Eli5 why are combat units “ineffective” after taking 15% losses?
In: 1029
There’s actually perfectly good historic examples of this as well as current ones in Russia. I mean, I can’t vouch for the numbers in Russia because Ukraine says different to the US who says different to the UK who says different to Poland who all completely disagree with Russia who must be kidding themselves to believe they lost on 500+ on the battlefield and not more like 5/10k plus.
So I will stick with the historical. There’s prime examples in Stalingrad whereby Paulus was unable to continue his offensives in and around the city to secure both his flanks and the city proper simply because he was plugging gaps with support units. When Von Richthofen of the Luftwaffe began to rant and rave about why Paulus was not exploiting the attacks his pilots were making by perpetually bombing Soviet positions, he replied he needed more men.
Von Richthofen pointed to the map and stated that he had a division that consisted of 12,000 men and we know as well that around 300,000 men were trapped in the pocket once operation Uranus succeeded. That sounds like a lot. But that is what is regarded as “Ration” strength, this is logistically the members living who need to be fed. Yes 12,000 men were alive and required feeding. But Paulus was logically only able field say, 140 give or take men into combat. The remainder were clerks, support units, officers, and the wounded who would still be counted under “ration” strength.
So yes 300,000+ were trapped in the cauldron after Uranus… But probably only about 10k of them were even suitable to engage in combat
Latest Answers