The Dupuy Institute Forum
  TNDM & QJM
  Ammo and QJM

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Ammo and QJM
Patrik
Member
posted 12-21-2002 01:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Patrik     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have some questions about ammunition availiability and QJM, is an attacker supposed to spend more ammo (specially artillery ammo) than a defender?
For example: Say that two sides have 500 shells for each of their artillerytubes, would this affect the QJM calculation? Or if the attacker have the double amount of ammo, would this be a force multiplier then?

My main point is if QJM assumes that an attacker spends more ammo than a defender?
If that is the case then how much will an attacker be downgraded if he got the same amount of ammo (as in the example above)?

Well, this brings up the question on what the difference is between having half amount of guns but the double amount of ammo and if that affects the outcome of a battle?

I read in Zetterlings book, Normandy 44, that the germans had a good number of guns but were unable to supply them adequately in contrast to the allies.
I assume that in QJM calculations one could apply a logistics modifier but doing so would raise the german CEV even more, wouldn´t it?

Merry christmas

Patrik Karlsson

[This message has been edited by Patrik (edited 12-21-2002).]

IP: Logged

Chris Lawrence
Moderator
posted 12-22-2002 09:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Chris Lawrence     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The QJM does not track ammunition and basically does not address logistics. This is a major short-coming of the model that we were looking at correcting with the TNDM by adding a "logistics module" to it, back in the days when we had some funding for the model. Unfortunately, those days are gone, and as such, logistics is still fundamentally part of "CEV" (Combat Effectiveness Value).

What this means is that fundamentally, all the analysis of the QJM is based upon the assumption that both sides have sufficient logistical support. As most of the battles tested, this is the case, it does not show up to be a major problem. However, in the case of the US versus German engagements of the 1943-44, if there is a logistical shortfall, it is usually on the side of the Germans. As such, as CEV looks at relative combat performance, any degradation in performance of the Germans due to logistical shortfalls (or an abundance of ammunition on the side of the US) is not reflected in the engagements, and this would result in the CEV for the US being higher than it would be if there was a seperate logistics module.


quote:
Or if the attacker have the double amount of ammo, would this be a force multiplier then?

If the attacker has twice the ammo, it is a force multiplier, but certianly not linearly. I have not seen any study that clearly ties on-hand ammunition (or ammunition expended) with results, attrition or outcome of combat, even though many of the large combat models currently in use seem to be partly based on such relationships.

quote:
Well, this brings up the question on what the difference is between having half amount of guns but the double amount of ammo and if that affects the outcome of a battle?

An interesting question for which I have no answer for, nor have I ever seen a study done on. My gut reaction is that more guns are better, but I am not sure what the measureable differences would be. In the case of the QJM without a logistics module (or CEV adjustment to cover logistics), twice as many guns is twice as good.

quote:
I assume that in QJM calculations one could apply a logistics modifier but doing so would raise the german CEV even more, wouldn´t it?

Exactly. It would appear that one of the two primary criticisms of the QJM is that it produces the wrong result (i.e. shows the Germans with a higher CEV than the US). We will call this the "Leavenworth" criticism, as for some reason this locale serves as a hotbed of anti-QJM sentiment. Anyone who has looked at the US vs. German engagements in depth (which Zetterling actually has) I think is left with the impression that the QJM, if anything, somewhat underrates the CEVs of the Germans.

quote:
Merry christmas

And a Merry Christmas to you

quote:
Patrik Karlsson

More Swedes? This forum is taking on a decidely Nordic look.


[This message has been edited by Chris Lawrence (edited 12-22-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Chris Lawrence (edited 12-22-2002).]

IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Dupuy Institute

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47e