Peltonx -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:09:21 AM)
I posted the data, the historical loses for Normandy, historical loses based on type.
If you like to post based on data historical or in game to say how this is not an exploit do, post away.
If your simply going to whine or say so and so exploites so that makes this exploit ok don't P
I like to look at data not silliness.
As we all know planes should not be doing 2/3 of the KIA for 10 weeks, sure a few weeks but this is simple another Middle Earth WAD exploit.
This is not Desert Storm, its WW II
KWG was nice enough to post this on operation Cobra
Bayerlein left a remarkable account of the effects of the COBRA bombing and ground assault on his already war-weary command.
In response to postwar interrogation he wrote:
We had the main losses by pattern bombing, less by artillery, still less by tanks and smaller arms.
The actual losses of dead and wounded were approximately:
by bombing 50%
by artillery 30%
by other weapons 20%
So Operation Cobra lasted a week and loses were only 50% by bombing and yet WitW gives 60-70% for 10 weeks.
Recent analysis of ground combat deaths in various wars has shown that, for WW2,
military wounds and deaths were caused primarily by four sources:
Small Arms fire: 5-10% of wounds, <1% of deaths
Mortars, Grenades, Mines, and other lightweight explosive devices: 40-50% of wounds, 20-40% deaths
Artillery (primarily blast and direct fragmentation): 30-50% of wounds, 50-60% of deaths
Bombs: 5-10% of wounds, < 5% of deaths
The amounts varied heavily by the particular battle, as locale terrain plays a huge roll in determining both what
weapons are prevalent, and the effectiveness of each.
For instance, artillery had a very low impact on deaths in the various Pacific island campaigns, where the
vast majority of casualties were from mortars, grenades, and mines, followed by small arms. However,
in the various Western Desert campaigns, artillery had an even higher total (due to the open terrain and hard rocks,
which amplified artillery's effectiveness).
Major General J. B. A. Bailey, British Army (retired) wrote:
From the middle of the eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth, artillery is judged to have accounted for perhaps 50% of battlefield casualties. In the sixty years preceding 1914, this figure was probably as low as 10 percent. The remaining 90 percent fell to small arms, whose range and accuracy had come to rival those of artillery. ... [By WWI] The British Royal Artillery, at over one million men, grew to be larger than the Royal Navy. Bellamy (1986), pp. 1–7, cites the percentage of casualties caused by artillery in various theaters since 1914: in the First World War, 45 percent of Russian casualties and 58 percent of British casualties on the Western Front; in the Second World War, 75 percent of British casualties in North Africa and 51 percent of Soviet casualties (61 percent in 1945) and 70 percent of German casualties on the Eastern Front; and in the Korean War, 60 percent of US casualties, including those inflicted by mortars.
— J. B. A. Bailey (2004). Field artillery and firepower
Looking for more data but looks like 10% of loses were caused by "bombing" and 50-70% by artillery fire depending on weather/terrain ect ect.