3:1 attack ratio

[JonS]

You're a Major and he's a Captain. You've got three company-noses, he's got one, so you're good to go. Oh, whoops ... you command an infantry unit, the captain is tanks, and we're on a pool table. Oh, whoops, you're out of supply, and the captain is fully bombed up. Etc.

[Michael Emrys]

Every CM battle represents a mistake in planning. Right?

Not when I play. My troops are nearly always the beneficiaries of superior command and logistic services.

Michael

[Sgt Joch]

After the war, the Soviets stated that a minimum 3:1 ratio was necessary in the attack, namely, as stated above a battalion to attack a company or a regiment to attack a battalion, i.e.:

This is from the U.S. Army's FM 100-2-1 which is based on several Soviet Army military manuals. The 3:1 combat ratio is calculated on "combat power", not number of men and is considered the minimum to be able to continue the attack.

In 41-42, the Germans were often outnumbered on an operational level, but achieved combat ratios of up to 20-30:1 at the 2 or more operational breakthrough points. This was achieved by choosing a reatively weak sector and massing forces against it. Realistic, but it does not make for a very fun CM battle.

Once a breakthrough had been achieved and the follow on armor forces were loose in the enemy's rear, the remaining defending units had to choose between retreat or encirclement.

This "formula" has basically been copied by pretty much every competent army since.