Category Modeling, Simulation & Wargaming

Casualty Effectiveness versus Combat Effectiveness

I have been involved in an off-line discussion related to combat modeling. This is a discussion relevant to that conversation. It is from page 56, Chapter 7: Measuring Human Factors in Combat, of War by Numbers.

Casualty Effectiveness versus Combat Effectiveness

Much of the above analysis was based upon a measurement of casualty effectiveness. This is an outcome. The actual factor we are trying to measure is combat effectiveness. We have no means of directly measuring that. For his combat models, Trevor Dupuy was able to produce a Combat Effectiveness Value (CEV) based upon comparing the results of the model runs to the historical outcomes. The CEV served as a force multiplier for one side. As such, if a force with the CEV of two was attacking at even odds, it would be treated the same as if it was attacking at two-to-one odds. This would then result in better outcomes, more favorable casualty exchange ratios, and higher advance rates. While there was a not a direct linear relationship in the model between combat effectiveness and casualty effectiveness, a higher combat effectiveness value clearly improved casualty effectiveness. Casualty effectiveness was usually higher than the combat effectiveness value.

There is a sense that one can determine “combat effectiveness” as the square root of casualty effectiveness. In this construct, a casualty effectiveness of four would mean a combat effectiveness value of two. In effect, being twice as good as your opponent results in a favorable casualty exchange being four times better. This has not been systematically tested.[1]

Added to that there are some armies that are “casualty insensitive.” This certainly describes the Soviet Army in World War II, which was more than willing to take casualties for the sake of completing the mission or fulfilling their orders. The failure to encourage individual initiative at the lower levels and the insistence that orders must be followed regardless just amplified this tendency. It appears that the Soviet Army rather needlessly suffered additional casualties above and beyond that which other armies would suffer in the same scenario, and that this “casualty insensitive” regime also influenced the casualty effectiveness figures. This certainly also applies to the Japanese Army in World War II, especially with their “banzai charges” and tendency to fight until exterminated.

Still, casualty effectiveness is an important metric and one that gets the analyst closer to combat effectiveness; it is just not a perfect measure.

[1] And we do not know how to test this outside of using a combat model structure.

Beyond Lanchester

The publication of the book Beyond Lanchester last year had escaped me. See Beyond Lanchester: Stochastic Granular Attrition Combat Processes

His blurb on the book:

F.W. Lanchester famously reduced the mutual erosion of attrition warfare to simple mathematical form, resulting in his famous “Square Law,” and also the “Linear Law.” Followers have sought to fit real-world data to Lanchester’s equations, and/or to elaborate them in order to capture more aspects of reality. In Beyond Lanchester, Brian McCue–author of the similarly quantitative U-Boats In The Bay Of Biscay–focusses on a neglected shortcoming of Lanchester’s work: its determinism. He shows that the mathematics of the Square Law contain instability, so that the end-state it predicts is actually one of the least likely outcomes. This mathematical truth is connected to the real world via examples drawn from United States Marine Corps exercises, Lanchester’s original Trafalgar example, predator-prey experiments done by the early ecologist G.F. Gause, and, of course the war against German U-boats

This is an in-depth discussion of the subject of the use Lanchester equations by Dr. Brian McCue, previously of CNA (Center for Naval Analysis) and OTA (Congressional Office of Technology Assistance). We have also posted and written before about Lanchester (see War by Numbers). Some of our old blog posts on Lanchester are here:

Lanchester equations have been weighed…. | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

TDI Friday Read: The Lanchester Equations | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

The Lanchester Equations and Historical Warfare | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

The book is 121 pages. The Table of Contents for Brian McCue’s book includes:

Introduction

Lanchester’s Theory

A New Look At Lanchester

Trafalgar

Subsuface Combat in a Test Tube

Weaknesses of the Deterministic, Continuous-Variable Approach

A Probabilistic, Event-Driven Revision of Gause’s Work

Theory and Experiment

Implications for Military Operations Research

Applying Hughes’s “Salvo Equations” to Engagements between U-Boats and Convoy Escorts

Wartime Analysis

Using Simulated Annealing to Solve a Problem of “Ecological” inference

Results

Back to Attrition: The Salvo Equations

Results: Fitting HESSE to the North Atlantic Data

Goodness-Of-Fit

Final Thoughts

Anyhow, having just discovered it, I have not read it yet. Brian McCue is an old friend of mine and previously published U-Boats in the Bay of Biscay. See: U-Boats in the Bay of Biscay: An Essay in Operations Analysis

The Prokhorovka! game maps – comments?

