posted 12-22-2002 09:38 PM
  
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 | 
The Dupuy Institute Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
