Casualties and How to Take Them
Index.
I. Intro/Purpose
II. Types of Casualties
III. The Field of Battle - Factors of Losses
- Infantry Engagement
- Artillery
- Artillery in Terrain
- Aircraft
- Armored Forces
V. Urban Warfare
VI. Non-Combat Losses
VII. Common Errors in Judging Losses
I. Intro/Purpose
This was originally posted on Jolt, but seeing as there is a new class of RPers here, I have added a few revisions and decided to repost it. Have fun. - I have decided to write this after spending quite a bit of time reading and participating in NS Warfare, and noticing a fundamental flaw in how it is conducted. Many, if not most people, do not know how to take casualties. This is not to say that those people guilty of this are god modding, but simply that it is often difficult to discern how many losses a certain side should take during an engagement. It is not an easy thing to determine, how many dead wounded and captured one side should suffer in any particular battle. It comes as a result of a number of factors, including not only the weapons being used - for WWI demonstrated that massive casualties can be inflicted with relatively primitive weaponry - but tactics, morale, experience of the troops, and the status of the troops in general - these all play a large part in trying to come to grips with just how many men will die. This is certainly no small part of warfare, for the ability to judge the loss of life caused by any particular attack is crucial to determining the outcome of the battle. If one of the two combatants launches the best devised plan NS has ever seen, and the other simply doesn't understand the scale of what has just happened - that plan that might have gone down in the history books, has just gone down the drain, and all because of a misunderstanding of the nature of casualties. There are a number of treatises and written opinion pieces on war itself, but from those I have read, none actually get into the details of the casualty taking process.
Furthermore, it is always the first step in the wrong direction when one player in an RP has to step up and say, 'Uh... you're not taking enough casualties.' I've done that and had it done to me, and know that it always leads to some sort of uneasiness that will plague the RP, if not ruin it altogether. This is not always the case, there are exceptions to every rule, but for many, especially new players, this seems to be so. I believe this will serve as a tool to help players avoid that awkward stage of judging how many of their own men have fallen, and continue on with the actual RP - not getting bogged down in simple numbers. While I also realize that not every player focuses on numbers, and enjoy RP'ing battles for the other aspects, there are many that like precise figures - benchmarks of success if you will.
Without further ado, I will detail how the guide is to be laid out. I will begin with the most simple of battlefield scenarios - the open field assault on a defensive position - and add variations to the scenario that will effect battlefield performance and explain their significance. From this rather lengthy example/explanation session, I will get into a number of other factors that influence casualty making decisions, and discuss those. I will try throughout to relate what I am talking about to real world examples, however due to the fact that many of us use WWI Tactics with NS Technology, you will have to give me some leeway on saying that the casualties will be higher than the examples I am using. Furthermore, as the technology used in NS Warfare is far deadlier than anything the modern world has ever deployed, one must understand that there are no exact correlations. For instance, there has never been a 2,000 Tomahawk Missile Spam launched at a single division - a very possible outcome in NS. I hope those reading do respond, either with criticisms or advice on what is missing, what you see as flawed or a general opinion of the piece overall.
II. Types of Casualties
The term casualties entails dead, wounded, captured and missing. The following breakdown is EXTREMELY rough, and various tremendously on various factors. However for a starting point, here we go - Of a 100 man unit that suffers 'normal' casualties...
10 Dead. Those whom die during or shortly after battle. This is actually one of the more rare forms of a casualty. Though the human body is notably fragile, it is much easier to wound a man than kill him.
20-30 Wounded. Assuming your nation has a 20th century medical core, this is where the bulk of your losses should be sustained. These are to be marked as wounded during the battle itself, and depending on you medical corps, these may or may not be converted to dead by the end of the war.
0-30 Captured. During the end of a battle, or a war even, the number of captives will dramatically increase. To say your entire army is so driven as to never surrender ever no matter the circumstances is folly. Of course there are elements of a war that may decrease the likelihood of surrender, but even the most hardened, frenzied soldiers will eventually lose the will to fight. Note that the side that does the 'capturing' should sustain more dead or wounded casualties, as the aspect of being the attacker that overwhelms the enemy causes further deaths/wounds.