I have done four posts on the game maps for the upcoming Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) module Prokhorovka!. I have not been involved in the developing the game, but found the effort worthwhile and interesting. What I was hoping to get back from those posts were comments on the game maps themselves, what was done right and well, and more importantly, what was not done right or needed to be corrected. So far, I have not gotten any comments on the game maps. I have provided some of my own to the designers, and in the case of the Storozhevoye map, it was re-worked before I posted it.

So anyhow, for the sake of our game designers, could we get some comments please.

Andreyevka Map for the game Prokhorovka! | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Stalinskii Map for the game Prokhorovka! | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Oktyabrskii Map for the game Prokhorovka! | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Storozhevoye Map for the game Prokhorovka! | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Other references:

Advancing Fire

PROKHOROVKA! (advancingfire.com)

Did the LSSAH have 3 panzer panzer companies, 4 panzer companies or two panzer battalions in July 1943? | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

The ORO/RAC/GRC Library

I noticed my posts in 2017 on the HERO and SAIC Libraries got a couple of hits a week or so ago. I was actually planning on continuing posting on this subject at the time, but got sidetracked. So, let me take a moment now to post on another disappeared library.

The Operations Research Office (ORO) was the Army’s RAND. Formed in 1948 under the leadership of Ellis Johnson, it grew to considerable size (220 in June 1952) providing studies and analysis for the U.S. Army. ORO was tied to Johns Hopkins University. But, the leadership of ORO had a contentious relationship with the army, so the Army decided in 1961 to dissolve it and reconstitute it under new leadership. The army set up a new corporation called Research Analysis Corporation (RAC) and hired back everyone at ORO but the senior management. It was also claimed that RAC stood for “Relax and Cooperate.”

RAC continued the work of ORO and in fact they were functionally the same organization. Under these two organizations, it included developing the first Army combat models (Carmonette and Atlas) in addition to field analysis of the Korean and Vietnam wars. They also had a historical analysis capability, having employed Dr. Hugh Cole,. the person who managed and wrote part of the Army “Green Book” series, the official history of the U.S. Army in World War II.

The Army decided to then build its own RAND. This was the Concepts Analysis Agency (CAA) founded in January 1973. My father was one of army officers assigned to this new outfit, which is the connection that eventually led me into this business. As I had a strong interest in military history and wargaming as a teenager, my father working at the Army’s premier wargaming shop got my interest. I often discussed with him the work they were doing, and in particular, his rather negative evaluation of the combat models they were using (in particular CEM – Concepts Evaluation Model). The Ardennes Campaign Simulation Data Base (ACSDB) that I managed in 1987-1989 was for the purpose of validating CEM.

With the Army having created its own RAND, RAC as an independent FFRDC (Federally Funded Research and Development Center) was no longer needed. They therefore mutated in a private contractor called General Research Corporation (GRC). They inherited most of the staff and the ORO/RAC library. Dr. Hugh Cole retired but ended up working for us on the ACSDB as a consultant, along with Charles McDonald.

GRC continued doing business, although I do not know what that was, as I never intersected with them. I started working in this business in 1987 at Trevor Dupuy’s DMSI (Data Memory Systems, Inc.) doing contract work for CAA among others. CAA eventually changed its name to Center for Army Analysis (CAA).

GRC about 15 or so years ago (operating from memory here) was bought out by AT&T defense systems (AT&T = old Bell Telephone). I also had never intersected with them. They inherited the ORO/RAC/GRC library and took over the GRC building in Tysons Corner. When I heard that they had shut the library down, I payed a visit to their office.

It turns out that this library, built up over 50+ years of research, was indeed shut down. It was taking up space and they decided they needed another conference room! So, they told the employees they could take whatever they wanted from the library and threw the rest away. So, the library and all of its material was dissolved and thrown away.

