Cohesion in CMBN?

[sonar]

German 3 para regiment,defending Cassino town 1944.Between 14 and 23 March, during very heavy fighting they lost 50 men killed, 114 wounded and 270 missing. from a force reckoned to be 700-750, 60% casualty rate.

[dodger6118]

it seems to me that there would be too many variables to put into any easily explained percentage. Troop morale, whether they're on the defensive or offensive, is it a last stand situation? etc. 15% of a platoon seems pretty low though, what is that? 1-2 guys per squad went down? Doesn't seem like a day at the beach but I don't think it'd send a platoon into a route.

[Broadsword56]

German 3 para regiment,defending Cassino town 1944.Between 14 and 23 March, during very heavy fighting they lost 50 men killed, 114 wounded and 270 missing. from a force reckoned to be 700-750, 60% casualty rate.

Among US units in Normandy in the St. Lo Bocage campaign, very few of the original men who landed on Omaha Beach were still in the rifle companies by the time St. Lo fell in mid-July. So on that time scale, the Bocage casualty rates may have been as great or greater than the 3 para regiment you cite.

But how would 60% casualties over 9 or 6 weeks of intense combat compare to casualty levels on the CMBN battle scale of just a few hours? That's really the question I was posing at the start of the thread.

As days go by, replacements can come in and maybe even some parts of a regiment could rotate into reserve. But I'd expect 60% losses to be far more devastating to unit cohesion if they happened in an hour or two. So a lot depends on how fast they happen.

[Sgt Schultz]

Is the discussion in reference to the entire force structure on the map like global morale in CM1, or a unit by unit metric?

The squad and/or Team is the basic unit of measure here, as vehicles have their own rules I am sure.

An out-of-C2, green, unsupressed Team.

An in-C2, veteran, unsupressed Team.

Subject both to the exact same circumstances in every other way, and you will most likely get very different results as to how far each will engage in combat before they call it a day. And that is just two variables.

The list of variables involved in getting even a dirty approximation approaches the "angels on a head of a pin" question.

Fanaticism, amount and duration of incoming damage, how often the unit is in and/or out of C2, etc, etc, etc.

I understand your question and the underlying reason behind it.

There is no answer to your question in any metric or percentage or formula that would be meaningful in any way.

This is actually a GOOD thing to most folks here.

[Broadsword56]

There is no answer to your question in any metric or percentage or formula that would be meaningful in any way.

This is actually a GOOD thing to most folks here.

I agree with you completely, Schultzie.

But unfortunately, anyone who wants to try to create a playable grand tactical level to work with CMBN, using a battalion-level board wargame (as I'd like to do), must address these two questions in some way:

1. How do casualty-reduced battalions at the end of a CMBN battle get translated back into the boardgame (i.e., at what point does a certain level of casualties cause it to suffer a cohesion step loss)?

2. How do battalions in a "reduced" cohesion state in the boardgame get translated into CMBN factors when making an OOB for a tactical battle?

It certainly can be done; the only issues are how to abstract it, and how realistic the effect of the translation might be when applied in either direction. Testing it is probably the only way to really find out. But I'm so impressed by the depth of knowledge here on these forums that I always like to ask for all the help and info I can.

[Sgt Schultz]

If you are making the board portion from scratch what you describe is complex but straightforward in execution.

If you are adapting an existing game to this purpose, then I would need to know the ruleset for the game to offer much in the way of further assistance.

Right off the top of my head though;

one could either transfer all stats directly with no replacements while keeping the starting base unit/formation experience levels, or replace all losses but entail some sort of negative experience modifier for each player's core units.

To translate to the board portion I need more info.

To translate back to CM....

All casualties are recorded at battle end.

Replacements are green with a leavening of returning regular troops.

Vehicles/Towed assets/Transport casualties are replaced at reduced rate. No one gets back to 100% full TO&E in the field.

The more you lose from battle to battle, the worse your formation becomes as a whole in the tactical portion.

It becomes more granular and self directing without major inputs other than a fair ruleset and honorable purchasers.

*

[pamak_1970]

Do you have a reference for that? It's an interesting field, and I'd like to delve into it some more.

Thanks

Jon

Here is one good start for you

first (free download)

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0059384

"Casualties as a Measure of the Loss of Combat Effectiveness of an Infantry Battalion"

second (free download)

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA201405

"Forced Changes of Combat Posture"

i read both of them a few years ago. From what i recall

a the "breakpoint" (defined as decision to abandon fight and retreat) is relevant to many other factors with casualties one of the less important ones

b there are some data about historical levels of casualties at the moment a unit decides to abandon fight. From what i recall is more than 15% (KIA and Injured). For equipment losses the percentage is even higher.