Missing. Though often lumped in with the dead or wounded category, those missing can often come as a result of desertion. Conscript armies are prone to such casualties, especially when morale has been lowered by high losses in previous engagements.
III. The Field of Battle
Scenario A. Infantry Engagement A large green field expanding in all directions for as far as the eye can see. The red team is composed of 100 men armed with M4's and Kevlar vests. The blue team is made of the exact same stuff. These men are a mile apart and told to 'go at it'. Assuming no tactics are used, and these men are from the exact same place with the exact same training - we can expect a draw. Probably around 30 wounded, 15 dead, 5 captured on both sides. Those casualties may not look severe, but that is 50% casualties - far past that the morale of a force collapses - thus leading to the end of the engagement. Now there are a number of factors that must be considered on who would win this in a real world environment. NOTE. When a unit suffers 30-50% casualties, they will likely break from the attack, or the defenses will crumble. The defenders naturally have a higher tolerance for casualties, for they have less of a choice in the engagement altogether.
Elements of Determining Casualties
- Rest Status. Are your men well rested or tired? A tired man is easier to kill than a well rested one. A tired army can expect 1.25 casualties for every 1 the enemy suffers.
- Hunger/Thirst/Health. Have they been receiving supplies? Are they well fed/hydrated? Are they sick? This is a major factor - a hungry, thirsty, and especially sick soldier is inferior. An army facing these symptoms can expect 1.5 casualties for every 1 the enemy suffers. The numbers will alter depending on how long an invading force has been in the country, and most importantly, on the funding/quality of the medical corps.
- Terrain. Are you fighting in your enemies back yard? If you're people are from the swamps, don't expect them to fight as well in the mountains. Men out of their element can expect 2 casualties for every 1 inflicted.
- Type of troops. Are these your crack veterans or your conscripts? No - your entire army is not elite. This depends - if we're talking US Marines vs. children conscripts - 25 to 1 casualties. If we are talking US Full time Soldiers vs. US National Guard 1 to 2/3
- Equipment. Are these men unarmed or do they look like space marines? This depends. Are we talking modern vs. Vietnam era or 1990s era?
- Morale. Do these men really believe in the cause, or are they ready to throw in the towel?
Summary of Example. The team with better 'ratings' in each category will take fewer losses. If it helps you, rate your own forces in each category 0 - 100. If you lack in certain areas, but defeat your opponent in others, expect the casualty difference to offset. However if you are being handily beaten in all of the above six categories, do no expect to walk out of there with many men left.
Things to Consider
-If your troops, and your enemy's troops seem pretty similar in the above areas, they probably are, and the casualties should be relatively similar.
-If your enemy's troops seem like they overwhelm your own in the above areas, they probably do on the field as well. Don't assume your men are better just because they are your men. There is a loser in every war.
Scenario B. Artillery A large green field expanding in all directions for as far as the eye can see. No tree, no hill, no fox hole in sight. On one side there are exactly one hundred men, armed with Kevlar Armor (covering the abdomen, thighs and upper arm), M4 Assault Rifles, side arm pistols, helmets, and some nice shiny black boots. This is the red team. Exactly one mile in the opposite direction are twenty five men, armed only with pistols. They however possess five 60mm Mortars. This is the blue team. The objective of the assaulting force is to destroy the defending force, and vice versa. Now as the engagement begins, the red team is forced to traverse the one mile distance in order to come within range of the enemy on foot. It takes approximately 7 minutes to run a mile. [This may vary depending on the troops you are using. If these are your elite spec. ops ultra delta black unit assassin ninjas, they can probably knock it out in 6. If they're conscripts, probably more like 8 or 9.] Now during these seven minutes, blue team has deployed a couple spotters along this path to keep track of where red team is. [Another important fact, if the opposing force does not specify how they see your position, they cannot. Infared, visual spotters, and aerial observation are all methods of spotting. Assuming they know where you are is not acceptable (make sure they can see