Source for real world small action casualty rates

[Michael Emrys]

This is one of the reasons I wish we had the option to keep some sort of indication in the UI of "KIA/WIA/MIA" men.

There is...sort of. It does require a modicum of self control though, which I know puts it out of reach for a few of you.

Save the turn and then request a ceasefire. If playing against the AI you will get it immediately. If playing against a live opponent, it will require trust and understanding between the players.

But if you get it, you can see the estimated number of KIA/WIA/Missing for both sides. I say 'estimated' because if you apply buddy aid rigorously to wounded men, some of them will survive the game and move from the KIA column to the WIA column.

Not exactly what you are asking for, I know. And you mustn't look at the map, since that would give way too much information about the other side. But it is a way to keep track of casualties as the game progresses. After you have perused the numbers, quit and then restart from the saved turn.

Michael

[Lt Belenko]

I once saw an interview of Atkins. He was saying:

.... When you read something like "The lead scouts of company encountered resistance and the attack stalled. Additional artillery softened up the position before the attack resumed" That really means 1 or 2 scouts were killed soon after leaving the line of demarcation and the rest of the men returned (ran back to) to their foxholes. Strikes were called in and 4 hours later the CO convinced everyone to move again. But tha army historians couldn't say the men ran away after a 1% casuality rate. But it happened. ....

That's about the scenario Atkins described.

Like a few others have mentioned not much fun for a game, but some serious self preservation. I think his example also shows how morale or lack there of can quickly spread through a larger unit rather than a single squad as depicted in the game. A good example of a whole unit losing morale all at once in the BOB series at Caratean where Fox or Golf company are see running just before the US armor shows up. This "retreat now" behavior for a larger unit really keeps causality rates way down.

[warrenpeace]

OK, I have some real data. This comes from the US 5th armored division and I found it at this website: http://www.5ad.org

Using this data I was able to reconstruct the daily death figures for each of the three armored infantry battalions. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_KJOCFn8XLUWlN3akhrMDVaR3c/edit?usp=sharing . Note these are only deaths per day, not total casualties. Also, not all deaths have dates associated with them (seems that if the body was buried back in the states they do not have the exact date of death). For, the 47th 21% of the names have no dates, while for the 46th and 15th it is just under 40%.

Based on this data, the worst day for any battalion was Dec 11 in which the 15th Infantry had 17 killed. If we assume that the missing 40% was randomly distributed this means that about 28 were killed. If we make the additional assumption of a killed to wounded ratio of 1:3 this means that there were about 112 casualties that day. A armored infantry battalion at full strength had about 1000 men, so that would equate to 11.2% casualties. Of course there is no way to know how these casualties were distributed in the battalion. If they were all concentrated in the two of the companies (the third one being held in reserve), the company casualty rates could be considerably higher. Even so, these rates still seem higher than a typical CM attack.

I am becoming more convinced that the accuracy of fire should be decreased.

[womble]

Decreasing the accuracy of small arms fire will only have a marginal effect on the casualty figures, since most casualties are caused, even on the CM map, by HE. The next highest cause is automatic weapon fire, the lethality of which we just argued up (overall, by increasing the accuracy of MGs). Rifles, and even squad LMGs score very low numbers of actual casualties, and my WAG would be that most of the casualties attributable to rifle team fire are caused by grenades and close range SMG fire, which are meant to be bloody lethal.

IME, high casualty figures are caused by either the player or the AI. When a player screws up, entire platoons can be chopped up, even by small arms-only fire (but mostly by continuing to attempt to move when the spotting rounds started dropping). The AI regularly persists in sending troops forward where a human player would learn to use a different route after the first minute of massacre.

Even when mistakes aren't being made, the VCs often encourage grinding your forces into the dirt. If you add force preservation VPs to both sides, it becomes tempting to nullify them by making the opposition miss their parameter too, the moment you lose more than your threshold, turning the battle back into a VL/destroyed comparison (in most cases). Finer-grained VL assignment with several small objectives rather than one "winner takes all" one might help.

All scenarios need some sort of "story-based" context within which to judge success or failure, if that sort of assessment is at all relevant to the participants. Turning the wider situation as presented in the briefing into a schema of VPs for both sides is quite a dark art, though.

[A Canadian Cat]

That really means 1 or 2 scouts were killed soon after leaving the line of demarcation and the rest of the men returned (ran back to) to their foxholes. Strikes were called in and 4 hours later the CO convinced everyone to move again. But tha army historians couldn't say the men ran away after a 1% casuality rate. But it happened. ....

