.com.unity Forums - An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- WinSPMBT (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=78)

- - An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=49910)

An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

Hi all. This question has been bothering me for a while and I've brought it up before.

Infantry in WinSPMBT would seem ridiculously fragile at first glance, with a typical US infantry squad being able to cause hundreds of enemy casualties using its base ammo load. But when you consider that the vast majority of these "casualties" aren't actually killed or wounded, it starts to make sense.

Here are some examples plucked from the internet of how high combat ineffective rates are relative to direct casualties in combat.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...in-Combat-Loss

Quote:

During the Falklands in 1982, 2nd Battalion, Scots Guards (2SG) took Mt Tumbledown vs the crack Argentine 5th Marines Bn (5-BIM). In an epic combined arms night battle in tempatures down to -22F, each battalion suffered 10-20% casualties depending on how you look at it (Argentines took 30 killed, 30 captured, 100 wounded; the Scots had 9 killed and 40+ wounded including the hard losses the LF company who took the peak after 16 hours of combat). Although both units were absolutely drained the next day, they both stood ready to fight the next day and only the conclusion of hostilities prevented that. In the battle report Argentine Marine Commander Robacio wrote: "I was convinced that we could still resist" although his force had expended most of thier ammunition and stregth was down to 68% of what had started the campaign.

During Goose Green, 2 PARA suffered 17 killed (including the battalion commander) and 64 wounded out of approx 500 that took the field, a loss rate of more than 15%. Nevertheless the battalion went into battle successfully just two weeks later at Wireless Ridge, a serious battalion vs battalion sized action in which it suffered another 14 casualties. Then there is the similar losses of the Welsh Guards (32 killed) at Bluff Cove and that of 3PARA at Mount Longdon (23 killed, 47 wounded out of 450 men, more than 15%), and in both cases the two battered units struggled forward, still operational.

So from Falklands experince, that of a modern NATO military vs some of the best units of a modern Latin American military, it can be surmised that 15%-30% casulaties spread out across a battalion suck but can be pushed through.

This implies that a battalion is ineffective after losing about a third of its strength.

http://americandigest.org/mt-archive...econd_look.php

Quote:

European observers of the Civil War--many of whom were professional soldiers--were shocked at the casualties both Union and Confederate armies would suffer, but yet keep fighting. The European staff college assumption at the time was that if a unit sustained 10% casualties (dead, wounded, missing, captured), it would become combat ineffective and would have to be withdrawn from the line. Civil War units often suffered 30% casualties--sometimes higher--in the larger battles, but stayed in the fight as long as they were physically able to do so. One example from Gettysburg--the 1st Minnesota Regiment, 268 men, ordered by Gen. Hancock on July 2 to buy the Army of the Potomac five minutes to reinforce its lines. Attacking a Confederate brigade five times its size, the 1st Minnesota bought Hancock 15 minutes, by which time he had brought up enough troops to blunt the Confederate onslaught. But the 1st Minnesota paid in blood--out of 268, only 47 men were fit for duty after the engagement, an 82% casualty rate.

Apparently, it was once thought casualty rates as low as 1 in 10 could do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_stress_reaction

Quote:

The ratio of stress casualties to battle casualties varies with the intensity of the fighting, but with intense fighting it can be as high as 1:1. In low-level conflicts it can drop to 1:10 (or less).[citation needed]

So there is about one CSR casualty for every direct one.

Furthermore, there's several soldiers out of action taking care of each wounded.

And the section leader has a 50% chance of being injured once half of his squad are. So this doubles ineffectiveness rates.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XaY...ounded&f=false

In Chechnya, about 72% of soldiers suffered mental disorders after combat. That's about 3 psychological casualties for every healthy.

http://www.historynet.com/men-agains...ietnam-war.htm

Quote:

From these responses it seems that Americans in Vietnam had little hesitation to engage their enemy. Yet the observations of these veterans prompt the question of why, on average, nearly two of every 10 men were not firing when their unit was in contact. The apparent problem was not of the magnitude Marshall had reported for World War II, but losing the firepower of so many soldiers was still no small matter. In a unit with 500 riflemen, some 80 would not engage. Unlike the numbers from Marshall's work, these estimates came directly from the men who had fought in the cities, jungles, firebases and rice paddies of Vietnam. Why did so many not fire?