you before they start shooting) -[ no/very light casualties should be taken from random fire.] Now during this seven minute run to attack the enemy, the opposing 60mm Guns can fire 20 rounds per minute. One gun, over seven minutes, can fire 140 rounds on your position. Five guns can fire 700 rounds on your position. These rounds are not the simple explosive shells of WWI/II - they pack better explosives, and are loaded with metal balls which cover large areas with their blasts. Red team likely is completely destroyed within three or four minutes of rushing forward. [Between the wounded and killed, less than 10% of the initial force would still be in working order - these men would no longer have the will to continue.] Note however that most casualties inflicted would most likely be wounded - if in doubt, assume a 2:1 or 3:1 wounded to kill ratio - depending on how well armored your men are. A poorly trained, poorly equipped conscript force will probably take 1:1. The better equipped and supplied your men, the fewer dead you will sustain. This does not mean you will not be suffering casualties, it just means they will be wounded. [Note. This scenario requires the defending force to be very well supplied - with over 700 mortar shells. If you have been RP'ing strikes on his logistical centers, they likely do not have full ammo]
Summary of Example. Now most of you will agree that what happened above is an acceptable result of a forward assault against artillery. However many of us ignore the aspect of traversing space to engage the enemy. One post usually says, 'I am attacking you' - the next says 'I attacked you'. Furthermore, we need to take into consideration that just because you add zeros to a number, the outcome of the battle is not guaranteed to change. For instance, if the red team had 10,000 men charging 500 mortars - the exact same result should be expected. The same goes for 100,000 charging 5,000 mortars, 1,000,000 charging 50,000, etc.
Things to Consider
-If your attacking force suffers 75% casualties (maximum - poorer troops, lower number), the remaining 25% will not continue the assault. Morale will fail, and a cessation of the attack will take place.
-Infantry charging on open ground will result in massive losses when facing artillery or other heavy weapons.
-Increasing the armor/equipment of a soldier will increase the number of wounded and decrease the number of dead - it will not seriously effect the number of casualties altogether. [A 2-3% decrease in casualties may be expected.]
-Always consider the time it takes to traverse space, and what will happen in that amount of time.
-Artillery is not alone in its ability to cut down infantry - machine guns, minefields, and other such weapons will also destroy frontal assaults.
Scenario C. Artillery in Terrain Alright, now that we have seen what will happen on this ideal, highly unlikely field of battle, lets change a few characteristics. Lets add a forest. With hills, trees, ditches, ravines, streams, large rocks and everything else found in a forest. Same situation as before - red team 100 men - blue team 25 with 5 60mm mortars. Now the effect of terrain cannot be ignored. It seriously hampers the ability of artillery to inflict casualties among assaulting infantry. However although it decreases the effectiveness of the artillery, it also increases the amount of time it takes to move across that terrain - thus the seven minutes of before, is more like 8 or 9. The assaulting force of 100 men, facing 700 shells, probably suffers instead of 90% casualties, something like 30%. Why? It is harder to precisely target them, there are many obstacles blocking potential shrapnel, the uneven terrain may absorb completely many shots. The additional minute of fire does not completely make up for this loss of fire capability (and requires far more ammunition to fire) - and because the blue commander knows this, he is likely to not fire the full 20 rounds per minute - but conserve his ammo and fire, say, 10, waiting for a better opportunity to release his fire power.
Summary of Example. This example is basically just an expansion upon the first, detailing the significance terrain can play in taking casualties. There are many factors that must be brought into consideration before pulling random numbers out of your ass and throwing them down on the table - they are listed above in Scenario A.
Things to Consider
-There are a variety of factors that increase and decrease your likelihood to take casualties, and the types of casualties you will take.
-For every bonus terrain gives you, it likely takes one away.
-It is better to assault with cover than without it in terms of taking losses. Open terrain is bad for infantry assaults.
