>Most militaries will withdraw before 10% casualties
Nonsense
in WW2 most infantry units would have at least that many casualties long before the battle was over >any unit without guns to their back will route by 50% casualties
lol
there were SUCCESSFUL battles with that many casualties, and the unit still had to follow the attack through
>There will always be groups that attrite that hard, even in western militaries they have expectations that the enemy might locally ovewhelm forces via assault or ambush and kill a large percentage of a specific group.
a unit is considered combat ineffective at only 30% losses
the only way an entire unit is getting 90% losses is if the commander deliberately throws in under strength units into combat
whenever you see "this unit took 90% casualties" in any WW2 setting, it does not mean that there is a division that took 9000 casualties in a single fight
it means that, over time, they have had to accept 90% new replacements
>it means that, over time, they have had to accept 90% new replacements
in WW2 there were definitely instances where rifle battalions took 90% casualties
some "successful" operations took as many as 50%
also, casualties can be temporary: when Easy Company attacked the artillery battery, Richard Winters had about 15 men on the rolls out of the whole company of about 130. what did he do? crack on.
Read the post again but more slowly this time, retard. No one is discussing the 1940s here.
>it won't ever happen ever again, not even in a hypothetical future war
What's the US Army/Marine protocol if a unit suffers 90% casualties?
Any unit with casualties that high in most armies will disband, and the remainders are mixed into other units as reinforcement. Russia has had some exceptions, where units have been completely destroyed but since they have names and history, they just get turned into mobik brigades, hoping it will boost morale
over what scale? 30% of a squad? a company? a battalion?
30% on a squad could mean your team leader and squad leader are already dead, just because thats less than 30% does it mean your squad is in fighting condition?
30% of a battalion could gut the combat troops completely and a large portion of the rest would be support or non infantry, is that battalion combat fit at 25% causalities?
>is that battalion combat fit at 25% causalities?
This can be argued with many classifications, and the answer is that a line has to be drawn somewhere as a guidance point
If you are taking that heavy losses it means someone screwed up majorly and you can no longer trust any plan your commanders came up with so you withdraw immediately and regroup. Your officer may end up being fired or coil jet marshelled for this blunder.
This is dumb.
There will always be groups that attrite that hard, even in western militaries they have expectations that the enemy might locally ovewhelm forces via assault or ambush and kill a large percentage of a specific group.
>There will always be groups that attrite that hard, even in western militaries they have expectations that the enemy might locally ovewhelm forces via assault or ambush and kill a large percentage of a specific group.
a unit is considered combat ineffective at only 30% losses
the only way an entire unit is getting 90% losses is if the commander deliberately throws in under strength units into combat
whenever you see "this unit took 90% casualties" in any WW2 setting, it does not mean that there is a division that took 9000 casualties in a single fight
it means that, over time, they have had to accept 90% new replacements
This is dumb.
There will always be groups that attrite that hard, even in western militaries they have expectations that the enemy might locally ovewhelm forces via assault or ambush and kill a large percentage of a specific group.
You are both right, generally speaking something has gone terribly wrong with 90% casualties it is time to withdraw and regroup, however in certain situations like special forces surrounded by ISIS, who will inevitably torture and kill any prisoners, then their goal ought to be to hold out as long as possible or fight to the bitter end.
Nigga that ain't happening, but in that case the formation will be dissolved and depending on the "unit" you're talking about either retasked or absorbed. The unit in question matters a lot here because the structure of US Army/Marine units is increasingly small and dynamic, if something like a division is depleted it literally cannot happen all at once because the division is no longer an independent unit on the battlefield, multiple formations are used to generate task assigned groups. Mass cas scenarios for these small units are possible (and likely in real war) but their structure allows them to boil back into other units or replenish their casualties without much fuss because compared to the total committed force the losses represent a small percentage hit in readiness. You can take 90% casualties locally and still win (unless you mean all killed/destroyed), you can't take them organizationally because no military is ever 90% committed at once.
It did happen in WW1, but not to the US as that wasnt really involved. It also happened in WW2.
https://i.imgur.com/i9k0dJS.jpg
What's the US Army/Marine protocol if a unit suffers 90% casualties?
They dont have one. With historical examples the usual practice was to withdraw them, then amalgamate surviving units into new units, although during WW1+WW2 regiments were often massivelt expanded with additional battalions, and it was rare for any Battalion+ sized unit to suffer 90% casualties, although it did happen.
e.g. >At Frezenberg on May 8th, 1915, the 2nd King's Own were virtually wiped out. The battalion was eleven hundred strong at the beginning of the day; by the end of the day it could only muster sixty-seven, and after all those had rejoined who had become detached in the fighting, the casualties were eventually found to be fifteen officers and eight hundred and ninety-three other ranks.
