Morale Issues

[Mobhack]

game does call losses 'kills' but that is an abstraction to cover all possible reasons why soldiers become combat ineffective.

Actually, one of the first things we did way back in spww2 days, was to change "killed" to "casualties".

Otherwise - you are correct, in that some of the casualties will be those rendered combat-innefectives for some reason or other, such as helping wounded to the rear, or being wounded or battle-shocked etc, rather than just dead.

It also answers the question some folk ask "how does a section which is reduced to one "man" fire rifles, an LMG and maybe a LAW on its first shot opportunity of a turn" - the section may have only one man listed, but there will be some "hangers on". The one man is either one effective, or better yet - think of the crew count as an indicator of "hit points remaining" rather than some accountant's bean-count view of actual men left standing. Real war is messier than that neat ledger-book approach.

So the one man remaining is effectively one hit point remaining. i.e. that section is verging on being wiped out, not that the section has only one lonely guy carrying lots of weaponry in it. Sone of the other 9 men of the section may well still be hanging around, but are not effectively contributing to the battle any more.



Cheers
Andy

[nosrac]

andy,
thanks for that clear representation of just what casualties are. just curious, if at all possible. would it be possible to have on the battle summary screen a break down of
"killed-wounded-surrendered" instead of just casualties. of course these numbers would be abstract but other games like combat mission have it in battle summarys. just a thought.

thanks
chuck

[Krotos]

This is all very illuminating -- and much appreciated. I think I now have a much better idea of what is going on with respect to casualties in the game.

I would however, echo Chuck's request for a casualty breakdown (if possible to code).

[Randy]

Another point is that of the Japanese during WWII. Faced with overwelming odds, the Japanese troops continued to fight. They fought and died for the Emperor, and to not do so, was considered to be cowardly. Also, while many knew they could no defeat the US, their purpose was to kill as many Americans as possible in order to cause so many casualties that the US would quit.

[andy1964]

Hi,

Just thought I'd put in another point on this.

During WW2, SLA Marshall (Brig General, US ARMY) conducted interviews with troops of the 7th Infantry division after Kwajalein. A book was written,whuch described this, called Island Victory.

During the interviews it was found that only about 25% of the men in any formation actually took an active part in any combat. (one stat was 36 guys out of a battalion actually fired weapons against a Japanese massed assault)

The rest didn't run or anything, but they didn't actually fire a weapon.

Marshall, with further research figured the number was closer to 5% of men were actually effective in combat. These were the guys who won the battles.

So in one way, yes we have a unit of men under arms, but the highly motivated ones will still be attacking or defending after the rest have gone to cover. The rest, with no disrespect intended, are filling in places and soaking up fire.

Training regimes were put in place to deal with this issue after this research was published. But due to differing standards across armies I would imagine this still applies in some cases.

This issue was the subject of one of the Sandhurst wargames, published back in the early 80's by a guy called Paddy Griffiths. (Designed by the Sandhurst wargames club) I Believe Paddy was a lectured there as well as an avid wargamer and writer on the military subjects.

So yes I can see justification for a force that has been beat up on to continue attacking or defending. It's not the mass who are doing it but the motivated 5%.

TY
Andy

PS and yes it still bugs the hell out of me that those guys don't run away and I have to hunt them down to win the game :-)

[Bishop746]

Marshalls book is highly controversial when it was published and has been cited by many respected historians. It wasnt until Dr. Roger Spiller did a study on Marshalls claims did anyone realize there was a problem.

Here is a link with a brief of Dr. Spillers results. I personally dont know who is right but I do know Marshalls book is not accepted by some military historians and sociologist.

http://www.warchronicle.com/us/comba...rshallfire.htm

[andy1964]

Ty Bishop,

Will have a look at that one, had a quick read of it for now, will delve into it more later.

Not sure who is right there, will leave it to better brains than me to figure it out :-)

If Spiller is right then I guess the gullible include lecturers at Sandhurst RMA.

TY
Andy