cost in human lives, the wounded who'd never be whole again, the compassion of those same troops, the fear, the guilt, the sacrifice, devotion to duty, the loss and the will to live and so much more. I do believe for anyone that has served many of these traits are within themselves. It's the motivation to get the job done when you no longer believe the mission can be accomplished in a tactical or strategic sense. They were 19 years of age four years younger than when I began my career. They are still now getting the job done and sacrificing again as they have down the ages and unfortunately will into the future.

I posted in the Vietnam Forum about the PBS covering the war. A Marine described how he was wounded in an ambush, two sacrificed themselves to save him, a third finally did after being severely wounded himself in all three cases they kept that Marine alive by throwing their bodies over his.

As an NVA soldier I think rightly pointed out at the end of the segment "...the only people who care about winning or losing are those who've never fought."

Until actually tested none of us will know how we'll react, we can just hope we'll do the right thing if tested. My motivation is simply, just to come home to CINCLANTHOME at the end of the day, though I hope I'll never have to find out if that's enough or not. I feel based on some of the people I work with, know otherwise and from watching programs as noted above, it seems that "motivation" driven by whatever reason(s) seems to be a constant theme.

When the KURSK sank (2000) in relatively shallow water (Where a DSRV/or other can reach you.) we joked about the poorly built in some cases Russian subs. We did know however, they were at a depth where rescue of the crew could have easily been achieved. We would find out during the event how badly damaged she was, and out of respect not one person working for me (All Submariners.) didn't think how sorry we felt for those dead and their families, and how angry we became at the lack of response by their government and the refusal by them for not allowing us and others to send in our equipment to effect and assist in rescue operations for the survivors.

We all accept the risks, that's why they weed out the ones that can't from Sub School on. As the days went on we all also knew the various stages the crew was going through in the slow death they were experiencing (We're trained in such matters.). No one did anything and a 118 never went home alive to their loved ones.

That's respect for their service, bravery and empathy for their situation until the very end.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/mil...ter-watch.html

Those are the words I hear.

I don't know and where ever my Dad I know he's glad I never found out, but I can tell you he respected those 19 year old kids he was training to go to Vietnam after all the combat he saw in three wars.

Which ever side they are on, I feel they'll do their duty for whatever their motivation is given the proper tools to do the job and the leadership to guide them.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

It's all very VERY situational.

Even the exact same unit fighting a near identical battle may, and often does, behave differently during each. There are so many factors it's impossible to even list them all much less quantify them. This of course never seems to deter the Armchair Quarterbacks.

Yes, you can make generalized assessments based on training, leadership, equipment, and "national character". But anything more precise is nothing but guesswork.

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

I hear you loud and clear. And, that sentiment is much aligned with the Israeli investigation of the poor performance of her forces in the 2008 Second Lebanon War.

From Kober's much cited report we find the following: "An investigation committee headed by Major General (res.) Yoram Yair found that during the war commanders’ sense of responsibility for the lives of their troops over shadowed their commitment to fulfill their missions."

The assertion, "...they'll do their duty for whatever their motivation is given the proper tools to do the job and the leadership to guide them," coincides with the conclusion reached in the Yair report as I have noted here; namely, that the leader's respnsibility to their troops mitigated their mission objective.

In short, the Israeli soldiers were led by commanders who did not press on with the mission, but as that company that suffered eight casualties one night at Bint Jbeil the company commander halted and withdrew.

There is no question Western armies are casualty adverse.

What we would like to do is capture the effect of a casualty adverse force in the game.

Other than introduce an additional scoreboard such as the Battle Calculation Sheet, scenario designers could significantly increase the cost of Western forces, in particular infantry units.

As an example, a USMC Fire Team cost would rise to 577 from 77.

<Br>

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

Easy enough to do for your own purposes.

Just go into the editor and double, triple, whatever, the cost of units.

I've done the opposite in one scenario I tested. Since you can't have a negative unit cost I set the insurgent forces to zero and the battle results are used backwards.
I.E. You get a high score you lose the battle (too much bad press from murdering unarmed civilians).

Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
 

Exactly, no need to alter core values since you can do that to your interest in the scenario/campaign design scene so far.