Only about 80% of a unit will actually use its weapons.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/9578...-to-in-real-in

Quote:

I think your thoughts regarding Suppression are about right, it represents squads finding cover, lacking cohesion and generally functioning at reduced effectiveness.

For me, Breaking a unit represents the unit realising its tactical situation is untenable and therefore it is either hunkering down to weather the storm or it is actively seeking to leave the immediate battlefield (depends which game you're playing!). Either way, the unit is certainly combat ineffective.

I don't think either situation necessarily involves casualties, or perhaps just a couple of 'light' wounds. I think eliminating a unit from a game represents squads that have taken 2-3 serious casualties / deaths, rather than the the entire unit being wiped out. In my 'real life' experience, the manpower required to stabilise, protect and evacuate multiple casualties very quickly reduces a unit's ability to conduct tactical manoeuvre beyond defending itself.

In a section of nine men, losses of about one in 4-5 can cripple its ability to maneuver.

So taken all together, a single killed or wounded casualty might wipe out an entire squad's effectiveness.

The high bullets/kill ratios in real armies may be analyzed in the same way.

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.ht...&f=16&t=323739

Quote:

US Forced to Import Bullets from Israel as Troops Use 250,000 for Every Rebel Killed
by Andrew Buncombe in Washington

US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.

Let's break this down.

For every kill, there's two wounded. That means 80,000 rounds per KIA/WIA.

For each of those, there's one CSR casualty. This means 40,000 rounds per combat ineffective.

20% of the enemy unit will not even fire its weapons in combat. So that means 30,000 rounds per each enemy actually fighting back.

There are about four people taken out of combat caring for each wounded. So that's 8,000 rounds.

After half the enemy unit is taken out, its squad leader is hit. So we're down to 4,000 rounds.

Once half of a company is taken out, the company commander is likely down. So that doubles the effectiveness of small arms fire down to 2,000 rounds.

Given that the battalion commander is likely to get hit on the front line, that's 1,000 rounds per "kill" to cripple a unit.

Finally, as little as a 10% casualty rate can make the unit ineffective. So in all, a unit can become disorganized after only 100 rounds fired at it per soldier.

Given that WinSPMBT sections have about ten men firing ten rounds each per shot, each WinSPMBT "shot" represents about 100 rounds fired. So the high hit rates in the game, near 100% with Western armies firing at targets in open terrain, make sense. Although the effects on the enemy unit may not be so evenly distributed in real life.

Anyway, this isn't really an objection to how the game works, it just shows how ingame infantry loss rates aren't that unreasonable for anyone else who may have the same question.

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

Its much more complex than that, training & what you are fighting for make a huge difference hence the reason we have experience & morale that varies by nation & time.
The amount of rounds fired always stagers me & its why armies went to semi auto rifles so suppression is more effective as that's what most shots are doing. Remember however these figures normally include the likes of MGs etc including vehicle & air.
Also the US army are a bit err liberal with their use of firepower.
On a side note Russia was not to worried about ATGMs till the stockpiles grew as they thought stocks would soon be depleted, many nations though still have very limited supplies.

Your Vietnam example is a good one & if I remember US army training was modified due to it.
In green units the figures were far worse more like only 3 or 4 men returned fire. This was also fairly common in WWII for a some nations.

When a unit becomes combat ineffective depends on many things, mainly training. But what you are fighting for also makes a big difference. Brain washed for a cause, defending home soil especially if your family is just behind your lines creates fanatics. Or as a major example whatever was instilled into the Japs in WWII. The US sending camera teams along with Marine landings etc is another example, Johnny's not going to hide in front of Ma & Pa.
Fighting to the last man & combat effectiveness are 2 different things however.
Kill the right man in a squad & it could become combat ineffective virtually straight away. Conversely if he survives its possible for him to instil acts of valour in a few remaining men.