It is our divergence from this ^^^ that is why our numbers diverge so much from historical. How many times has a squad taken two or three casualties and you have ordered them to continue the attack right the next turn? 100% of you - that's what I thought.

Real soldiers don't normally do that and their NCOs don't even order them to. They make sure they have good cover from whatever caused those casualties and then they make sure their buddies are taken care of. Then after many minutes have passed and more of their unit has arrived to help they start to make plans to move forward again.

[Broadsword56]

Great thread, excellent and impassioned cases being made on all sides.

But this topic has gone around and around, in various forms, for years now.

To me the bottom line is: Don't even bother posting a "Hey, CM is flawed because the casualty rates are unrealistic!" until:

1. Your example is from HTH play in a battle, not a lab-style test on a bare map.

2. Both human players are trying in earnest to use realistic period doctrine and tactics.

3. The OOB and equipment are not QB point purchases, but derived from something that actually happened or might reasonably have happened in real life.

4. The map is adequately sized and based (as closely as the map editor makes possible) on the actual terrain.

5. The battle objectives and time allowed are appropriate for each side's force and capabilities.

Maybe *then* it might be possible to make some credible case one way or the other, after numerous playthroughs.

But not many players seem to want to play the game that way, and I can see why. It would be a lot of work, a lot less fun for them, and to what purpose?

I like it when these discussions unearth new statistics and references, though, and when they stimulate people to learn more about what happened in WW II. That's really constructive.

[warrenpeace]

Broadsword-I think your suggestion is very reasonable.

Womble-Is it really true that most casualties in CM are caused by HE? I don't think this is true in most of my games unless there is a lot of off map artillery. Also, did they increase the accuracy of MGs or their ability to suppress? I thought it was the later, and this led indirectly to the former, i.e. guys get pinned down and therefore are targets longer.

Finally, I wonder how weapons accuracy in CM2 is actually modeled and its relationship to suppression effects? Can accuracy be decreased without affecting levels of suppression or are they intrinsically linked? Also, do units that are "rattled" have less accuracy than ok units, or is it that they simply shoot less and run away more?

[Childress]

It is our divergence from this ^^^ that is why our numbers diverge so much from historical. How many times has a squad taken two or three casualties and you have ordered them to continue the attack right the next turn? 100% of you - that's what I thought.

That really says it all.

[JasonC]

warrenpeace - another example. JonS recommended a fine book on the Italian campaign (including Sicily) called "A Hard Way to Make War". Page 96, discussing the toughest fight to crack the German mountain line, reads in relevant part -

"The 1st Canadian division with the British 231st Infantry Brigade, attacking as part of Eighth Army's XXX Corps, captured the mountain-top town of Agira on 28 July. It had taken 5 days of fighting and commitment of all three of the Canadian Division's brigades, and it had cost the Canadians 438 battle casualties and the 231st brigade some 300... This was the Canadian Division's toughest battle on Sicily..."

4 infantry brigades means 12 infantry battalions, 5 days of fighting, 738 battle casualties. 738 divided by 60 total available battalion-days means an average loss rate of 12.3 men down per battalion-day. Note however the higher figure for the 231st Brigade, which averages 20 per battalion day, vs 9.73 for the average Canadian battalion-day. That probably reflects a similar loss experience but more rotation for the Canadians - if their battalions were in action successively rather than simultaneously, etc.

20 men down per battalion day, was the heaviest fighting of the campaign. Losing 738 men in less than a week to take one town is certainly expensive fighting in every human and operational sense - but we hit that level with loss figures for an engaged infantry battalion in one day's fighting around 20. CM players think nothing of losing that much from one company in an hour.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Also, did they increase the accuracy of MGs or their ability to suppress? I thought it was the later, and this led indirectly to the former, i.e. guys get pinned down and therefore are targets longer.

From the CMBO 2.01 readme:

Special note: MGs now have more effective aiming, rates of fire, and suppression effects. These highly requested changes make combat more realistic and more challenging tactically.

Suppression, but not accuracy, from small arms fire was also increased.

[Wodin]

I really don't think messing around with accuracy is the way to go or a good thing..will cause havoc on the forums for starters.

Honestly play careful and slow using lots of suppression and you will get quite low casualties.

