Casualty question

[noob]

What percentage of casualties would a US and German unit in the Normandy theatre have to suffer to be either disbanded or out of action for say 24 or 48 hours ?

Is it the same for both or did the different armies have different systems ?

[RogCBrand]

I'd think that a lot would have to do with the situation for each side during any particular time- if things are going well and you have lots of reserves, you might be more likely to pull them out of action with relatively lower losses, but if things are desperate, they may be forced to remain even with horrendous losses.

Hopefully someone has information on the casualties of units at various times and you could get a feel for what the situation was like when they were pulled out, but it does sound like something that could be very complicated, with no simple answer like "at 25% casualties a unit would be pulled out".

[noob]

I'd think that a lot would have to do with the situation for each side during any particular time- if things are going well and you have lots of reserves, you might be more likely to pull them out of action with relatively lower losses, but if things are desperate, they may be forced to remain even with horrendous losses.

Hopefully someone has information on the casualties of units at various times and you could get a feel for what the situation was like when they were pulled out, but it does sound like something that could be very complicated, with no simple answer like "at 25% casualties a unit would be pulled out".

That makes sense, thanks, i'll have to do some research, i was being lazy and hoping someone would save me the trouble

[RogCBrand]

That makes sense, thanks, i'll have to do some research, i was being lazy and hoping someone would save me the trouble

There are often times that I'd think the vast internet would contain information for anything we could want, but I've found that isn't always the case. I'd have to think that at some point in the last 65 years, someone would have studied issues like this, but if those studies are piled away in some dusty vault, we're out of luck.

Anyway, I'm hoping you find your answers- information like that can really help make gaming more realistic- it's always good to have as many facts as you can find!

[sburke]

What percentage of casualties would a US and German unit in the Normandy theatre have to suffer to be either disbanded or out of action for say 24 or 48 hours ?

Is it the same for both or did the different armies have different systems ?

Just finished "Dying for St Lo". Honestly not sure how much I can credit some of what is quoted there, but the casualty rate for US units in the St Lo campaign was quite high and the units were not really pulled back for rest. For example the 29th ID fought from the beachhead to St Lo before finally being pulled out of the line on July 19th. German unit figures are likely much harder to come by and units were quite scrambled together in front of St Lo as the Germans patched together whatever they could to hold back the American drive. The end of the book has a fairly good OoB along with unit commander names where they had records. This would probably be very useful at developing a campaign that was more personalized.

[Magpie_Oz]

It depends totally on the tactical situation, it was more a question of whether a replacement unit was available or indeed if the higher commander wished to bring a fresh unit into the area.

A unit that has taken a drubbing may be left in place while a fresh unit attacks elsewhere or a unit that has taken a only a few casualties but made good progress might be replaced with a fresh unit to exploit its gains.

There is no "magic number" that a staff officer might look for and "OOP! time to pull them out !"

[Fetchez la Vache]

If you're asking with reference to your N'44 idea (nice btw), then I would suggest not having any such cut-off in the rules? The reason being that if one your Team Leader decides they want to fight with a poorly demoralised, unfit and under-strength unit, then so be it and it's up to the Tacitical Team Member to make the best of a bad lot in the circumstances.

Sure you need rules governing morale/fitness/replacements, but I would suggest leaving as many decisions to the players themselves as possible. Although you'd need to somehow prevent players doing gamey things so things are taken to extreme. However that's where your Admin comes.

*blows whistle*

"Number 6, no you cannot try to delay an entire Amoured Brigade with 4 bailed crews, 2 arty spotters and a hamster. Stop being silly."

[Magpie_Oz]

*blows whistle*

"Number 6, no you cannot try to delay an entire Amoured Brigade with 4 bailed crews, 2 arty spotters and a hamster. Stop being silly."

I'll have you know that the Hamstertruppen fought many distinguished and heroic rear guard anti-tank actions actions, with or without arty support.

Even deployed single-handedly they would fight to the death

[Sailor Malan2]

Hamstertruppen have made it to CMx2 as well then? I wondered if the extra animation required would prevent the port of what was a very rare specialised unit from CMx1:)

Do the Syrians have them in CMSF? (Geddit? )

[womble]

Hamstertruppen have made it to CMx2 as well then? I wondered if the extra animation required would prevent the port of what was a very rare specialised unit from CMx1:)

Do the Syrians have them in CMSF? (Geddit? )

Or perhaps we'll have to wait until Ostfront, when the Siberian Hamster will make an appearance.

[Noltyboy]

So whats the story behind the Hamstertruppen? I hadnt heard of them on the forums before?

[Magpie_Oz]

What ? Where have you been hiding ?

The Hamstertruppen are one of the least known but most wide spread and subtly influential combatants of the entire War.

They appeared on all fronts and in all armies. The aforementioned Siberian Hamsters were particularly noted for their ferocity and penchant for carrots.

[Noltyboy]

Wait so this isnt an old joke from the CMBO days? Im confused...

[Michael Emrys]

Im confused...

That's quite all right. Go make yourself a cup of tea and try to relax, old boy. Somebody will be by shortly to explain everything to you. Just go quietly and everything will be fine.

Michael

[dan/california]

It is old, bad, and inexplicably funny.

[nik mond]

I read it was expected the Airborne units might see as high as 90% casualties, which tells me they were written off:eek: Luckily they were resourceful enough not to let that happen to themselves.

One division, can't remember which, suffered 20% casualties as a whole but had to be beached after the invasion because all its rifle companies suffered in excess of 80% casualties.