Not sure about exact percentages but EB Sledge, author of "With the Old Breed", who take part in the battles of pelieulu and Okinawa, generally several things would happen. The unit is pulled off of the line and sent to the rear. Promotions are handed out to surviving members, and the unit is put back up to strength with replacement (guys fresh out of basic) and other dudes who were wounded and deemed fit to return to duty. After a sufficient number of bodies have beed added back or command deems them combat effective, they're rotated back into theatre. Been a while since I've been in and the jargon was different then from when I was in to what it is now, but I think that would be a generally acceptable answer.
In Korea a company was ordered to hold against a Nork advance because they simply couldn't afford to let them retreat. This is where "don't do x or you'll end up in Charlie Company," comes from as a saying.
The company held their ground until overwhelmed, buying previous time for reserves to plug the hole. By the end of the night, just three men survived. Two were prisoners and one was left for dead and then crawled to an ROK unit.
Sounds like the 10% is just going to have to stay late until this entire battlefield has been policed. Not a single cigarette butt, piece of trash, or enemy soldier left in my AO, hoah? No whining,, everyone on line!
idk about 90% but in ww2 many units that were damaged would just get blob absorbed into others. Baker and Charley at 50%? well, that means the new Dog company is at 100%!
Right before I got out and right when Ukraine started my Brigade did a JRTC rotation that was geared towards a force on force type scenario with "Russia". So basically going back to fighting conventional warfare opposed to COIN which the US has been doing for 20+ years.
More than 70% of the Brigade was massacred twice. This was primarily due to US commanders totally forgetting how enemy forces that are nearly equal move and fight.
I forget exactly but I believe once a US fighting unit, lets say Batallion falls below 70% it is considered combat ineffective and is pulled back to refit/resupply/refresh numbers or advances are stopped.
Look they told us in the 82nd that if we jumped into an area to hold out against the Soviets offensive we were not allowed to retreat until suffering 85% casualties at that point we were officially allowed to pull back. Was 87 when I was told this.
Retreat
Most militaries will withdraw before 10% casualties, any unit without guns to their back will route by 50% casualties.
>Most militaries will withdraw before 10% casualties
Nonsense
in WW2 most infantry units would have at least that many casualties long before the battle was over
>any unit without guns to their back will route by 50% casualties
lol
there were SUCCESSFUL battles with that many casualties, and the unit still had to follow the attack through
>it means that, over time, they have had to accept 90% new replacements
in WW2 there were definitely instances where rifle battalions took 90% casualties
some "successful" operations took as many as 50%
also, casualties can be temporary: when Easy Company attacked the artillery battery, Richard Winters had about 15 men on the rolls out of the whole company of about 130. what did he do? crack on.
>it won't ever happen ever again, not even in a hypothetical future war
Jesus you are desperate for attention
That for Pre gunpowder warfare. Modern units take far far higher casualties.
US doctrine is 30% casualties
Any unit with casualties that high in most armies will disband, and the remainders are mixed into other units as reinforcement. Russia has had some exceptions, where units have been completely destroyed but since they have names and history, they just get turned into mobik brigades, hoping it will boost morale
over what scale? 30% of a squad? a company? a battalion?
30% on a squad could mean your team leader and squad leader are already dead, just because thats less than 30% does it mean your squad is in fighting condition?
30% of a battalion could gut the combat troops completely and a large portion of the rest would be support or non infantry, is that battalion combat fit at 25% causalities?
>is that battalion combat fit at 25% causalities?
This can be argued with many classifications, and the answer is that a line has to be drawn somewhere as a guidance point
If you are taking that heavy losses it means someone screwed up majorly and you can no longer trust any plan your commanders came up with so you withdraw immediately and regroup. Your officer may end up being fired or coil jet marshelled for this blunder.
Comrade, this of false.
In glorious Russia we charge until 95% casualties.
The remaining 5% then conquer the ennemy with their mighty russian soul.
Proof of this is our soon to come victory against ukrainian fascists.
Trust the plan, trust putin and abide by the order of your commander Kiril Samudalov Al Islamov.
Aimen
This is dumb.
There will always be groups that attrite that hard, even in western militaries they have expectations that the enemy might locally ovewhelm forces via assault or ambush and kill a large percentage of a specific group.
>There will always be groups that attrite that hard, even in western militaries they have expectations that the enemy might locally ovewhelm forces via assault or ambush and kill a large percentage of a specific group.
a unit is considered combat ineffective at only 30% losses
the only way an entire unit is getting 90% losses is if the commander deliberately throws in under strength units into combat
whenever you see "this unit took 90% casualties" in any WW2 setting, it does not mean that there is a division that took 9000 casualties in a single fight
it means that, over time, they have had to accept 90% new replacements
You are both right, generally speaking something has gone terribly wrong with 90% casualties it is time to withdraw and regroup, however in certain situations like special forces surrounded by ISIS, who will inevitably torture and kill any prisoners, then their goal ought to be to hold out as long as possible or fight to the bitter end.
