An example of combat ineffective rates in real combat

[gingertanker]

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!).

[gingertanker]

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.