Not enough men are killed in CM

[Dienekes]

I find not enough men are listed as killed in a lot of scenarios. I know it's not like in the movies where is one shot and your dead. But I ran a few tests 1. A town with a battalion of Heer in the center with 10 U.S. 14 inch spotters and a target reference point in the middle of the Heer. Destroyed every building in the center of town. Very concentrated pattern (basically on top of each other). Results of 3 Trys

No of Barrages=B Casualties=C Killed=K

Test1 B:1 C:348 K:70

Test2 B:1 C:378 K:76

Test3 B:2 C:370 K:74

Shouldn't there be more dead guys.

I've also noticed with tanks when they do the big brewup, where no one escapes the burning tanks. Sometimes only 1 or 2 men are killed. Shouldn't they all be dead.

CM is still the greatest game ever made. It has made all my other games redundant. Why waste my time time playing them when I could be playing CM.

[Mr. W W]

OK, again, this is just what I have read, but in Patton's memoirs, "War as I knew it" (which I don't have near me - a friend is reading it) he lists casualties and KIA after battles, and I was struck by the number of killed vs. wounded. You get this idea that most of the casualties in a battle are dead, but in fact the ratio is like 1/4 dead/wounded. This I believe is modelled well in CM. Just "seems" incongruous.

As for the brewing up situation: That does seem a little odd. I suppose it is possible to be trapped in a tank that is burning, but I would suggest that the game doesn't show wounded men as they are out of action and would eat up resources to model. So they just "cease to exist" as far as the game is concerned. They escape from their AFV and go into the limbo of the wounded, only to be ressurected in the victory screen. Poor fellas.

[Guest Michael emrys]

I don't know. The numbers you cite for the bombardment look about right to me. Ever hear of Mont Cassino?

As far as tank crew survival goes, that depends on how much time the crew has to bail out before she blows. That could be pretty variable. I frankly don't know what percentage of tank crews in the various armies became casualties. I think this matter is being looked into as far as the game goes.

Michael

[Andy A]

In answer to your question I can do no better than quote the casualty figures for a Division at this period in the War.The source is "Hitlers last gamble" by T.N.Dupuy.The Division in question is 12th SS Panzer during the Ardennes offensive.

Dec 16-23= 228KIA 802WIA 340MIA Total=1,370

Dec 24-Jan 1=115KIA 389MIA 167MIA Total=671

Jan 2-16=234KIA 611WIA 248MIA Total=1,093

KIA=Killed WIA=wounded MIA=Missing

Hope this shows up the false idea that most casualties in War are dead.

Ta Ta for now.

------------------

"They don't like it up em,Captain Mainwareing!"

[Dienekes]

Yes I know of Monte Cassino and they weren't being hit by block buster 14 inch rounds. These could launch king tigers 100 feet in the air. Thirty of these in a 10 second period should kill more than 70 men. But then again what does it matter it's just a test anyway. I'm just curious on how deaths are modeled in CM.

The brew up I am talking about is the one that is really loud and really big were no one gets out. It usually only happens when a powerful gun panther 75 or tiger 88 smokes a sherman or weak armoured vehicle. If you haven't notice then watch for it next time you play.

[TwoSheds]

Combat Mission isn't Duke Nukem or Quake, it models actual battle integrity : supression, pin, break, rout with a "side effect" of Wounded and Dead soldiers.

[This message has been edited by TwoSheds (edited 08-06-2000).]

[Dienekes]

To clarify what I want to know is CM calculating deaths in detail or is it dividing the number of casualties by four. I curious to see if it is taking into account the lethality of the weapon involved into the calculation. ie. Hit in the chest by a pistol round or hit in the chest by a 20mm cannon round which would hurt more

[David Aitken]

Dienekes -

Remember that in Combat Mission, everything you see is abstracted. Just because your town looks flattened doesn't mean it's actually flat with no cover. As I've said elsewhere, rubble provides very good cover.

It's not as easy to kill things in CM as it is in Doom. Remember that each man is not a zombie running towards you with an axe - he's an individual, seeking to preserve himself - and humans tend to be pretty good at preserving themselves. This is modelled in the game.

I'm sure any commander from a real war would testify how difficult it is to root out the enemy by any means. Throwing everything you've got at a city and razing it to the ground doesn't automatically kill everybody inside.

Everything in CM is soundly modelled. If you've got hard evidence that more men should be killed in a bombardment, let's hear it. If it's just a hunch, forget it and play the damn game.