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

Quote:

Your Vietnam example is a good one & if I remember US army training was modified due to it.
In green units the figures were far worse more like only 3 or 4 men returned fire. This was also fairly common in WWII for a some nations.

I did not know this. I had thought the Marshall results were totally bunk.

It makes sense that training would be a big factor. Also ammunition supply. Some of the insurgent armies in the game are very ragtag in real life with only a handful of bullets to go around per man.

The high ammunition expenditure in Western armies isn't that unique though.

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/26670-ammu...on-total-tons/

http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/WarEcon.html

Quote:

Of course germany had ammunition problems.... I mean, they were at war with 50 countries.... their guns were blazing nonstop for 6 years !!!!!!!!!!!!!! German gunfire killed and wounded about 30 million soldiers.

In 1944 germany produced more ammunition than anybody. However, they were at war with everybody, so they had to produce more ammunition because they fired their guns more. ;)

Ammunition production 1944 (for ground forces):

Heavy rounds:

Germany - 108 million rounds
US - 85 million rounds
Britain - 11.3 million rounds

All types:

Germany - 281.1 million rounds
US - 227.3 million rounds
USSR - 94.8 million rounds

tons:

Germany - 3.35 million tons (for ground and air forces), guess 2 million for ground
US - 1.45 million tons (only ground forces)

Small arms:

Germany - 5.28 billion rounds
US - 6.57 billion rounds
Britain - 2.46 billion rounds

In 1943:

all types:

Germany - 217.7 million rounds
US - 156.9 million rounds
USSR - 85.8 million rounds

tons:

Germany - 2.8 million tons (inclusive)
US - 0.8 million tons (only ground forces)

So really everyone was throwing thousands of rounds at the enemy for each kill. This makes sense I suppose in mechanized forces where an APC or truck is available for rearmament and high rates of fire are sustained for several days during a given battle.

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

[quote=Mustang;821355]

Quote:

Not really,in the RL aspect.
Consevation of ammo was a big issue late in the war for germany as most of her factories were bombed,it got so bad that they had reserve fire until certain of a hit or else had little else for defence.
In game terms,this is not reflected,except some air units evaporate, but not many have had an issue with supplies,,, not all nations can be tracked per date time and avail. supplies of said nation.

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

Combat effectiveness is at it's base a factor of morale. And morale is made of a number of factors, some being...

Training
Dedication to their cause
Knowledge of what your opponent will do to you if you lose
Loyalty to your squad mates

If you look thru history you can find numerous examples where even one of these factors gave one side an advantage. And others where the same factor causes one side to route after superficial contact with their opponent.

WinSPMBT gives each nation/OOB a Training and Morale level, which can be, and in many cases is. altered decade by decade. In addition certain formations can be given modifiers (positive or negative) to the national defaults. Older versions of the game even had a "breaking point" where a sides moral collapsed and they broke easier and were harder to rally once a certain level of losses was reached (and I for one rather wish it still existed - it's annoying to have to kill every single unit or wait for the turn limit to bring a scenario to and end).

Ammo usage really tends to be a factor of training and availability.
Western nations tend to have superior logistics thus can afford to use more ammo. But take something like the SAS or SEALs and they can produce amazing results with very little ammo, they're trained to use their weapons efficiently AND know they have the ammo they're carrying and aren't likely to get a resupply.

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 821358)

.......

Older versions of the game even had a "breaking point" where a sides moral collapsed and they broke easier and were harder to rally once a certain level of losses was reached (and I for one rather wish it still existed - it's annoying to have to kill every single unit or wait for the turn limit to bring a scenario to and end).
.......

Nope, the feature is still there in both WinSPWW2 & MBT.

I have experienced many cases where enemy formations (even those perfectly healthy squads) were retreating and routing all the time after a general collapse (too many casualties, unit leaders chopped off, etc).

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

Quote:

Training
Dedication to their cause
Knowledge of what your opponent will do to you if you lose
Loyalty to your squad mates

Forgot about point 3 & point 4 has more merit than you might think.

