quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Dog:
According to "Attrition....", the size factor reduces the casualty rate for larger units due to the friction of war. Does it stand to reason that this same friction would reduce the effectiveness of your own combat power ?

Mad Dog

---

Well, yes and no. Don't have the quote in front of me, but....part of the reason for lower casualties as percent of unit strength is that much less people are exposed. For example, a platoon of 40 people usually has two squads deployed forward, one to the rear, plus HQ and heavy weapons scattered about. A company of 160 or so ends up with two platoons forward, one back, plus HQ and heavy weapons scattered about. As each of the platoons have two squads forward and one back...then we go from a platoon with 20 out 40 people forward to a company with 40 out of 160 people forward (very, very roughly). The same thing happens when we go to battalion, brigade and finally division. By the time we get to a combined arms formation like a division, where the infantry is only a portion of the overall unit strength, the percent of people forward is a much smaller percent than for smaller units.

So....the end result is the percent loss rates in "typical combat" for a platoon is much higher than a company which is much, much higher than for a division. I think there is a table to that effect in Attrition.

thanks,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Dog:
What I mean to say is that if less of your own guys are exposed, the less of your own guys are shooting at the enemy --> less enemy casualties.

thanks,

Mad Dog

---

Yep....except 60-70% of the casualties are caused by artillery.

thanks,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Dog:
Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I wasnt misinterpreting something.

thanks,

Mad Dog

---

Well, no one has really analyzed exactly what is going on with the dynamics of this in any depth. Trevor Dupuy just noted the effect and had enough data to quantify the effect. All of our data we've collected since then also clearly supports this. But, exactly what factors are contributing to this has never been studied to my knowledge.

That said, this effect is still ignored at times. I can point to more than one USMC study that simply applied battalion level losses to division-level engagements at the same loss rates and loss percentages. There was also a rather extensive quantitative research effort done by Dean Hartley of Oakridge that sort of missed this point. There have been a few other such things, and who knows what lurks inside the heart of the some the DOD combat models.

Anyhow, it is an important concept to understand and we still see people mis-applying loss rates from one level of command to the next.

thanks,