I also feel that the day a 100% realistic tactical game comes out only a very small hardcore will enjoy it..the rest will be bored and most likely confused pretty quickly.I think alot of those who want this realistic wargame don't really think about what they are asking for and I bet money many will not enjoy it. Tigers Unleashed at the highest settings is an acquired taste to say the least. I'm fine with it..but the FOW and Command aspect is that restrictive you have little control after the firs orders and little feedback on where your units are and who they have spotted etc as the game goes on...it's interesting..but I doubt only a few will say it's fun.

I'm not saying a realistic tactical game can't be done..but I don't think 3D engine is the way to go for that particular game. It would mainly be maps and reports, map gets updated as info comes in from runners or radio..3D you start getting into the difficult realm of trying to get it looking realistic which not only would be uber difficult to program it would also really be unnecessary and just adding awhole lot of added work in development. As I said for a realistic battalion or higher commander game 2D graphics aren't needed and only complicate the whole thing.

[A Canadian Cat]

Womble-Is it really true that most casualties in CM are caused by HE?

I have not been gathering stats but it is my impression as well. Often I will look a the casualty statistics for units after a battle and select that one squad that was in that fierce fire fight where dozens of guys went down only to find the squad caused 7 casualties the whole battle. Then select the tank near by and it has 21 casualties.

[JasonC]

Wodin - I for one do not want per-shot accuracy decreased. I do want rally power decreased. My assessment is that it is the ease of commanding the men to very close, most lethal ranges that most contributes to excessive losses. Otherwise put, large formations do not "stall out" from morale failure at longer ranges, but in the real war they did so, much more often than we see in CM. The losses CM generates in e.g. infantry fire conducted at 300 yards or so is not excessive.

Probably the other item (other than uber morale enabling much closer sustained contact) most contributing to higher casualties in CM combat than in reality is the clumping of squads and teams around small action spots, and the way this enables multiple wounds and KOs by single HE rounds. To a lesser extent, multiple wounds and KOs from automatic weapon bursts at close range. That may be compounded by less microcover and an tactical AI that doesn't notice or use it enough - but fundamentally bunching-up is a known (realistic, if they actually do it) cause of extra losses.

Of the two, I consider the former the essential cause and the latter just a detail to tweak a little. It is realistic - if that is the right term for it - for groups of heavily armed men in their shirt sleeves who press home to 100 or even 50 yards to get each other killed in droves. They didn't do that so much in the real deal, for precisely the reason that it *was* that dangerous, and that level of danger was not something they were typically willing to face.

[JonS]

"A Hard Way to Make War".

interested in your long-form thoughts and observations on this book if you have the time and inclination. Personally, I put it right up there wit "no holding back."

[warrenpeace]

The point about clumping may have merit. In the last battle I played (Troina v2 battle 3), I lost 31 guys to a single 50 mM AT gun firing HE!

[JasonC]

JonS - I am a third of the way through, I may have comments when I am done. So far, the strategic aspects are a bit British slanted but overall OK, the air coverage taught me important things I did not know - ironically, especially about Axis air losses in the Tunisia campaign that precedes the period the book actually covers. Some of the training lesson items about the Sicilian fighting were also interesting - and incidentally, are very much on point for the subject of this thread, since they cover the tendency of men to go to ground when they even hear firing - even when it wasn't directed at them personally - and for most of the men to stay there once they go prone. The caution induced by mines is another item, imposing delay and preventing close brushes between the rival infantries. But I want to finish the book before commenting further.

[JasonC]

JonS - one howler I did notice in the book concerns the losses the Italians experienced in Russia. Writing of the situation in mid 1943 when they were contemplating the side switch, he writes that the Italians had experienced "gradual" losses to their forces in Russians, as though those were still continuing. He makes no mention of the complete destruction of Italian 8th Army in Little Saturn or the withdrawal of the busted remnants from the whole theater in the spring of 1943, after that defeat. Admittedly this is outside the area he is covering, but the whole eastern front just being a hazy "meanwhile, over there, gradual attrition" stood out as a rather important "miss".

Minor in the grand scheme of things, to be sure...

[womble]

Womble-Is it really true that most casualties in CM are caused by HE? I don't think this is true in most of my games unless there is a lot of off map artillery.

In my games, I'm pretty certain most casualties are caused by tank HE (and MGs, but I don't see why their MGs should be so much more effective than tripod-mounted Maxims), DF mortars (even in engine iterations where resetting the aimpoint means re-zeroing the tube) and "CQB". Most rifle teams (even the ones with automatic weapons) and MG teams get zero or a bare handful of casualties in the same time frame in which DF mortar teams or tanks score dozens of kills. And then there's offmap HE of course, which you have to assume accounts for the difference between the count from unit stats and the "total casualties" extracted from the end-scenario screens.