Scenario D. Aircraft. Aircraft inflict massive casualties upon infantry - similar to the effect of artillery. Red team has 100 men, blue team two F/A-18s loaded with nine anti-personnel bombs each. A single cluster bomb will likely incapacitate the entire 100 man force if dropped within fifty meters of its intended target. A cluster bomb covers a lot of space with just enough fire power to tear apart soft targets. Many do not take into consideration just how fragile the human body really is when taken in respect to flying red hot steel shards. A much higher dead to wounded ratio can be expected from precise aerial bombardment. By spreading your forces out, casualties can be reduced - however this weakens your ability to fight ground forces. Cluster bombs are not exclusive in their ability to devastate infantry - napalm and other incendiaries and explosives are just as effective. Now to expand upon this, the two F/A-18's have eighteen bombs total - capable of inflicting serious casualties to an exposed, or even unexposed enemy.
Summary of Example. Aircraft act as mobile artillery in regards to ground forces. They are more accurate and can carry diverse payloads. If your men are hit by such weapons, make sure they are spread out or in cover - or expect the same results as an artillery bombardment in an open field.
Things to Consider
-If I just did to my opponent what he did to me, what sort of casualties would I expect him to suffer?
-Air power has a extreme psychological effect on infantry, are my troops able to handle it? Not being able to shoot back is a serious problem. The normal '30-50%' casualties may be down to 10-20 in terms of breaking your organization.
-Air strikes on ground forces are very effective, take losses accordingly.
-Long range ground-to-ground missile strikes are very similar to air strikes in terms of taking losses.
Scenario E. Armored Forces An armored unit is much easier to hit than a single soldier. However it is also much more capable of taking hits than a soldier is. When considering frontal assaults over open fields, consider the same things as in the the scenario with infantry moving across an open plain. If 100 tanks were to attempt to cover 1 mile and take 5 155mm Artillery Pieces. What is the difference here? Yes, the tank is faster, and would be able to cover the terrain in around a minute or two - but the key difference is that the tank can shoot the target from where it is. Now change it around a bit, say the Red Team has 100 M1A2 Abrams - located 30 kilometers away from the Blue team, which has 5 M109 Paladins. The M1A2s begin moving forward, over the open terrain at about 30mph. At that speed, it will take them about eight or nine minutes to cover the 30kms. In that time each Paladin fired about two rounds per minute - or about 85 rounds total. Though it is much easier to hit an enemy tank due to their size and up-to-date relaying of coordinates from potential RADAR readings, only direct or near direct hits really hurt a tank. Though light damage can be sustained, it is not nearly as detrimental to a tank force as it would be to infantry. Whereas a soldier with a chunk of steel stuck in his knee is not dead, but certainly out of the fight, a tank with a similar problem will continue forward. At best, ten to fifteen tanks can be assumed destroyed, twice that with light damage in terms of scratches and scarring.
*It is important to note that a single tank loss equals more than a single human life - always account for the dead or wounded that were operating the vehicle. The same goes for artillery, aircraft, etc. All of the crew do not always die if their vehicle is destroyed, but it must be taken into consideration.
Summary of Example. When attempting to cover large distances under fire, armored units will take the least amount of damage. [Imagine trying to do the same thing with 1,000 infantry on foot! 30km's... 10 rds per minute...]
Things to Consider
-What type of artillery is the opponent using? The paladin is pretty old, newer guns can fire much faster, with better accuracy. Take this into consideration when calculating losses.
-Keep in mind, tanks get hurt to. Though that blackened scar might not stop the tank from moving or shooting, the next time an RPG hits there, you might go from fully operational to... dead.
-Same things from above lists apply to tanks. Just because they are machines, doesn't mean they don't need to rest. They also need lots of gasoline and constant supply.
IV. The Expanding Torrent/Deep Operations/'The Blitzkrieg'
Most people assume a blitzkrieg is simply a very fast attack with lots of tanks and air support. This is not so. The Expanding Torrent, or the Blitzkrieg, is the massing of armored forces at a specific point along your enemy's line, and punching through this narrow spot with overwhelming force. Once your armored forces have broken through this narrow point, infantry flow through it, and the armor, along with the infantry, expand into the enemy's rear, cutting off all communications, supplies and lines of retreat. The enemy then believes that their entire army is overrun, and fall into disarray. In this sort of attack, the vast majority of casualties suffered by the defenders are CAPTURED soldiers. There are very few wounded, even fewer dead. The bulk of losses come as a result of the enemy main force believing the battle is over and surrendering en mass. Now there is a problem with this tactic. When it was developed, communications were very flimsy - by putting troops between the enemy front line and the enemy command, you effectively cut communication, inducing the idea that you had been overrun. Assuming your communications are much more solid than WWII France, they can be kept regardless of such a blitzkrieg. [The US Military uses this type of tactic (Iraq), but was also capable of knocking out comms.] Additionally a blitzkrieg was designed to fight against WWI style armies - which is quite convenient because that is how most NSers fight, so it is not entirely obsolete. This is important to note though, for when your troops are, or believe they are overrun, they will most likely surrender.