So… where does one find ORO/RAC/GRC material? Well, I have a rather thick bibliography listing all the ORO/RAC reports. Forget how I scored that. It is a unique item and I don’t know of anyone else who has one. On the other hand, if you ask me to find it, I don’t know in which of the 80+ boxes of books it is in that I have stashed away. I am not going to even try at this point to find, as they are stacked up (although it is good exercise). Of course, ORO/RAC/GRC submitted their reports to DTIC and NTIS. But, as I pointed out in the my post on TDI Reports at DTIC that only about 40 percent of HERO reports are listed in DTC and 0 of the 80 TDI reports are listed there. Now, I also have all the HERO reports in those stacks of boxes I have stashed away. A friend of mine at CMH (Center for Military History) did inform me that some/all of the ORO reports are sitting in archived files of one DOD agency in the national archives, but these section of files are still classified and not available to most researchers. Also, they are difficult to locate and access. CAA also has its own library, but I do not know the state or extent of it. If CAA needs a HERO/DMSI/TNDA/TDI report, they invariably end up asking me, which does not give me a lot of confidence. I did ask a senior analysis at CAA once where he would go to get an ORO/RAC report, and he told me he would just call the library at GRC. Obviously that is no longer an option.

I do not know the state of the CAA library or its holdings. When the GRC library was shut down I did flag the issue to the director of CAA. The corrective action I believe would have been to assemble a small team to create a definitive Army Studies and Analysis Research Library to collect all the ORO/RAC/GRC and HERO/DMSI/TNDA/TDI and CORG/CDEC/CAA and RAND Arroyo and other relative studies in one place (probably the CAA library). This effort was not acted on.

It is probably still possible to do at this point, but as the “graybeards” are disappearing from the business, and it is amazing what they keep stored in their files cabinets and basements, then it will get harder to do over time.

TDI Reports at DTIC | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

The HERO Library | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

The SAIC Library | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Less related posts:

Company Commander | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Validation Data Bases Available (Ardennes) | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Historians and the Early Era of U.S. Army Operations Research | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

The Use of the Two Campaign Data Bases | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Some sources:

A History of the Department of Defense Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (I am actually the author of this, although I am listed as a researcher): https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1995/9501/9501.PDF and here: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc39765/m1/1/

History of Operations Research in the United States Army, Volume I: 1942-1962: CMH Publications Catalog – HISTORY OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY, VOLUME 1: 1942-1962

Andreyevka Map for the game Prokhorovka!

As I have mentioned before, I am preparing a little write-up for the Italian wargame company Advancing Fire for their game Prokhorovka! (PROKHOROVKA! (advancingfire.com). They are designing a set of scenarios for use in the game Advanced Squad Leader (ASL). They have been providing me with some of their advance material, although I am not involved in the design of the game. This is the fourth game map they have provided me.

They are drawing their ASL maps from German aerial photographs of the battlefield. This game map covers the area around Andreyevka and Vasilyevka. I do use different transliteration conventions than them (and many other people). For example, they spell Andreevka with an ee in the middle. An American, seeing the ee will invariably pronounce it like geek as opposed to ge-yek with two syllables. The two e’s are separately pronounced in Russian. Some transliteration conventions use an apostrophe instead of a y. I don’t think most Americans know what to do with a word spelled ge’ek or Andre’evka. The apostrophe is part of the Library of Congress transliteration system (which I think sucks). Some people use that system but take out the apostrophes, which gets us back to geek or Andreevka. I think it should be Andreyevka, which is closer to the Russian pronunciation.

Andreyevka and Vasilyevka is where the XVIII Tank Corps attacks into and through, getting as far as 200 meters east of the Bogoroditskoye church. Bogoroditskoye is often not marked on maps, but it is south of the Psel just west of Vasliyevka. Bogoroditskoye was defended by German armor (tanks or assault guns or Marders) and the Soviets claim at one point that they repulsed German counterattacks by 50 tanks from the Bogoroditskoye area (see page 318 of my Prokhorovka book or page 931 of my Kursk book). We have never clearly identified who that German armor unit was. I believe the Bogoroditskoye church is the church marked on Map M37-26C just west of the ravine west of Vasileyevka and is between Kozlovka and Vasilyeka. The Totenkopf SS two bridges were just west of Bogodoritskoye.