Also, did they increase the accuracy of MGs or their ability to suppress?

Both, I believe.

Can accuracy be decreased without affecting levels of suppression...

I would guess "yes". Bullets that hit within the AS cause suppression even if they don't hit a trooper (and bullets hitting one AS away cause about half as much suppression, I estimate from a few tests). Accuracy is much more finely grained than "an AS", so more misses will probably still result in effective "suppressing rounds". I got the impression, too, that the recent changes included some detection of bullets "whizzing past the ears" of pTruppen, which wasn't initially included, as far as could be determined.

[Childress]

Probably the other item (other than uber morale enabling much closer sustained contact) most contributing to higher casualties in CM combat than in reality is the clumping of squads and teams around small action spots, and the way this enables multiple wounds and KOs by single HE rounds.

Archival photos don't appear to agree with you. The herding instinct is pretty strong. Perhaps less so for highly experienced groups. But if you're correct the best manner of simulating dispersion would be 'nerfing' the effect of fire. BF has to deal with the constraints of the Action Square.

[Sublime]

but I don't see why their MGs should be so much more effective than tripod-mounted Maxims

Dont COAX machineguns fire at a higher RPM than normal infantry carried MGs? I know airplane MGs often are made to do so - an excellent example is the 'stinger' 30 caliber used on US aircraft (and also famously used by Sgt Basilone in Iwo Jima)

[c3k]

Aircraft mounted weapons usually have a much higher ROF than ground based weapons (if possible) due to the nature of aerial combat. This has culminated in the 20mm Vulcan guns on various US aircraft. (Soviets believed in fewer, harder hitting, cannon shells fwiw.) Compute the distance between projectiles given a muzzle velocity and ROF. Next, compute the WEIGHT of ammo needed.

Aircraft (modern) guns can only sustain fire for less than a minute of trigger time.

That would SUCK for ground combat. Look at how the US copied the MG42 and then lowered the ROF to 600 rpm. (Now look at how other countries didn't lower the MG42 ROF.)

Some coax guns are different: Challenger (?) (modern) has a chain gun, 7.62mm. Very reliable feed.

Most ground vehicles adopt the ground unit weapons. Think of interoperability and spares, etc.

Rambling... sorry.

Ken

[womble]

Dont COAX machineguns fire at a higher RPM than normal infantry carried MGs? I know airplane MGs often are made to do so - an excellent example is the 'stinger' 30 caliber used on US aircraft (and also famously used by Sgt Basilone in Iwo Jima)

I don't think they do in CM. While they start off with a lot of ammo, they don't seem to run through it any faster than a tripod MG firing for the same time: a HMG with 2000 rounds runs out about the same time as a tank with 2 MGs gets to 2000 rounds from 6000 initial, if they're both just laying fire continuously, IME.

[JonS]

the best manner of simulating dispersion would be 'nerfing' the effect of fire. BF has to deal with the constraints of the Action Square.

Funnily enough, BFC aqree with you, and a degree of nerfing to offset the clumping caused by action spots has been in the game since Day 1.

[George MC]

@Jason C:

A very good example for the compressed action of CM is the scenario "Wittmanns Demise". I don´t want to be misunderstood - it is a great map and a fantastic designer´s work - but a Commander of any tank formation, who would have been responsible for about 30 losses within 90 minutes of fighting in a two squaremile sector - he would have been brought to the court martial even, if he belonged to the Red Army

Regards

Frank

He! You read the accounts of that action? The tough fighting was done in the wooded area (la Ravine) which saw close range tank combat (The Polish 'charge' over on the left flank latter in the day saw pretty much a squadron wiped out in minutes). The casualty rate was very high - on both sides for the 'hot' part of the action and close to what you can expect to lose in the scenario playing conservatively - but who does? And it was within a few hours. To be realistic the scenario would have to run for four hours but again players push their units onwards despite casualties. "To the last man! To the last tank! Victory!"

[Mr.X]

When I started playing CM about ten years ago, my tactic was indeed "Not only to the last man or the last tank, but even to the last crew-member and to the last Kuebelwagen!" Within today, I am responsible for the death of whole pixel-regiments

Regards

Frank