I've had a sneaking suspicion of this issue for a while, but I finally put it to a test, sending ten units of Italian infantry marching around in the mountains for the first six months of 1937 with no maintenance company, the first-level maintenance company, and a cheated-in top-level maintenance company. Combined, they had a total of 6000 infantry equipment, 720 artillery, and (for the latter two) 250 support equipment.
The results were as follows:
Two things are immediately obvious: First, maintenance companies are providing no benefit to artillery or support equipment; from my anecdotal observations with other equipment types, this extends to a number of other items as well, especially tank variations.
Secondly, although the reported chance of equipment loss appears to be dependent on the AMOUNT of that equipment used by a unit, the actual loss does not have that dependency, at least not in any straightforward way.
...in fact, comparing this now against the wiki page on attrition and equipment loss, which is more detailed than I saw it last, appears to make it fairly clear what is happening; there is in fact a minimum attrition rate regardless of reliability or complement size, leading to vastly greater rates of loss than reported for equipment that is used in relatively small numbers.
This hardly seems desirable.
The results were as follows:
| Equipment (reliability, claimed loss % chance) | Total lost in six months | Loss as percentage of full complement |
|---|---|---|
| No maintenance company | ||
| Infantry Equipment (90% reliability, 24% loss chance) | 4493 | 75% |
| Artillery (80% reliability, 5.7% loss chance) | 867 | 120% |
| 1936 maintenance company attached | ||
| Infantry equipment (94.5% reliability, 12% loss chance) | 2086 | 35% |
| Artillery (84% reliability, 4.6% loss chance) | 873 | 121% |
| Support equipment (84% reliability, 1.6% loss chance) | 818 | 327% |
| 1945 maintenance company attached | ||
| Infantry equipment (108% reliability, 0% loss chance) | 888 | 15% |
| Artillery (96% reliability, 1.1% loss chance) | 856 | 118% |
| Support equipment (96% reliability, 0.4% loss chance) | 852 | 342% |
Two things are immediately obvious: First, maintenance companies are providing no benefit to artillery or support equipment; from my anecdotal observations with other equipment types, this extends to a number of other items as well, especially tank variations.
Secondly, although the reported chance of equipment loss appears to be dependent on the AMOUNT of that equipment used by a unit, the actual loss does not have that dependency, at least not in any straightforward way.
...in fact, comparing this now against the wiki page on attrition and equipment loss, which is more detailed than I saw it last, appears to make it fairly clear what is happening; there is in fact a minimum attrition rate regardless of reliability or complement size, leading to vastly greater rates of loss than reported for equipment that is used in relatively small numbers.
This hardly seems desirable.
- 6
- 4
- 1
