John Kettler Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Steve, While the general rule regarding combat casualty causation is correct, things rather invert at platoon and lower. U.S. Army studies which led to the design of the OICW and its brethren found that small arms were the dominant casualty inflicters at platoon and down. In fact, they caused 80% of the losses. This is why the Army pushed for radical infantry rifle and MG improvements, for it wanted to dominate the arena where the infantry fight is won or lost. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Thanks for the post John. Reminds me of the early Panther vs. Sherman CMBO argumetns put forward by some. "It takes 5 Shermans to knock out 1 Panther, therefore unless there are 5 Shermans in a scenario I should never lose a Panther. I lost 3 Panthers to 4 Shermans, so your game SUCKS!!" Ah... such sweet, fond memories of statistics taken out of context and misapplied Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Steve, You're welcome! If we wait a few minutes more, that amazing walking encyclopedia of groggery, JasonC, will be along to restate his favorite theorem regarding aggregate combat nonproductivity for the typical tank. Thus, we should rightfully consider the tank combat outcome you had sent to you to be a major statistical outlier. This will be treated in detail in the upcoming CM: Operational Research. Concerning OR, my favorite "brilliant insight" was that cleaning aircraft canopies and windows would yield more sub sightings, thus, more sub sinkings. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.