Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Here in the capital its +5 and sunny right now!

But yes, lots of Beer and Whiskey!

quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

US Infantry Divisions, over the course of the European Campaign, took upwards of 300% losses before the end of the war....some, like the 106th, for instance, were at the higher end of that scale (particularly after being blown apart by the initial German onslaught during BoB).

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I find it absolutely amazing that "non combat" losses are almost as high as the combat losses. I mean how much casualties can you have outside combat. I can certainly illness and accidents taking a toll. But almost 15.000 men lost in a single ID is crazy!

Would that number include people who got sick and temporarily sent to hospital and later be returned? If not what could cause so many "non casualties"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

And all that means.....

quote:


Its also hard to read such a block of words

quote:


Armies have always suffered substantial non-battle casualties, and I'm sure the PTO numbers would be much higher than the civilised ETO.

I'll try and grab the numbers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

And all that means.....

What it said....
Jocke was supprised by the number of non combat casulties. There some reasons behind that. I just state some of them as i see and others see them.
It gets to the extend and not my word that the situasion is "rampant" and it worry the US Army higher echelons in the ETO in later parts of 1944.
Apparently there is also a change tho some of that could be viewed in the general lack of infantry replacment come late 1944 that brings the issue to light more so than if such a problem didnt excists.
That the numbers of non combat casulties are on the rise in mid-late 1944 and more so a problem than earlier.

The gist here being as long as the divisions are "newly" send to ETO/MTO in 1943 before they incure many losses, the integrity of the divisional personal isnt much of an issue simply as not that many losses are taken.
Late on as losses mount more and more replacement has to be introduced u get into a cycle that is difffent than in 1943 where the personal in teh divisions/squads had spend the last year together. fostering unit integrity.
By late 1944 there is less and less of that and more of more of "new" faces.
This is a mechanism that that in part creates these non combat casulties. If the replacement system had put more emphasis on keeping the unit integrity maybe some of that could have been lessened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I think Walloc's comments are but one part of the reason for Non Battle Casualties and only relates to the US Army in WW2.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

This is a mechanism that in part creates these non combat casulties. If the replacement system had put more emphasis on keeping the unit integrity maybe some of that could have been lessened.

quote:


The problem has been going on for centuries, depending on morale, supply, terrain, leadership etc etc.

Its been the reason that some well lead, supplied and motivated forces have held together while their opponent has fallen apart through the opposite.

Also, the US situation has been pulled to pieces in books, did the British, German or Russian system have similar problems where the majority of casualties were from the newly arrived reinforcements???

quote:

Ground combat at 67,44 (near Paoshan)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 46032 troops, 872 guns, 539 vehicles, Assault Value = 1334

Defending force 31006 troops, 348 guns, 164 vehicles, Assault Value = 743

Allied adjusted assault: 1070

Japanese adjusted defense: 1180

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), disruption(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1363 casualties reported
Squads: 44 destroyed, 46 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 14 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
721 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 83 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 29 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 25 disabled
Guns lost 23 (1 destroyed, 22 disabled)

quote:


Night Air attack on Hiroshima/Kure , at 106,58

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 32 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J1N1-Sa Irving x 11
Ki-46-III KAI Dinah x 7

Allied aircraft
B-29B Superfort x 5

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-29B Superfort: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Ah, but with Okinawa now you can strat bomb Kyushu with your buckets of B-17s.

quote:


Ground combat at 77,56 (near Wuchow)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 33582 troops, 524 guns, 1851 vehicles, Assault Value = 1750

Defending force 16027 troops, 97 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 584

Allied adjusted assault: 998

Japanese adjusted defense: 409

Allied assault odds: 2 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), fatigue(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
8373 casualties reported
Squads: 98 destroyed, 225 disabled
Non Combat: 122 destroyed, 66 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 8 disabled
Guns lost 36 (10 destroyed, 26 disabled)
Units retreated 2

Allied ground losses:
409 casualties reported
Squads: 19 destroyed, 76 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 56 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 2 disabled
Vehicles lost 103 (5 destroyed, 98 disabled)

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
255th Indian Tank Brigade
Guides Cavalry Regiment
Gardner's Horse Regiment
Provisionl Tank Brigade
3rd Cavalry Regiment
50th Tank Brigade
254th Armoured Brigade
11th PAVO Regiment
19th Motorised Division
18th Cavalry Regiment
17th Motorised Division

Defending units:
17th Ind.Mixed Brigade
69th Division

quote:

Ground combat at Amami Oshima (98,64)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 23519 troops, 434 guns, 806 vehicles, Assault Value = 984

Defending force 8318 troops, 124 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 254

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 3

Allied adjusted assault: 782

Japanese adjusted defense: 1054

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 3)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
530 casualties reported
Squads: 31 destroyed, 66 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 59 (21 destroyed, 38 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
85 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 34 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 25 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 9 (4 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 39 (1 destroyed, 38 disabled)

Assaulting units:
754th Tank Battalion
25th Infantry Division
6th Infantry Division
3rd USMC Tank Battalion
5th USMC Tank Battalion

Defending units:
Oshima Naval Guard Unit
70th Ind.Mixed Brigade
Amami Oshima Fortress
34th Const Co
189th JAAF AF Bn

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

Your bomber pool look like 12/42

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I only see the B-17D on that list. Where are the others?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

Your bomber pool look like 12/42

Sadly yes!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I only see the B-17D on that list. Where are the others?

Gone. I still have one squadron flying the "F" version. Production of the B17 cease in 9/42. Its resumed in 9/45 with the "G" model.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

Your bomber pool look like 12/42

Sadly yes!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I only see the B-17D on that list. Where are the others?

Gone. I still have one squadron flying the "F" version. Production of the B17 cease in 9/42. Its resumed in 9/45 with the "G" model.

Wow, really? I never noticed that before, I guess. I knew that the B-17s were all heading to Europe pretty much, but I figured that once the Eurowar was over you'd get a bunch of the bomber groups as reinforcements. I should pay more attention, I think.