Acceptable Losses?

[unmerged(6529)]

I don't know if this topic has been touched yet, but, if it hasn't, I may as well bring it up.

One of the things I'm worried about is the historical accuracy in displaying "acceptable losses," or, more accurately, the effect of losing troops in battle. I'm wondering if some countries will be forced to do some actions (or have some sort of downside) for simply throwing their soldiers away (or even just losing staggering amounts of soldiers in a war). This can have a major effect on the war effort and I think it should accurately be represented on the "home front," as it's known. Anyone else care to comment?

 

[Ape]

Well, the democracys would surely need something to hinder them from throwing away soldiers for nothing... such as stab hits (or equalent), decreased production, dissent in the parliment/senate, vote of no confidence(lose game).
The totalitarian nations should have no hindrance for this, and should even be encouraged in Japan....

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Yes it should be "verbotten" for Democracies to escape unscathed from terrible losses without appreciable gains...

At the same time, it should definitely be clear in the game that the German and Japanese supposition that democratic societies did not have the heart for a stand-up knock-down fight was completely inaccurate.

Hopefully, manpower will be limited in such a fashion that the only nation that can truly afford to use "human wave" tactics is the Soviet Union -- that would be fairly historical. (I know that the Japanese did use "human wave" tactics on various occasions... but they really couldn't "afford" to absorb the sorts of losses that they took)...

 

[unmerged(8714)]

Democracies worring more about casulties than totalitarian regimes ? Ahh. No.

I know this is a traditional way to hobble democracies in wargames but it simply isn't very accurate. Historically the great millitary advantage republics and democracies have had is an essentially bottomless manpower reserve. The early roman wars, the athenean city-states, WWI, and WWII all make the same point. Threathen the survival of a democratic regime and you are *going* to drown under a mountain of soldiers.

Body-bag aversion is a uniquely modern and largely american phenomenon created by live television coverage and Vietnam. Further it is a phenomenon which primarily exists in the minds of politicicans. Nobody would have objected if Bush had decided to say "fuck the northen alliance. We are invading afganistan with half a million ground troops." Well. Nobody in America anyways.

The demos(people) is not a coward, it merely objects to wars it percives as unnessesary. Nessesary wars get all the cracy(power) the demos can muster. In no way can it be argued that the people of the democracies involved in WWII wieved that war as unnessesary. This makes body-bag aversion highly inappropiate for a WWII game.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

I have to agree with the proposition that democracies should not be affected by military losses. The British suffered some fairly serious losses without it much affecting their will to fight. I think the only penalty nations should suffer from stupidly wasting their manpower should be simply that there's not an unlimited supply of recruits.

 

[Pwyll]

I think WWI proved how democracies are willing to fight despite casualties...now if you are getting heavy casualties in a theatre maybe a mandatory leader replacement. You might end up getting a much more worse leader but the first one wasnt doing the job.....and getting our boys killed....just a thought...it would have to be triggered somehow and also be based on actual victories in relation to the casualties incurred....If you choose not to replace your leader...( cause you know he is your absolute best ) then there may be a public outcry...then consequences...

 

[unmerged(3513)]

Originally posted by Heliumgod
Yes it should be "verbotten" for Democracies to escape unscathed from terrible losses without appreciable gains...

I simply cannot see any historical justification for this. Can you demonstrate that democratic powers in WWII suffered strategically for taking heavy losses?

I don't recall that Canada left the Allies after Dieppe or that Kasserine Pass caused the U.S. public to revolt against the war.

Hopefully, manpower will be limited in such a fashion that the only nation that can truly afford to use "human wave" tactics is the Soviet Union -- that would be fairly historical. (I know that the Japanese did use "human wave" tactics on various occasions... but they really couldn't "afford" to absorb the sorts of losses that they took)...

In truth, it didn't actually work for the Soviets, either. Their better fortunes came about when they started fighting smarter and taking the strategic initiative.

 

[L G]

and started utilizing their masses of tanks and infantry together in 1 coordinated attack

 

[Generalfeldmarschall]

Originally posted by RickJay

In truth, it didn't actually work for the Soviets, either. Their better fortunes came about when they started fighting smarter and taking the strategic initiative.

it stopped the initial push with all of German strength.... you mean the counteroffensives... well it did work there too actually because they crowded many many guns, tanks, and troops together and pushed forward. many times suffering 4 to 1 or greater losses. in the last months before the battle of berlin, 4 russians were killed for every 1 german casualty. at berlin there were some 70,000 german regulars against over a million soviets. 300,000 soviet dead, germans suffered about 20% of that...

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by RickJay

In truth, it didn't actually work for the Soviets, either. Their better fortunes came about when they started fighting smarter and taking the strategic initiative.

Well, it certainly worked a lot better for the Soviets than it did for the Japanese.

And my main point in the paragraph was that the Soviets were better able -- in terms of both man power and politically -- to utilize human wave tactics than Britain or the United States...

I can imagine that there would've been quite an outcry in the U.S. if American soldiers were being used to clear out mine fields (without minesweepers of course, a la the Sovs), can't you?

