From: University Park, Texas
I have just completed some tests to try to determine the relationship between Reinforcement LCU and Manpower/Armament point usage. The results contain several interesting points and a couple of major surprises.
The Test consisted of Scen 15, non-Historical run Head-to-Head with all replacements turned off, all a/c in Stand-down and minimal TF movement.. It ran for two weeks and Manpower and Armament pool levels were monitored. The Manpower pool never went below 100,000 and the Armament pool never went below 19,975. “Load Points” are AP Load Points where there are distinctions made in the screens. Manpower and Armament usage from the pool is estimated by assuming that the new points added to the pool on the days reinforcements arrive are the same as the previous day. Detailed day by day data is available and the data for key dates are provided below (for the numbers people).
1, The 16, 17, 18 and 20 December reinforcement units all arrived at 53% strength in spite of the fact that there were more Manpower and Armament points in the pool than load points arriving, even at full strength values. The 14 December reinforcement units arrived at full strength as expected. Why not the rest?
2. The number of load points produced per Armament Point used varied between 6.3 and 9.9 where the Manual states it should be 1.0.
1. The Manpower points used from the pool were apparently slightly less than expected, with 1.1-1.3 load points produced for each Manpower point used (Manual states 1.0). This is probably due to the known variability in the calculation of “Load Points” OR to the fact that some LCU elements may use AP and others AK load points for the calculation.
2. For the reinforcements that arrived 14 December, the Reinforcement Screen predicted 3852 load points but 24,568 actually arrived with all units at 100%.
3. While the mix of units on 16,17,18, and 20 December were all very similar, the units that arrived on 13 December had a different composition (more support and aviation). Fewer Load Points were produced per manpower point but more per armament point, a not unexpected result since the additional elements would be manpower-intensive. While that makes sense, it is not in accordance with the manual which treats all Load Points (once computed) the same.
4. Even though many units arrived at half strength, there does not seem to be any “Emergency Mobilization”. If it had been there, the manpower and armament costs per “paid” load point would double for those days.
1. The Manpower points and Armament points were added to the pools in accordance with the Manual (5 manpower points/center and 1 armament point/factory).
1. Don’t wreck your economy trying to bring in all units at full strength; you won’t be able to do it anyway. If “Emergency Mobilization” really works, it will significantly reduce the number of armament and manpower points you need.
2. For planning purposes assume you need “about” one manpower point per load point produced and repair pop centers accordingly
3. For planning purposes, assume you need “about” 0.2 armament points per load point produced. Treat Emergency Mobilization as a safety factor. This means that you need an average of 380 factories working to produce all reinforcement units at full strength through July, 1943. Guesstimate how many losses you will have in that period (say … 650,000 load points or 26 division equivalents) and you get the number of factories you need (say ….570-600).
Data: The table below is hosed as usual
Date Estimated Manpower Used Estimated Armaments Used Predicted Load Points Actual Load Points Strength at Deployment Load Points/ Manpower Point actual Load Points/ Armament Point
12/14/1941 21496 2472 3852 24568 100% 1.14 9.94
12/16/1941 3672 772 9648 4840 53% 1.32 6.27
12/17/1941 5446 1146 14352 7176 53% 1.32 6.26
12/18/1941 5496 1146 14352 7176 53% 1.31 6.26
12/20/1941 1824 374 4672 2336 53% 1.28 6.25