At 1600 (Moscow time) the XVIII Tank Corps’ II Battalion, 32nd Motorized Rifle Brigade is claimed to be deployed from the Psel River to the center of Bogoroditskoye.

The eastern edge of the Andreyevka (assuming the gully marks the eastern edge) is some five kilometers almost due west of height 252.2. See 1:50000 scale Map M37-26C (there are copies of this map in both of my Kursk books). The village of Mikhailovka is just to the northeast of Andreyevka, along the Psel River (see story below). The XVIII Tank Corps moved through it during their attack.

Below is an aerial photograph of Andreyevka and Vasilyevka. The picture should be rotated 90 degree clockwise.:

The link to their game board is below. Just click on it and the game board should appear.

Andreevka

Now, I have looked their work, but I am hardly the right person to conduct photo analysis. Still, it looked pretty good to me. If anyone has any comments, criticisms, recommendations, corrections, edits, and so forth for this map, please let me know. I will forward the comments to them.

Thanks

Other references:

Advancing Fire

PROKHOROVKA! (advancingfire.com)

Did the LSSAH have 3 panzer panzer companies, 4 panzer companies or two panzer battalions in July 1943? | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

P.S. In an email dated 12 April 2021, sent after this initial post, the game map designer informed me that “In the scenario, every hex North of the road A12-CCC10, on level 1 (the lower level), is Mud, so the vehicles and manhandled Guns may bog, the infantry goes slower and HE rounds effect is a bit “cushioned” (look at D8.23 and E3.6 in ASL Rulebook).”

P. P.S. My Mikhailovka story: In 1996, while leading a tour of mostly former German and American officers of the battlefield, we arrived at Mikhailovka while they were doing their presidential elections (back when Yelstin was running for re-election). Our American officers, led by a retired general, decided that this was a unique opportunity to see this new Russian democracy in action. So they decided to go into the town hall and watch the election unfolding. Needless to say, the local election officials were a little overwhelmed with the sudden arrival of rather large contingent of foreigners at their site. They initially said that we would have to leave, and then after conferring for a bit, they decided we could come in and observe the election in pairs. So we did. A rather informal observation of the 1996 Russian elections as conducted in the village of Mikhailovka by former German and American officers.

This trip is also discussed in a chapter in the book Becton: Autobiography of a Solider and Public Servant.

Stalinskii Map for the game Prokhorovka!

Christopher A. Lawrence
April 1, 2021

They are drawing their ASL maps from German aerial photographs of the battlefield. The game map covers the area around Stalinskii Sovkhoz (State Farm). Elements of the 25th Tank Brigade and 53rd Motorized Rifle Brigade had pushed through to this small village. It was retaken by the Germans in the early afternoon., The village is in between Storozhevoye and height 252.2 (the previous two maps). It is some two kilometers north of Storozhevoye and a little over 1 and 1/2 kilometers south of height 252.2. See Map M37-26C.

Below are two aerial photographs of the Stalinskii State Farm.

The link to their game board is below. Just click on it and the game board should appear.

PROKHOROVKA! – SSF BOARD

Thanks.

Other references:

Advancing Fire

PROKHOROVKA! (advancingfire.com)

Did the LSSAH have 3 panzer panzer companies, 4 panzer companies or two panzer battalions in July 1943? | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Eastern Front Kursk Modeling, Simulation & Wargaming World War II

Oktyabrskii Map for the game Prokhorovka!

They are drawing their ASL maps from German aerial photographs of the battlefield. The game map covers the area around Oktyabrskii State Farm and height 252.2, part of the tank fields of Prokhorovka. The road to Prokhorovka runs down the right edge of the map. One the previous map, Storozhevoye, is some 3 1/2 kilometers south of height 252.2. This is an aerial photograph of Oktyabrskii State Farm.

The link to their game board is below. Just click on it and the game board should appear.

PROKHOROVKA! – Tank Fields BOARD

The road running down the right edge of the board it the road to Prokhorovka, heading northeast. Also worth looking at is the 1:50000 scale map M 37-26C in my Kursk and Prokhorovka books. The area is mostly in between the grid lines 35 and 37 and 55 to 58 (six square kilometers).

