Acceptable losses then vs now

[rss334]

Someone who knows much more about ww2 than me hopefully can answer this, but what did USA and Germans consider acceptable losses during some of these battles in ww2.   Can't help but feel I'm losing too many men each mission and at least to me it above acceptable but I wondered how that translated in to the thinking during ww2 at Sergeant or equivalents German ranks in general as I understand every situation and commander would be different. Any insight appreciated.  

[Erwin]

Yeah, we've argued that point here b4.  I agree that over 5%-10% is excessive and would result in a combat ineffective unit.  But, others feel that combat troops (ie ignoring the 90% of a formation who were rear echelon support troops) did take a lot of casualties in combat.

[Michael Emrys]

What is acceptable varies a lot. An extremely valuable objective that is carried despite 50%+ casualties might be considered acceptable. But that would be unusual. For normal day to day combat, acceptable means that the unit is still combat effective the next day. Normally for a long campaign, that means 5% or less per day. Ideally, once a unit had received a total of 20% casualties, it was time to pull it out of the line for at least a day or two to rest and absorb replacements. Naturally, ideal circumstances were seldom realized. By the time it had been fighting for more than a day or a week, it tended to be perennially understrength to some degree or other.

Michael

 

[A Canadian Cat]

Yes we argue about the numbers from time to time.  I think there is general agreement that we push attacking units to hard and to far and hold the line to long as defenders too.  In real life many engagements would end with one or more sides seeking to break contact much sooner than us game commanders do.

[Erwin]

Players have noted that to get a more realistic behavior of troops under fire they should all be Conscript or Green at best.  Of course that's not as much fun... and this is a game...

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

Players have noted that to get a more realistic behavior of troops under fire they should all be Conscript or Green at best.  Of course that's not as much fun... and this is a game...

Another option is to make the troops Regular level, but with negative motivation. I find that better reflects troops that are able to spot reasonably well and fire with reasonable accuracy, but who also have a (very natural) fear of getting shot. And who need leadership (platoon leaders close by) if they are to hold the line.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[rss334]

I guess I was looking more for some insight in to the thinking of the commanders back at WW2 times.   Again knowing the situations and people varied, what the was the overall picture from the US and German side regarding losses in a single battle.  Was it we have to take that hill at all cost if it cost us 90% of our men or was it live to fight another day, I know the Russians would shoot their own soldiers for not fighting to the death, maybe the Germans did too.   Guess I'm trying to get some concept on how they thought so that I can tailor my own expectations while playing the game.

[Erwin]

What Michael said re "we have to take that hill at all cost if it cost us 90% of our men" is that was very very rare.  Troops have been known to rebel if pushed too far (esp in western armies).

 

[sburke]

On 12/1/2016 at 3:56 PM, Erwin said:

What Michael said re "we have to take that hill at all cost if it cost us 90% of our men" is that was very very rare.  Troops have been known to rebel if pushed too far (esp in western armies).

 

Yes and no- Look at what the US Army was willing to do in the Hurtgen.  Unit after unit was sent in over months and bled white with no real clear strategic or even operational rationale.  A Dark and Bloody Ground is a great read on the subject.

[c3k]

Scale matters. 50% of a platoon is okay. In a combat capable sense.

Not so for a division.

[Erwin]

7 hours ago, sburke said:

Yes and no- Look at what the US Army was willing to do in the Hurtgen.  Unit after unit was sent in over months and bled white with no real clear strategic or even operational rationale.  A Dark and Bloody Ground is a great read on the subject.

All I wuz saying is "do or die" kind of orders were not common.  There had to be a realistic appraisal of what guys could be expected to take b4 rebelling (re western "non-fanatic" armies).

And scenarios where you have to win win by having the last man standing bother me - like there is no future.  That's why I almost exclusively place campaigns where on has to worry about both unit and ammo conservation.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

All I wuz saying is "do or die" kind of orders were not common.  There had to be a realistic appraisal of what guys could be expected to take b4 rebelling (re western "non-fanatic" armies).

And scenarios where you have to win win by having the last man standing bother me - like there is no future.  That's why I almost exclusively place campaigns where on has to worry about both unit and ammo conservation.

May want to read the book.

[Michael Emrys]

The Battle of the Hürtgen was one more reason why the US had a lot of rough going at the start of the BotB.

Michael

[Erwin]

12 hours ago, sburke said:

May want to read the book.

What's this "book" device you speak of? 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Erwin

[sburke]

29 minutes ago, Erwin said:

What's this "book" device you speak of? 

Are you questioning what is a book or which book?  The book is the one I cited in the comment you responded to.

[Michael Emrys]

He was making a joke, S. He was pretending that 'book' is an alien concept for him. On the other hand, it could very well be the case that he has never seen a book, let alone read one. Yeah, that was probably it...

Michael

[Erwin]

Apologies:  I keep forgetting that many here don't have English as a first language and don't get jokes.

[sburke]

Jokes can only be done in English? 

 

?

[Rinaldi]

20 minutes ago, sburke said:

Jokes can only be done in English? 

 

?

I do most of mine in chirps and grunts. Then again, I'm Napoletan.

Commander's ultimately set what is acceptable for a mission - that doesn't mean they will have a rational threshold, but its an ideal to strive to. Speaking personally unless its obvious from the get-go that the mission is going to be a ball-breaker I set myself to 30 percent losses as a threshold. If its a tough nut to crack, I may go all-out; in Colossal Crack (a scenario with the CW module) I set for myself an acceptable limit of 9 tanks per squadron as acceptable losses. That's basically going for broke.

In other missions, I might set my threshold as low as ten percent. I encourage mission makers to set extremes for serious points to punish players for pushing their men unrealistically hard, but that's just me. A rifle-company attack that isn't on a strict time table shouldn't be taking casualties in excess of 10-30 percent, for example.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Rinaldi