*Most defensive casualties should be captured if this measure is successful. Most attacking casualties should be dead.
V. Urban Warfare.
Urban warfare is a very tricky issue when it comes to calculating casualties for a number of reasons. Without getting too much into the elements of warfare, which this guide is not dedicated to, there are two basic components of war that must be addressed. The first is nations ability to create force. [i.e., the sheer power of howitzers, bombs, guns, tanks, etc.] The second component is a nation's ability to apply that force. [Are you hitting your enemy with those shells? Are you killing civilians or combatants? Are you hitting your mark at all?] This is a pretty basic understanding of how to wage war - create firepower and use that firepower efficiently. In conventional warfare, in which two armies line up and have at it, this is a relatively simple concept. In urban warfare, in which the majority of life in the city is made up of civilians, the second aspect of war is drawn into a deep quagmire. How to apply force specifically against those you are trying to kill as opposed to those you are not. There are two approaches to this problem, each with its own benefits and draw backs.
Complete Annihilation. Usually the approach of the fascist regime which has no care for public opinion or international backlash. This method can go one of two ways. If the city is of little to no importance, and the enemy resistance is expected to be stiff, blowing the city off the map is not an impossible option with modern technology - let alone in NS. In this option, an array of large caliber guns loaded with high explosive weapons and incendiary munitions may literally level the city. This is very possible, and the defending force should accept high losses. Now in the short run, this may seem a good option, as total losses are inflicted upon the enemy, but in the long run, this may bring in foreign intervention or strengthen the enemy's resolve, which will likely lead to an increase in overall casualties. It is also very expensive.
[See the end of this article for further explanation of the word 'annihilation'.]
Occupation. The second approach is the circumstance in which it is necessary to take the city somewhat in tact. This begins much of the same way as before, with a shelling of the city. The force may issue a warning to the city, ordering an evacuation to limit civilian casualties and avoid the problems mentioned above. The bombardment is somewhat controlled, attempting to target fixed enemy positions through intelligence information, however it is limited in effectiveness, as applying force accurately is extremely difficult in such situations. In order to take the city, a series of ambushes, street fights and sieges will take place, in which the element of surprise and unusual circumstances dictate high casualties regardless of the qualities of the offensive forces. The invading will suffer approximately double/triple the casualties of the enemy. This ratio however is affected by the elements of casualty determination listed in section I, scenario A. If the invading force has a significant advantage in all areas, then the ratio will be significantly altered, if not reversed completely.
VI. Non-Combat Casualties.
The first major war in human history in which casualties due to combat exceeded casualties due to illness and disease was the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Until then, in all previous wars, the losses sustained by the elements and sickness always exceeded those of combat. Though medical technology has increased, and the casualties suffered from the elements has seriously decreased, it is still a major factor that must be brought into play. Invading forces especially must take this into consideration, for if you are invading a land unlike your own, there are probably differences besides the climate. Different terrain means different illnesses, different illnesses means an increased vulnerability to to those illnesses. Now while the majority of deaths suffered from illness has been significantly decreased over the last century, the same is not true of those wounded from illness. Believe it or not, a soldier fighting with a case of the cold is nowhere near as effective as a healthy one. If an entire force is sick, even if not fatally, and is fighting against a healthy opponent, that is a significant factor to be taken into consideration. Usually these casualties due to sickness will be pulled to the back and left to recover - this is an important manpower obstacle to take into consideration. Overall, it is very important to take sickness into consideration - especially if your nation does not have a well funded medical core.