David

[Major Tom]

Well, the examples that were sited (ie. 12th SS Panzer) are probably more the exception than the rule. Everything depends on what the circumstances of the battle actually are. How many of the German troops were killed outright compared to those who died due to inadequate medical facilities, the fact that this was a winter offensive (death by cold), and that the German attack was made through wilderness (slower access to German medical facilities).

Most of the accounts that I have read (barring these exceptions) result in the majority of those casualties being wounded or POW.

Plus, the type of troop, and nature of the enemies take things into account. If an enemy refuses to take prisoners, the KIA level will raise up. If they are bruital enemies (Germany vs. Russia) they are more likely to either fight to the death or take less prisioners. The SS troops by 1944 were more often fanatical, surrendering less to the Allied formations.

So, there are reasons for certian battles having more KIA than CM models, but, these are more the exception than the rule.

[Mannheim Tanker]

According to BTS (in the manual), KIA are randomly calculated after the battle is over, based on a proportion of the total casualties. This would mean that even though you might have an entire crew listed as out of action (eg 0 healthy and 4 WIA/KIA), the KIA for that crew are randomly calculated after the battle is over - as part of the overall total. In other words, those soldiers that would obviously be dead (brewed up tanks) don't get any special treatment to be counted as KIA since the numbers aren't cranked out until later.

Kind of rambling here, so I'll leave it at that!

[Dan Weaver]

I've seen instances where the ratio of dead to total casualties was as low as 1:10. I've also seen instances where the ratio was as high as 1:2. It's all very much in the luck of the bullet.

Dan

[Dienekes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Weaver:

I've seen instances where the ratio of dead to total casualties was as low as 1:10. I've also seen instances where the ratio was as high as 1:2. It's all very much in the luck of the bullet.

Dan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The luck of the bullet is exactly what I was trying to find out if CM modeled. Thanks Mannheim Tanker for the answer to my question. The manual is to obvious a place to look for an answer

To David Aitken,

Relax take a couple deep breaths. Play a little Quake or Doom to calm your nerves. You see in my first post how I feel about CM. I'm open to your opinions just don't be so snotty.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andy A:

In answer to your question I can do no better than quote the casualty figures for a Division at this period in the War.The source is "Hitlers last gamble" by T.N.Dupuy.The Division in question is 12th SS Panzer during the Ardennes offensive.

Dec 16-23= 228KIA 802WIA 340MIA Total=1,370

Dec 24-Jan 1=115KIA 389MIA 167MIA Total=671

Jan 2-16=234KIA 611WIA 248MIA Total=1,093

KIA=Killed WIA=wounded MIA=Missing

Hope this shows up the false idea that most casualties in War are dead.

Ta Ta for now.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll add some data to it:

Soviet Rzhev Sychevka Operation Nov 24 - Dec 16 1942.

Total force Commitment - 1,400,000 effectives:

KIA/MIA - 260,000

WIA - 500,000.

Total 760,000 KIA/MIA/WIA.

Regards, John Waters

[David Aitken]

Dienekes -

I'm calm, I just like making borderline posts. =P

You might consider more carefully your choice of subject lines. I hate statements like that - you're basically saying you're right and BTS are wrong at the outset, even if the content of your post isn't so direct. Another guy recently posted with the subject line "Interface needs work", which I think is a lot more snotty than I'm being.

It's like all the headlines I read in the paper - "1 in 5 will die of cancer" or "Why we're all coffee addicts". They're direct, and uncompromising, and usually untrue.

So try using questions instead. "Are enough men killed in CM?" That's effectively what you're trying to say - you're posing a question, but your subject line doesn't make it look that way. First impressions are important.

David

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

I'll add some data to it:

Soviet Rzhev Sychevka Operation Nov 24 - Dec 16 1942.

Total force Commitment - 1,400,000 effectives:

KIA/MIA - 260,000

WIA - 500,000.

Total 760,000 KIA/MIA/WIA.

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah yes, Operation Mars, Zhukov's worst defeat. Such figures are a good reminder that not all of the East Front fighting was happening near Stalingrad at that time.

[Dienekes]

I totally see your point. From now on I'll phrase my titles more carefully. Thanks for the suggestion.

Chris

[Fionn]

The ratios jibe with what I've read in books. Also remember that casualties are those men who are wounded on the battlefield. Quite possibly 15 to 20% of them might die of their wounds later.