 

[unmerged(9167)]

Maybe we should stimulate the civilians and soldiers' reaction to the war, I mean if I am losing the war and lose so much men, with the ration in effect, civilian would start the problem, and the army plotting the assassination of the leader, like with Hitler. I said losing, not setback. Also maybe, for a certain battle, it should bolster the morale like Pearl harbor, battle of Stalingrad, and Leningrad.

 

[MacGregor]

The number of men actually lost should not matter from a strategic standpoint for a number of countries because of their large population base. I.e., Russia 150+ million; Japan 90 million; US 150+ million; even the UK with a smaller population base never suffered enough losses on a war wide basis to materially affect their war making ability (there can be shortage problems with specifically trained groups, especially pilots as happened to both sides in the Battle of Britain and to Japan after Midway). Of all the belligerents, only Germany, faced with the giant Russia on one side and the combined UK/US forces on the other, actually was affected by strategic manpower "shortages" during the war (generally speaking, ther of course can be shortage tactically).

Therefore, any effects of manpower losses from a strategic standpoint should tend to be political in nature and limited. For example, the penalty for the UK suffering large manpower losses should not be enough to force the UK to bargain for peace unless it is coupled with another "political" penalty such as the surrender of the Soviet Union or the US refusing to come to its aid during a hypothetical Sealion invasion.

And with countries such as Italy, large manpower losses were not the problem. The number of Italians lost in combat (not including mass surrenders which were caused by other factors) were modest for that country's population base. Thus, again, while manpower losses should have some limited effect (e.g. Germany in 1945), by in large, the other political factors should probably play a relatively larger factor.

 

[David Comnenus]

I would argue that if Midway had gone the other way or Britian had been slammed hard at Dunkirk, it would have been a bit different. Losses such as Kasserine Pass and Dieppe weren't that major(10 k each, IIRC) compared to a total defeat at Dunkirk(100-300k) or a wipeout at Midway(20-30k, all naval).

 

[Ivio]

Originally posted by David Comnenus
I would argue that if Midway had gone the other way or Britian had been slammed hard at Dunkirk, it would have been a bit different. Losses such as Kasserine Pass and Dieppe weren't that major(10 k each, IIRC) compared to a total defeat at Dunkirk(

I agree. Nazzi bigest mistake is Dunkriq.
I remeber that I red somwhere that Hitler on purpose let the British to evacuate from Dunkriq bcs he hoped that Churchill would sue for peace after fall of France.

 

[AlanC9]

Originally posted by MacGregor
The number of men actually lost should not matter from a strategic standpoint for a number of countries because of their large population base. I.e., Russia 150+ million; Japan 90 million; US 150+ million; even the UK with a smaller population base never suffered enough losses on a war wide basis to materially affect their war making ability...

That's not strictly true for the UK; they were short enough on manpower to disband two infantry divisions in late 1944. Presumably they would have resorted to drafting 17-year-olds if the war hadn't been going so well by then. Some manpower-raising strategies should only be available if the current situation is desperate.

The US is an interesting case, since there was a deliberate decision to limit the size of the armed forces in order to maintain maximum industrial production. I'd like to see this under player control in the game.

 

[unmerged(4959)]

Originally posted by Ivio
I agree. Nazzi bigest mistake is Dunkriq.
I remeber that I red somwhere that Hitler on purpose let the British to evacuate from Dunkriq bcs he hoped that Churchill would sue for peace after fall of France.

This is a post-1940 myth. There were simple operational reasons for the famous Panzer 'halt order'.

 

[unmerged(9106)]

This is a post-1940 myth. There were simple operational reasons for the famous Panzer 'halt order'.

you are half right......yes there was a need for regrouping, because german tank divisions were far ahead of infranty and there was some problems with supplies, so german high command ordered a short halt for regouping, but Hitler changed this halt into major halt that allowed allies to evacuate from Dunkirk

 

[unmerged(4959)]

Originally posted by Sebek
you are half right......yes there was a need for regrouping, because german tank divisions were far ahead of infranty and there was some problems with supplies, so german high command ordered a short halt for regouping, but Hitler changed this halt into major halt that allowed allies to evacuate from Dunkirk

Yes, and why? To allow Goering's Luftwaffe to singlehandedly destroy the BEF before it could successfully embark. The German Air Force was always considered the most Nazified and politically reliable of the services, and a success at Dunkirk would have given it (and the Reichsmarshall) a huge boost in prestige at the expense of the more traditional, and less trusted, army and navy elites. The supposed grand strategic reason for 'letting the British escape' (sic) was a post-facto rationalization by Hitler himself.

There is also the point that the terrain around and within Dunkirk (beach and floodland, town streets) was not conducive to armoured operations.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by AlanC9


That's not strictly true for the UK; they were short enough on manpower to disband two infantry divisions in late 1944. Presumably they would have resorted to drafting 17-year-olds if the war hadn't been going so well by then. Some manpower-raising strategies should only be available if the current situation is desperate.

The US is an interesting case, since there was a deliberate decision to limit the size of the armed forces in order to maintain maximum industrial production. I'd like to see this under player control in the game.

Canada, too, was forced to disband 3 divisions in late 44 in order to bring the existing 5 up to strength, though Canada's manpower problem was due to a combination of reluctance to impose total conscription, battle casualties, and possibly a flawed recruitment philosophy. I'm wondering if Australia or New Zealand had similar manpower problems? I'm assuming India did not.