Now, I never walked the ground right around Oktyabrskii Sovkhoz. It was still a working farm when I first toured the battlefield in 1995. But you could see it from height 252.2.

Thanks.

Other Photos:

OSF building (1)

And a photo from my books:

Other references:

Advancing Fire

PROKHOROVKA! (advancingfire.com)

Did the LSSAH have 3 panzer panzer companies, 4 panzer companies or two panzer battalions in July 1943? | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Storozhevoye Map for the game Prokhorovka!

They are drawing their ASL maps from German aerial photographs of the battlefield. This is is one of the aerial photographs they are using. It is of the area Storozhevoye, some 3 1/2 kilometers south of height 252.2.

The link to their game board is below. Just click on it and the game board should appear.

PROKHOROVKA! – Storozhevoje BOARD – VERSION 23-1-21

It helps to spin the image 90 degrees to the right to match it up with the aerial photograph. Also worth looking at is the 1:50000 scale map M 37-38A in my Kursk and Prokhorovka books. The area is mostly in between the grid lines 35 and 36 and 51 to 53 (two square kilometers).

Thanks.

Other references:

Advancing Fire

PROKHOROVKA! (advancingfire.com)

Did the LSSAH have 3 panzer panzer companies, 4 panzer companies or two panzer battalions in July 1943? | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Wargaming in the U.S. Army

I was asked recently about wargaming in the U.S. Army, and I kind of punted on the question. I then got a friend of mine to answer it. The wargaming efforts we have been involved in have been primarily for analysis and casualty estimation efforts. We have not been involved in wargaming for training, officer development, or development of planning. Other people have been doing that, I gather with mixed results. Here is two recent articles on the subject that were forwarded to me:

1. Educational and Tactical Use of Wargames with the U.S. Army: https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/wargaming-room/tactical-edge/

2. Wargaming the Gray Zone:

https://warontherocks.com/2021/03/whispers-from-wargames-about-the-gray-zone/

Summation of Argument on LSSAH PzRgt Organization in July 1943

In the case of how the LSSAH Panzer Regiment was organized in July 1943 (as there is no clear documentation of this), there are three options:

1) The regiment consisted of only the II Panzer Battalion with 5th, 6th, and 7th panzer companies, and the 13th panzer company for the Tigers.

2) The II Panzer Battalion had the 8th panzer company active.

3) The regiment consisted of the II Panzer Battalion with the 5th, 6th, and 7th panzer companies, and the 143h panzer company for the Tigers, and an ersatz I Panzer Battalion of maybe three companies.

Let me briefly outline the strengths and weaknesses of these three arguments:

The three medium panzer company argument:
1. Strengths
  1. This is the traditional position.
  2. This is what all the post-war narratives say.
  3. There is nothing that solidly disproves this.
2. Weaknesses
  1. This makes little sense with 90 Pz III and IVs and 9 Panzer III Command tanks (in addition to the Pz I command tank).
  2. The companies would have had 31 tanks to start the battle with.
    1. But Ribbentrop says they started with 22.
  3. On 12 July, if Ribbentrop had 7 tanks, then the other two companies had at least 22 tanks each.
The four medium panzer company argument
1. Strengths
  1. You can almost fit the 90 tanks into four companies at 22 tanks a company.
  2. Compromise answer that avoids creating an ersatz Panzer battalion.
2. Weaknesses
  1. Not documented in any unit records I have seen.
  2. The one source mentioning the 8th company specifically states that it was not used for Citadel due to “lack of tanks”.
The two battalion argument
1. Strengths:
  1. Accounts for all the tanks on 4 July.
  2. Accounts for all the tanks on 11 July (based upon Lehmann’s claim that II Panzer Battalion had 33 tanks).
  3. This is what Das Reich did.
  4. The “I Panzer Battalion” is actually referenced twice on 8 July 1943 in German records.
2. Weaknesses
  1. Was never mentioned in any of the post-war accounts.

So readers…did the LSSAH Panzer Regiment in July 1943 have 1) only II Battalion of three medium companies, 2) only II Battalion of four medium companies, 3) or an ersatz I Battalion in addition to the II Battalion of three medium panzer companies?