As for the tanks.

1. Take 1 Sherman 75 ( not wet).. Hit it with an 88 lang. IF it blows up catastrophically 9 times out of 10 NO-ONE walks out of the tank.

2. IF it gets knocked out and catches fire then usually 1 or 2 men are killed or wounded. This jibes well with british army calculations that if a tank was knocked out and caught fire on average 30% of the crew would be wounded whilst 70% would escape and be ready to fight again the next day.

In short, it does jibe pretty well with casualty reports from the war but nothing is ever perfect.

[Guest Germanboy]

Keegan (Six Armies) and Reynolds (Steel Inferno) both say that the actual British tank crew losses during Goodwood were extremely small, for a major offensive involving several divisions, and that despite the fact that they lost a large number of AFVs during that attack. (Don't have the figures here, books are at home)

------------------

Andreas

[PzKpfw 1]

Not concerning WW2 but an US study of KO'd tank's in Korea, found that 75% of the T-34-85 crews had been killed when their tanks were penetrated, compared to 18% losses in Medium tank crew in US tanks that were penetrated, by T-34-85s.

Some % of the deaths in NKPA crews may have been from multiple penetrations, as US crews were trained to fire until the OPFOR tank burned.

Regards, John Waters

[Fionn]

Well John we all know how the Soviet AFVs love to burn the instant they're hit .

I'd imagine the cramped design made it especially difficult for crews to escape. This also jibes well with what Egyptians and Syrians found during the various Arab-Israeli conflicts.

[patboivin]

What is this tallying of dead bodies.

Gruesome!

I for one would be happy if some crewmen managed to sneak away to safety, never to be seen again.

[SF]

As for the tanks.

1. Take 1 Sherman 75 ( not wet).. Hit it with an 88 lang. IF it blows up catastrophically 9 times out of 10 NO-ONE walks out of the tank.

Fionn how much more survivable would a M4(w) be if hit by an 88? How much of a difference did the water jacketing really make?

[PatAWilson]

Well,the defense of CM's killed vs wounded ratio has been successfully completed so I'm not going to beat a dead horse. Awhile back I commented that I thought the casualty figures were actually too high. Most troops tend to quit when they have suffered 30-50% casualties but 80% + casualties are routinely seen in CM. I was told that badly abused units don't recover quite as easily in 1.03. I haven't upgraded due to an in progress PBEM but I'm looking forward to it.

Although I disagree with almost everything Dienkes said I am with him on one point: there should be more crew casualties in cases where a tank blows up and burns. Crews routinely escaped from knocked out tanks but not in cases where it blew. In particular the Sherman should be prone to catastrophic destruction. They weren't knicknamed "Tommy Cookers" for nothing.

[Fionn]

People here aren't understanding the difference between "brewing up" and a "catastrophic explosion".

A catastrophic explosion in real life and CM virtually never leaves survivors.

HOWEVER a tank can brew up whilst 70 or 80% of the crew survive. A brewed up tank catches fire yes BUT doesn't do so so instantly and violently that the crew can't escape.

It was estimated in WW2 that a non-wet Sherman hit by an 88 usually took about 2 seconds to begin to brew up. The crew had about 5 seconds in total from being hit to get out before the flames were so bad they'd almost certainly die.

A catastrophic explosion, OTOH, gives them ZERO seconds to get out. The tank is hit and is immediately an inferno.

In the second case virtually no-one ever survives. In the first case over 70% of the crew usually did.

People are mixing them up.

And the difference between a wet and dry Sherman is that the dry Sherman, when hit, usually went up catastrophically while the wet Sherman usually didn't. Thus, the difference to the crew was about a four-fold increase in survivability for them.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In particular the Sherman should be prone to catastrophic destruction. They weren't knicknamed "Tommy Cookers" for nothing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, due to ammo storage, and German Pzgr.39 APCBC rounds, whose HE filler,went off after penetration and ignited the ammo racks.

Sherman crews added to the repuatation as a 'Tommy Cooker' themselves, with their often fatal practice of storeing another extra 25 - 30 main gun rounds outside the stowage bins as well.

Infact crews continued to store ammunition outside the racks till the end of the war & even after the wet stowage, was introduced, but wet stowage did bring the % down that burned to 10% compared to the 80% that burned before wet stowage was introduced.

Regards, John Waters