VII. Common Errors in Judging Losses.
Saving Private Ryan. My troops are the Americans. Yours are the Nazis. For every one of my men that die, ten of yours must fall. This is probably the biggest problem there is on NS. We all see our own troops as the best troops in the entire world, and we hate to say it but... everyone else is a tier below. This is not true. We all have, for the most part, very equal troops. If I have 1000 men with kevlar vests and AK's, and you have the same - don't expect me to take twice the losses. Your troops can die. Just because they are 'your troops' does not mean that napalm doesn't burn. It doesn't mean that shrapnel doesn't cut. It doesn't mean that bullets don't kill. Patriotism and honor counts for nothing in a foxhole. When considering casualties, follow the golden rule. Take the same number of casualties you would expect your opponent to take in the same situation. (Minus the differences between your troops of course)
Casualty Equalizing. It is a tough thing to do, but important. Do not, under any circumstances, base the casualties you take on the casualties the opponent is taking. If you think that your enemy is taking too few losses, do not lower your own losses to reflect his error in judgment. Talk to him, discuss your qualm in a civilized OOC forum. If you simply lower you casualties, the enemy will do the same - until no casualties are being inflicted on either side. The first time you believe casualties are too low, bring it up. This works both ways. If you think you opponent is taking too many losses, tell him about it - don't try and take advantage of a miscalculation. If in doubt, ask an older member for help in determining losses.
Conclusion.
I hope this helps many of you as you go forth to wage war. If you have any questions, advice or would like to see something else in there, let me know. I realize there is nothing regarding aerial or naval losses on there - I do not believe I know enough about the subjects to write up anything on taking losses. If anyone is up to the task, I'd appreciate it. Comments and criticisms are welcome. Good luck!
On the 'Destruction of a City'. A city's value is first and foremost, as a center to promote economic activity, establish administration, and of course, to defend the denizens there to promote the before mentioned purposes.
A. Promote Economic Activity. If a city's power, fuel and water sources have been destroyed, that city's economic power is for all intents and purposes, gone. The workers of a city, without reliable food and water, will not work - thus nothing will be produced. Without ample energy, factories will again, produce nothing. Data systems will be down. Electronic finances are out the window. A modern city cannot function without power. Now, is it impossible to destroy a city's power system through strategic bombing/missile strikes/artillery strikes? No. Is it impossible to knock out the water system? Again, no. So we all agree that it is very possible to destroy a city's economic purpose.
B. Administration. By destroying government buildings, wreaking havoc throughout the city though artillery fire and aerial bombardment - the administrative potential of a city will deteriorate into nothing. Now every last government worker might not be dead, but with the chaos that comes from such a bombardment, and the destruction of government facilities, a city's administrative potential can be reduced to negligible portions.
C. Defense. Now if the defense forces of a city cannot prevent an invading force from destroying the city's economic and administrative potential - that defense force cannot do much besides making occupation difficult. Now if an invading force does not want to occupy the city, but rather just 'destroy it', it needs only to contain whatever defense forces remain inside. By bombarding the city, it is possible to eliminate whatever mobile potential the enemy has. [This means knocking out armored vehicles, transport, aircraft and other such modes of transportation] If not by knocking out every vehicle, than by causing such destruction that it is impossible to procure and ample amount of fuel to wage effective warfare.
So if the defense force is incapable of leaving the city without being blown apart - it will have to stay in the city. If the city is cut off, surrounded, and being bombarded on a daily basis - the majority of its denizen will be killed by the elements. If a large percentage of the people are killed, the city cannot produce any economic goods, there is no administration, the army defending the city is unable to attack the forces besieging it - then the city is destroyed. [Note - If a city cannot import or produce food, water or energy, or provide shelter - the civilians will either be forced to emigrate or die.] On why immobile forces in a besieged city can do nothing. Immobile forces, when assaulting mobile forces with artillery and aerial superiority - will be obliterated. Not engage in an interesting battle - they will be erased without inflicting casualties on the enemy.
Thats it, hope it helps. Any questions or complaints can be lodged below. Have fun.
![Political Map [c. 1980~]](http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g20/Xavier_Solis/PaypilazhenSectoralMap.png){kind=link}