On ammo use comes down to training & doctrine I suppose.
Covering or suppressive fire is doctrine if its done on purpose.
Simplifying it theres probably 2 mayor types of troops.
Those that pop their head up take a quickly aimed or pot luck shot & duck down behind cover before they get shot.
&
The ones that stay on post waiting for the guy they have seen doing the above to put his head up again in the same place.

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

Interesting thought exercise. I have to say I never considered the infantry in game too fragile. If at all, I usually find myself wondering who in the world would keep fighting like some troops do in game. Assaulting AFVs, a common occurrence in game, seems pure insanity to me...Than again I generally consider infantry types to be a bit nuts:)

Frankly, I think alot depends on the time and place, not only the unit itself. I believe the same unit can break from 10% loss or keep fighting with 30% losses. IRL if you took 10% but you see that really the only possible outcome is death and defeat you will probably route, on the other hand if you take 30% casualties but the battle is still winnable you may very well fight on...Consider that the IDF 188th armored fought on until it was physically gone- 90% or so tank loss(started the 1973 war with ~70 tanks and finished with less than 10, removed from IDF OOB officially!).

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

which come to think about, and sorry for double posting, brings me to a very important thing about combat ineffectiveness- the better trained your lower rank commanders are, the less effect losses have. Some 2nd and 3rd rate forces just dont have anyone to replace battalion and company COs...so if they die or get injured the whole unit is worthless. This is due to lower officers and NCOs being basically poorly trained or worse encouraged to blindly obey orders from upper levels without independent thought.

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightDeve (Post 821365)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 821358)

.......
Older versions of the game even had a "breaking point" where a sides moral collapsed and they broke easier and were harder to rally once a certain level of losses was reached (and I for one rather wish it still existed - it's annoying to have to kill every single unit or wait for the turn limit to bring a scenario to and end).
.......

Nope, the feature is still there in both WinSPWW2 & MBT.

Hummm ... can't say as I've ever noticed the opposition break in WinSPMBT. Or maybe on the occasions a battle is so one-sided they do break I'm destroying them to fast for the break to be noticed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gingertanker (Post 821392)

This is due to lower officers and NCOs being basically poorly trained or worse encouraged to blindly obey orders from upper levels without independent thought.

I know in the 70's we (USMC) were taught to pay special attention to officers when dealing with Soviet style opposition.
I'm not saying this analysts was correct, merely that it was what we were taught.

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

Quote:

The Vietnamese quickly cottoned on to this & is that not a snipers main role. Surveillance if at all possible reduce morale & efficiency by effectively cutting off the head.

Cant remember where exactly but on D-Day some paras landed well off target & were attacked by 2nd line troops. Stroke of luck they found the command post & put a bazooka round into it, the attack collapsed shortly after.

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

Definitely a snipers role. Post Vietnam USMC snipers act more as scouts. Thus unless it's a really high value target, they're specifically on a Sniper mission, or the feces has hit the fan they don't bother with junior officers.
But if you notice someone giving orders (s)he becomes your primary target.

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

:) and with all my great luck I was moved from being a tank commander to riding with the Battalion CO...:) Bullet magnet.

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

Generally infantry toughness in the game seems random. I've seen infantry squads being shot and shelled in the open for a turn with no or one casualty and I've seen them wiped out with a single salvo or lucky artillery shell in other insances(I still remember a japanese 155mm shell wiping out an 8 man soviet mechanised rifle squad that I of course commanded...).

And I generally think of casualties as dead and wounded, with the sole exception of the few stragglers disappearing from a badly hammered unit, or the ones that surrender. Rate of casualties seems very accurate to me tbh...

Re: An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

Quote:

Generally infantry toughness in the game seems random

Not completely, yes their are a lot of random factors but experience plays a big part.
Try playing with the same units one side set to 65 experience & the other 120, actually that wont work they will be more accurate to
Buy the above & switch weapons off or modify so cant fire back. now use them as target practice & you will discover the experienced guys avoid more incoming.