WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?

[vic]

Chuck,

All I had was from the library and that was some time ago and my aging memory fails.

However from "Dirty Litle Secrets of WWII" (Dunnigan and Nofi, not a bad little read incidentally):

U.S Army Medical Service, Historical Unit "Wound Ballistics"
Washington, D.C, Office of the Surgoen General, 1962.
Alllegedly "not for the fainthearted"; covers WWII and Korea.

Also from "DLS of WWII" (page 58):

Regarding GI opinions of which weapons were feared:

"Artillery was the major cause of casualties among the infantry" [i read this as >= 50% - vv] "...mortars 17%...MG's 6%..."

same page...

"Interestingly none of the troops feared rifle fire or considered it 'dangerous'. This was also quite accurate. The most dangerous weapons were artillery (including mortars) and these accounted for over two thirds of all casualties."

Add in other fragmentation (grenades, mines, aircraft ordinance etc.) to the fragmentation numbers, take into consideration most bullet wounds came from MG's (sheer volume of fire) and there's precious little left for "rifle fire" and even that would include snipers.

The classic (tactical) method of inflicting casualties on advancing troops (especially in the open) was to pin them with MG fire and then mortar them. Obviously "advancing in the open" was avoided if at all possible. Company and battalion mortars were handy, responsive and very accurate, particularly in the hands of experienced crew.

The USMC made good use of the 60mm (two or three tubes per company) and first-person info on this can be found in "With The Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa" (the late E.B. Sledge, Marine mortarman, who later became IIRC a college professor, Presidio Press, November 1981. There is also a Bantam Press paperback version, crica 1983.)

Also from DLS of WWII (pp 237-238):

Re: German tactics

"Every infantry squad of ten [not twelve] men had an MG ...crew would always set up before the rest of the squad advanced. In defense, the rest of the squad was there mainly to defend and find targets for the MG. The platoon commander had his three squad MGs to work with and was trained to ensure that enemy troops would rarely avoid walking into a wall of MG fire. The Germans put a lot of thought and energy into placing their MGs...In effect a German infantry squad was just one big MG unit. The other men in the squad [provided protecion, spotted targets etc.] and of course carried a lot of [MG] ammunition. ...German units carried a lot more [MG] ammuntion with them than did comparable American outfits. On the battlefield, firepower was king and the Germans knew it."

hope this helps some. seems like i did a web search for detailed casualty stats a while back and didn't, strangely enough, come up with much sufficiently detailed information. maybe i quit too soon.

as an aside, i did a lot of testing in SPWW2 in an effort to get rifle fire casualties down but none of it did much good. i shortened rifle to range to 7 (the practical maximum anyway) and reduced HE kill to 0 and it was still very bloody, particularly at closer ranges.

part of this is due to the significant overstatement of rifles in a squad. e.g. the SPWW2 German squad "fires" 12 rifles. in fact a real squad had 7-8; 10 man squad with a two/three-man MG crew. (firepower-wise the SP squad is more like a 14-15 man group.) this was what gave rise to the "subtactical" (another post this thread) tests i did. in this i had fire teams (3-4 men) that had ONLY rifles/grenades and others that had ONLY an MG. this mitigated things somewhat casualty-wise (i.e. no slot 1 weapon x "men" PLUS MG in the same unit). however other issues (fragility, propensity to pin etc.) developed which made the try problematic.

perhaps another scheme might work, e.g. "men" in squad equals actual MINUS MG/"secondary weapon" crew. so a GE squad of 10 with rifle, MG, HG, RG would use an SP "men" value of 7 or 8. This would reduce rifle fire casualties and help the fragility issue (enough?). likewise a USMC squad of 12 with rifle, 2xBAR, HG, torch would use "men" = 9 (deduct 3 for the BARs and the flamethrower).

it's a lot of work doing all the modifying and testing and i kind of burned out on the last iteration.

good luck with your research and please share any good info/sources you may run across!

best,
vic

[chuckfourth]

Hi Vic
Thanks for the reply, one site I know of that may be of some interest to you is
http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/index.htm
Ill try to dig up the library stuff, but this can be difficult, might be better to look online as I know Ive seen some stats online but never bookmarked them, so the long search begins. Ill send on any links I find.
I do have a comment about artillery you may find interesting.
The statement "Artillery was the major cause of casualties among the infantry" probably deserves a little qualifying. Without seeing the references Id say that its not just the number of casualties thats important but -when- they occoured. At any one time, on most fronts most units sat opposite each other relatively inactive. During these periods other than occassional patrols and sniping the best way to "annoy" your opposite is to drop mortar rounds (or bigger if available) on him any time there is a gathering or any other opportune time. These casualties shouldnt be included in statistics presented to define in-game weapon effectiveness as the game models battles and these casualties occour outside of battles. The question remains of course, what proportion of artillery casualties occour within battles? I seem to remember seeing somewhere that it is actually quite small, but Ill try to confirm this. I also seem to recall reading somewhere that the Mortar was thoroughly hated by the infantry because of its use in this way as a tool of harrassment.
Best Regards Chuck.

[thatguy96]

For those of you who haven't seen it yet.

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...b=5&o=&fpart=1

[vic]

wow...have i really been gone this long? could be a sign that i am "getting a life".

Nick, as regards your observation about the "# of men in a hex", you are correct, to a point. i.e. larger UNITS will sustain more casualties than smaller ones. however, i believe when MULTIPLE UNITS are in the same hex no consideration is given to TARGET DENSITY. each squad is checked sequentially and casualties are assessed squad by squad. the result is that each squad's casualties are assessed as if they were the only squad in the hex; i.e. dispersed throughout the hex.

this ignores the fact that a crowded hex should produced more casualties PER UNIT because of the target density.

this can be tested by firing at a unit that is the sole occupant of a hex and comparing those results to firing on hexes that are packed with multiple squads. my testing indicates the RATE (% of total men in hex) of casualties per squad does not vary as target density increases. e.g. a single squad hex will take one casualty and a hex with 10 squads will take 10 casualties.

this is especially true in the case of arty/mortar fire on packed hexes which should produce much higher casualty RATES
as proportionally more men would be within a shell's blast radius.

best,
vic