Time to toughen up and carry the deadweight that all those dead slackers left behind.
This, leave your failure on the battlefield. Be a man.
Remove its counter from the map. It's considered destroyed.
What do you define as a unit?
>Broken Arrow
In typical American fashion it's make shit worse for everyone in the immediate vicinity.
The enemy gains 1 victory point.
Nigga that ain't happening, but in that case the formation will be dissolved and depending on the "unit" you're talking about either retasked or absorbed. The unit in question matters a lot here because the structure of US Army/Marine units is increasingly small and dynamic, if something like a division is depleted it literally cannot happen all at once because the division is no longer an independent unit on the battlefield, multiple formations are used to generate task assigned groups. Mass cas scenarios for these small units are possible (and likely in real war) but their structure allows them to boil back into other units or replenish their casualties without much fuss because compared to the total committed force the losses represent a small percentage hit in readiness. You can take 90% casualties locally and still win (unless you mean all killed/destroyed), you can't take them organizationally because no military is ever 90% committed at once.
It did happen in WW1, but not to the US as that wasnt really involved. It also happened in WW2.
They dont have one. With historical examples the usual practice was to withdraw them, then amalgamate surviving units into new units, although during WW1+WW2 regiments were often massivelt expanded with additional battalions, and it was rare for any Battalion+ sized unit to suffer 90% casualties, although it did happen.
e.g.
>At Frezenberg on May 8th, 1915, the 2nd King's Own were virtually wiped out. The battalion was eleven hundred strong at the beginning of the day; by the end of the day it could only muster sixty-seven, and after all those had rejoined who had become detached in the fighting, the casualties were eventually found to be fifteen officers and eight hundred and ninety-three other ranks.
Read the post again but more slowly this time, retard. No one is discussing the 1940s here.
Last guy alive has to eat all the others, something about "preserving the cummies"
Marines are fucking weird
Psych eval for the survivors, if good: roll into another unit.
Otherwise re-assignment or discharge
>OH SHIT, GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE!
>WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING, IDIOT!?
>FUCK, WE'RE ALL DEAD, GET. THE. FUCK. OUT!
Pork chop sandwiches?!
Not sure about exact percentages but EB Sledge, author of "With the Old Breed", who take part in the battles of pelieulu and Okinawa, generally several things would happen. The unit is pulled off of the line and sent to the rear. Promotions are handed out to surviving members, and the unit is put back up to strength with replacement (guys fresh out of basic) and other dudes who were wounded and deemed fit to return to duty. After a sufficient number of bodies have beed added back or command deems them combat effective, they're rotated back into theatre. Been a while since I've been in and the jargon was different then from when I was in to what it is now, but I think that would be a generally acceptable answer.
Everyone get your story straight and then pitch the book/movie deal to a group of guys with small hats.
The unit stands and dies in it's fighting positions. Those that try to retreat, will be shot.
In Korea a company was ordered to hold against a Nork advance because they simply couldn't afford to let them retreat. This is where "don't do x or you'll end up in Charlie Company," comes from as a saying.
The company held their ground until overwhelmed, buying previous time for reserves to plug the hole. By the end of the night, just three men survived. Two were prisoners and one was left for dead and then crawled to an ROK unit.
And then you have Custer.
Retreat
You save for next round. Only buy defuse kits.
Two buy defuse kits, the rest buy smokes and flashes
Sounds like the 10% is just going to have to stay late until this entire battlefield has been policed. Not a single cigarette butt, piece of trash, or enemy soldier left in my AO, hoah? No whining,, everyone on line!
Broken arrow at that point. If I'm going down, you're going with me.
idk about 90% but in ww2 many units that were damaged would just get blob absorbed into others. Baker and Charley at 50%? well, that means the new Dog company is at 100%!
You'll find out in a few months when you're dying in the middle east or europe
Brown, Russian or both?
Say broken arrow and let the planes level everything in the area
Right before I got out and right when Ukraine started my Brigade did a JRTC rotation that was geared towards a force on force type scenario with "Russia". So basically going back to fighting conventional warfare opposed to COIN which the US has been doing for 20+ years.
More than 70% of the Brigade was massacred twice. This was primarily due to US commanders totally forgetting how enemy forces that are nearly equal move and fight.
I forget exactly but I believe once a US fighting unit, lets say Batallion falls below 70% it is considered combat ineffective and is pulled back to refit/resupply/refresh numbers or advances are stopped.
Look they told us in the 82nd that if we jumped into an area to hold out against the Soviets offensive we were not allowed to retreat until suffering 85% casualties at that point we were officially allowed to pull back. Was 87 when I was told this.