Anyway, since it has been some time since then it is better to see the details yourself. I can't guarantee the accuracy of all the above

[LongLeftFlank]

This is an interesting topic, Broadsword (almost abbreviated you to "BS" -- oops!), thanks for starting. And obviously, there's no single answer. If you used a 15% or even 50% reduced trench strength as a benchmark, the Germans would have caved a lot quicker because IIRC, a lot of their infantry units were down to 50% or less. But from a psychological standpoint, I suppose that isn't the same as losing 15%+ of your kameraden in the course of a single fight.

Related topic: Going back to the epic Bois de Baugin AAR, we saw both sides' attacking infantry run out of fight and go to ground rapidly after a minute or so under fire, then become highly unreliable for further offensive action for the rest of the game. Which is as it should be, it seems to me. Elvis' final assault had to be undertaken by a "fresh" wave made up of cooks and clerks (kidding!). Saw some similar phenomena evident in Tyrspawn's vids, I think.

I suspect wise employment of HQ units and their (+) leadership modifiers to "rally" Rattled or otherwise disrupted infantry and get them to resume the fight (perhaps after a rest interval) is going to really come into its own in CMBN, far more so than in CMSF. Almost hearkening back to the old Squad Leader days when victory centered on the performance of Lt Stahler or Lt Greenwood's "stack".

Ability to get a "second wind" out of your hard-pressed grunts is really going to separate the good players from the noobs in hard infantry fights, IMHO. In contrast, if you've used your HQs as just another rifle team in the advance and they aren't in any better shape than their squads when the going gets tough, you're going to be pretty hosed. The more limited command range (voice/eye contact) is going to make this a very fine art indeed.

[Broadsword56]

If you are adapting an existing game to this purpose, then I would need to know the ruleset for the game to offer much in the way of further assistance...

OK, hoping I don't bore anyone here...

In the St. Lo boardgame it's like this in a nutshell:

*Scale of game is battalions (which can break down to companies).

*Battalions represent 400 to 800 men.

*Companies represent 100 to 200 men.

*Battalions can take 1 step loss; second step loss = elimination.

*Companies are eliminated after 1 step loss.

*US battalions all start at a combat value of 11, reduce to 8.

*German 3rd FJ battalions start at combat value of 9, reduce to 7.

*German 352nd Div. battalions start at combat value of 5, reduce to 4.

*Combat Results Table has many modifiers, but it's bloody: results range from *Attacker loses 3 steps to Defender loses 7 steps, and every result has a loss one way or the other (no exchanges).

*Operational artillery and airstrikes have their own phases, resulting in pins/disruptions/step losses.

*The game gives an attacking battalion 3 options: Hasty Attack, Deliberate Attack, Intensive Attack (each one costing a battalion HQ successively more of its limited tactical activity points, but with bigger payoff due to odds shifts on the CRT). Armor and Arty, if available, can be added as assets to get even better offsensive/defensive odds.

The boardgame uses the step losses to represent cohesion hits and lost combat effectiveness more than just casualties.

Here's what I came up with as a starting point to translate from boardgame to a CMBN setup:

Reduced US units entering CMBN battle: One level lower in Experience (from “Veteran” to “Regular") and one level lower in Leadership (from default of 0 to -1). [This reflects the US replacement system that made units and leaders "greener" over time but maintained personnel strength]

Reduced German units entering CMBN battle: One level lower in Experience ("Veteran" to "Regular") and a 15% (?) lower personnel total. Leadership stays at +1. [This reflects the German repacement system, which blended veteran troops with replacements, but tended to let units get smaller over time. Also, at this point they still had some of their core of hardened NCOs with Ostfront experience]

Pinned units start a CMBN battle with Fitness level "Weakened" and its Motivation level at one level above "Poor."

Disrupted units units start a CMBN battle with "Unfit" Fitness, "Poor" motivation, and -1 Leadership.

To translate CMBN losses back to the boardgame:

Hasty Attack battles: 1 hour (?) time limit. A battalion with 20% (?) casualties at the end of battle suffers 1 step loss returning to the boardgame.

Deliberate Attack battles: 2 hour (?) time limit. A battalion with 40% (?)casualties at the end of battle suffers 1 step loss returning to the boardgame.

Intensive Attack battles: 3 hour (?) time limit. A battalion with 60% (?) casualties at the end of battle suffers 1 step loss returning to the boardgame.

[This tries to model how the cohesion effect of casualties varies with how rapidly they happen to a unit].

[Broadsword56]

Those dtic studies were right on the mark for this discussion thread - thanks!

Seems to me the data tend to confirm aspects of what we've all been saying:

Casualties alone don't determine cohesion/combat effectiveness. But they do have some effect, and it's possible to see some ballpark ranges where a given level of casualties in a given time may correlate to a unit's "breakpoint" in being able to perform certain types of mission.

