NA Infantry Formations

[Legbreaker]

My understanding is that with the Germans, when a larger formation was wittled down reinforcements were not give to them but used to create yet another unit.
Just another one of Hitlers brilliant ideas to keep his armies numbers up and looking powerful - looks great on paper to have three hundred or so divisions, but in reality each of those divisions were sometimes barely battalion strength...
Is it any wonder he ordered some of those seriously stupid offensives when all he could see were units from horizon to paper horizon?

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

That's when they do a job "above and beyond" -- better or greater than you expected from them or thought was possible.

I know what your saying and what is meant by it, but still you can't give more then you are. 100 percent is all you can give because that is all of you, unless you grow another body part just for that situation.

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Targan

I know, on the face of it it does seem counter-intuitive. Allow me to offer an explanation. Say a given unit starts with 100 men. It fights 4 big battles over the period of a year, losing 50 men in each battle (a casualty rate of 50% per battle). After each battle it takes on reinforcements, trains and equips them, and heads out to the next battle. Therefore over the course of the year the unit has taken 200% casualties (50% x 4 = 200%). Does that clarify things for you?

I understand the math your using. But, why ever make something over 100 percent. I mean can you have 10,000% casualty rate? I mean can you use division instead of multiplication and get a casualty rate that stays under or in the 100% realm. It just seems that as people we like to pump up numbers to impress others sometimes. I not being a smart ass or anything, I'm being serious. Why not just take all the guys you lost as the whole 100%, instead of making seperate groups of 100%?

[Legbreaker]

Because the unit has actually lost that number of men over a period of time expressed as a percentage of their normal strength.
They will never be able to loose more than 100% strength in any one instance, but given several engagements, with opportunity for reinforcements to be absorbed between them, it is very possible for a 700 man unit to loose 1400 men, thereby giving us the 200% casualties.

1400/700 = 2/1 = 200%

[Webstral]

The logic behind having a casualty rate greater than 100% is to have a means of discussing unit losses over the course of a campaign when the unit moves through combat and reinforcement cycles. The bean counters of the world need to have some means of talking about the idea that losses among the personnel of the unit over a given period of time exceed the unit's nominal strength. For instance, one could say that the FRT has lost 2000 men. If you don't know the FRT's authorized strength, this number has no real context. You could say that the FRT has a nominal strength of 1000 and has lost 2000, which runs into the same logic problem as enduring a 200% casualty rate but with more words. One way or another, the bean counters have to be able to relate casualties to time to headcount.

Webstral

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In a sense, we are saying that while the unit itself endures, the personnel who comprise the unit don't.
By giving losses in a percentage rate over 100%, it indicates that the unit has lost personnel, been reinforced then lost personnel again etc. etc. over a certain period of time. That is, it's been reduced then reinforced then reduced then reinforced again and again up to its authorised manpower on several occasions.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes that general idea

[waiting4something]

Ok, I see what your talking about. Thanks for replies.