|
Author
|
Topic: Standard Casualty Rates
|
simon
Member
|
posted 11-20-2001 02:11 AM
  
Just had a quick question: In "Numbers, Prediction, and War", Dupuy lists 5,000 men as the lowest strength/ size factor category (factor of 2.0) under the "Standard Unmodified Casualty rates (Percent Day)" section in the "Rules for Casualty Rates". For smaller units, this factor must increase (exponentially it seems from the graph in Figure 5-7 "Combat Intensity Curves" -page 70 in the edition I have). Is there any info available on strength/ size factors regarding smaller units (battalions- ww2)for Dupuy's rules?
IP: Logged |
Chris Lawrence
Moderator
|
posted 11-20-2001 11:30 AM
The TNDM Rules and Proceudres Manual, Table 17, has the following:Fewer than 500 men ---- 20.0
500 - 1,000 ------------ 8.0
1,000 - 2,000 ---------- 5.0
2,000 - 4,000 ---------- 2.5
4,000 - 6,000 ---------- 1.8
6,000 - 8,000 ---------- 1.4
8,000 - 10,000 --------- 1.2
10,000 - 12,500 -------- 1.15
12,500 - 15,000 -------- 1.1
15,000 - 25,000 -------- 1.0
25,000 - 35,000 -------- 0.9
35,000 - 45,000 -------- 0.8
45,000 - 60,000 -------- 0.7
60,000 - 75,000 -------- 0.6
75,000 - 80,000 -------- 0.5
80,000 - 100,000 ------- 0.4
over 100,000 ----------- 0.3 Now the TNDM actually does not use this table. What it uses is a formula that was created by Dr. James Taylor (Naval Post-Graduate School) that draws a continuous curve based upon this table. That way, there is no real difference between forces with 501 men and forces with 499. There is also a similar table for tank attrition. This is a new addition to the TNDM that was not part of the QJM.
IP: Logged |
Chris Lawrence
Moderator
|
posted 11-20-2001 11:37 AM
We did do a validation of the model for battalion-level combat back in 1996/97. This used 23 WWI engagements, 23 WWII, and 30 post-WWII engagements. We had no real problems with the smaller engagements not being well "predicted". We got the worse fit for the WWI engagements (which tended to be the larger ones) and the best fit for the post-WWII engagements. The only real problem we had with the validation was for engagements that took less than four hours.This entire validation effort was written up in our International TNDM Newsletters, Volume I, Numbers 2 through 6.
IP: Logged |
simon
Member
|
posted 11-20-2001 09:37 PM
Thankyou for your response. I can see why a formula is essential for small unit attrition analysis as opposed to a table of factors. You mention a TNDM table for tank attrition. I realize it may be asking allot to post this info, but it would be interesting to compare the small unit tank attrition rates with personnel (and with QJM). Are the TNDM Newsletters you mention (Vol.1, 2-6) still available?
IP: Logged | |
The Dupuy Institute Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