Two main things I take away from this that change the way I'd translate a battalion-level boardgame to CMBN and vice-versa:

1. In the 8-day timeframe of the St. Lo boardgame, replacements would not have had time to fully replace losses, and units on both sides would get smaller over time. By the time St. Lo fell, Balkoski wrote, few active battalions in the 29th ID could muster more than one full-strength rifle company.

2. At the grand-tactical boardgame level, 15% average casualties for a battalion-size unit does seem enough to trigger at least a partial cohesion loss (for attack missions). While that might seem to be an awfully small number, this example cited in the study explains why it really isn't when you average it out at battalion scale:

"Suppose that, on the first day of an enagagement, Company A suffers

25 casualties (3 percent of battaion strength) and Company B loses 8. On the

second day these experiences are reversed. On the third day Company C is

committed, loses 50 men (6 percent of battalion strength but 26 percent of

company strength), and is unable to continue attacking. Companies A and B

have by now cumulative losses of 36 each; Company D, the heavy weapons

company, has lost 5 men, and Battalion Headquarters 2. The cumulative losses of the battalion for the three-day period are 15 percent. There is no reserve company to replace C; A and B are too depleted to carry the initiative alone. The battalion can do no more than reorganize, with full support from the heavy weapons company, and dig in for defense."

So, now I'd be more inclined to translate the games something like this:

Each 20% casualties per battalion (average for the entire battalion at the end of a CMBN battle) triggers 1 step loss.

If total force size is less than battalion, each 40% casualties in CMBN per company triggers one step loss (elimination).

[JonS]

Thanks Pamak

[Battlefront.com]

Translating CM's tactical casualty results into a higher level game is going to take quite a bit of thinking to get it to feel "right". First of all, you need to be able to put the units in a particular battle into context of what their parent formations are like. For example, if a 10am battle with A Company and a 11am battle with B Company both go badly, then it's quite possible that C Company wouldn't jump off into a fight. Instead it would probably go in and take over positions of A and B, as it could, so A and B could recover.

On the other hand, if A and B Companies take fairly light casualties, but the Tank Company that was in support got pretty much annihilated, then maybe the next phase of the attack stalls out because of a lack of armor support.

Another example is A and B Companies have a good fight in the morning but run low on ammo, food, and fuel. They sit around for the rest of the day doing nothing, instead of their planned attack, because rear support got nailed by an artillery barrage and couldn't effectively resupply the line companies until later that night.

It's all so very unpredictable and complicated! It's an entire game all on its own, which is why we're never going to add a "strategic" layer to CM. Too much!

BTW, I have a thick report on American losses in NW Europe from D-Day to the end. I don't have it in front of me (er... I saw it recently!), but IIRC some Divisions had well over 100% casualties. This might not sound like a lot, but considering the Americans had roughly 4 men in support for every man at the front... that means the line units could have had 300% or higher losses. Certainly I remember the 2nd LT loss rates for NW Europe were in excess of 300%. Poor barely feet wet bastards

Steve

[Barrold]

Hiya Steve...long time...I guess that is why the cliche' in practically every war movie of not making friends with replacements was true.

Thanks

BDH

[Sgt Schultz]

OWIEE Steve.

I knew the stats were bad(over 100%), but yikes. What, were they throwing 2nd LTs at the Germans instead of grenades?

They needed to take the British course on How Not Be Seen.

It reminds me of that British toast ...

"Here's to bloody wars and sickly seasons."

Two ways to quick promotion.

[Battlefront.com]

Welcome back Barrold

The American replacement system was horrid. Efficient on paper, devastatingly inefficient and harmful in practice. Replacements were fed into the front in a way that was at times a little shy of negligent homicide. A direct result of that was the "don't make friends with the new guy" attitude which increased the chances that the new guy wouldn't make it.

But... the macro level, American Divisions retained a high degree of combat effectiveness and bounced back from losses quite quickly. However, even before the war ended senior level authorities questioned if they could have achieved the macro effect BETTER if the system was changed. Informally, then formally, the system did change in at least NW Europe. Not a lot, but it paved the way for post-war reform of the replacement system.

Steve

[WineCape]

Translating CM's tactical casualty results into a higher level game is going to take quite a bit of thinking to get it to feel "right". It's an entire game all on its own, which is why we're never going to add a "strategic" layer to CM. Too much! Steve

Steve,

Do you and Charles envision, in future, you might partner with a strategic layer company, whether IN the Battlefront.com fold or not, to try the "CMC route" again if such a company comes with an idea/programming resources that would seem workable, given CMC's pitfalls? Or is the data layer that CMx2 produce not at all easy adaptable to export it to a higher level strategic game, apart from other reconfiguring programming issues?