Casualty rates became blended going into the Fall 1944. Bradley blindly signed off on having GI's requisitioned like bullets. Hence the term G.I.= general issue (came out before the Hurtgeon I know). GI's would drop like flies and be back filled from a corps level manpower pool of new arrivals without anyone keeping count. When someone noticed US casualties were equal in numbers to entire brigades being annhilated but not noticed due to this backfill policy, Ike had Bradley sacked.

Edit: I should say this is one contributing factor for Ike raking Bradley over the coals, and having him replaced by Monty. Course the Bulge came next.

[MikeyD]

I read it was expected the Airborne units might see as high as 90% casualties, which tells me they were written off Luckily they were resourceful enough not to let that happen to themselves.

Well, the were rendered combat ineffective. Carentan broke them, then the survivors spend some time guarding a quiet section of the front recuperating, then they were returned to England to be rebuilt for Market Garden. Airborne disappears entirely from the game's TO&E in August.

[Michael Emrys]

...Ike had Bradley sacked.

What???!!!!!

Edit: I should say this is one contributing factor for Ike raking Bradley over the coals, and having him replaced by Monty.

WHAT???????!!!!!

Which comic book did you get this out of?

Michael

[leakyD]

Rog is in the ballpark with casualty thresholds being mission/situation specific.

I'd throw in nationality (Certain countries have a higher tolerance for casualties, ex. Russia), and/or unit training/experience as well.

I'm sure there are "base" human psychological/logistical thresholds under "normal" operations, but I'm confident all of it goes right out the door once your'e in the field.

Example:

I was stationed with 24ID, Ft. Stewart, GA in the 80's. 3rd Ranger Battalion was stationed in Savannah, 30miles away.

We had some ex-rangers in our unit. Speaking with one, he mentioned that, depending on the mission, it was perfectly acceptable for them to have 100% casualty rates, as long as the mission was accompllished.

For me, (19yrs old) it was unbelievable. Like, WTF, Roger? But for him, he said it with utmost certainty.

I'm pretty sure 24ID didn't have 100% casualty rate as an OP PLAN. Could be wrong, though.

For your campaign, both sides had variables. Might be best to do some research on the actual units fighting to get a better idea of their thresholds.

Ex: On average, a U.S. green unit is going to be a little more brittle than a recently transferred (from Ostfront) German unit (unless it's filled with 80% Luftwaffe replacements, of course).

But as Hurtgen Forest showed, being green sometimes doesn't mean much for casualty threshholds. The situation there dictated a higher U.S. casualty tolerance, regardless of experience.

Again, LOTS of variables.

[RogCBrand]

(Certain countries have a higher tolerance for casualties, ex. Russia)

COMMISSAR: "Ivan, you are the only survivor in your regiment, you have had a foot blown off, you are blinded in one eye and your rifle was blown out of your hands when it was hit by an 88 shell? Here's a broken bayonet. Make a lone human wave assault on that German fortification!"

[leakyD]

COMMISSAR: "Ivan, you are the only survivor in your regiment, you have had a foot blown off, you are blinded in one eye and your rifle was blown out of your hands when it was hit by an 88 shell? Here's a broken bayonet. Make a lone human wave assault on that German fortification!"

Not too far off base if NKVD was the one giving the orders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nkvd

OK, maybe a BIT of a stretch, but only a bit.

[sburke]

Bradley blindly signed off on having GI's requisitioned like bullets. Hence the term G.I.= general issue (came out before the Hurtgeon I know). GI's would drop like flies and be back filled from a corps level manpower pool of new arrivals without anyone keeping count. When someone noticed US casualties were equal in numbers to entire brigades being annhilated but not noticed due to this backfill policy, Ike had Bradley sacked.

Edit: I should say this is one contributing factor for Ike raking Bradley over the coals, and having him replaced by Monty. Course the Bulge came next.

Interesting alternative history considering he 1 was never sacked and in fact was highly regarded by Eisenhower and 2 he became the FIRST Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1949. Surely a strange promotion for a sacked commander.

[dieseltaylor]

Do the Syrians have them in CMSF? (Geddit? )

Somewhat wasted I am afraid Sailor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamster

[Magpie_Oz]

Interesting alternative history considering he 1 was never sacked and in fact was highly regarded by Eisenhower and 2 he became the FIRST Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1949. Surely a strange promotion for a sacked commander.

Yes, maybe he is confusing him with Patton who at one stage was snubbed by Bradley being promoted over him?

The term GI is of unknown origins but I have been told it most likely it referred to the fact that these soldiers received a "general issue" or "Government Issue" of equipment

[nik mond]

Interesting alternative history considering he 1 was never sacked and in fact was highly regarded by Eisenhower and 2 he became the FIRST Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1949. Surely a strange promotion for a sacked commander.

How Omar Bradley was able to overcome this debacle (Hurtgeon Forest) plus the tactical surprise of the Battle of the Bulge and still become Army CoS is a bit of a mystery. Yes thats been the topic of discussion on a few historical forums. History is subjectively kind to Omar Bradley.

It is common knowledge you may agree Bradley had his 1st and 9th placed under Montgomery's command when the Bulge occurred. Officially recorded for logistical reasons.

Historical texts record Bradley's HQ was so far away from his divisions he could not effectively command them; which was quite apparent when the Bulge commenced. That, and the Hurtgeon debacle this would not have sat well with "higher".

Its what sources you choose to believe. Its controversial, and this isn't the right place to debate it, so I'll leave it to an open mind. Its not alternate history, its subjective vs objective interpretations of history.