Differing views of Overlord

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Post Reply
Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#226

Post by Mori » 25 Jun 2020, 22:00

Richard Anderson wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 20:45
You are now making an unsupported inference regarding "7th US Army, Veritable-Grenade and everything from the 1945 fight". You have no idea what the force ratios or casualty ratios were, so do not know if the Allies "dominated" or simply overwhelmed their German opponents. Given that I suspect from the force ratios I could suss out that the Germans were overwhelmingly outnumbered and outgunned in those cases, it is hardly unsurprising they were defeated, but that gives us zero evidence that Trevor's inference drawn from the existing data set did not hold true.

(...) It is not a problem of "non random data" it is a problem of nonexistent data.
I thought you had guessed: I am pretty familiar with both SUSA and Veritable-Grenade. So, no, it wasn't a case of "overwhelming" the Germans, and I am absolutely certain you also know that. You repeat that data about these campaigns is "nonexistent". This is a preconceived opinion. I found a lot of data about these events, as did authors who worked on them before me.
Last edited by Mori on 25 Jun 2020, 22:43, edited 1 time in total.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#227

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 25 Jun 2020, 22:33

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/pdf/e-5humanfactors.pdf

Slide 23 I think.
Army-level data shows opposite pattern from division- level data.

UK had more favorable casualty exchange ratio

US caused .9 casualties for every 1 suffered
UK caused 1.21 casualties for every 1 suffered
􏰂􏰀􏰀􏰀
I guess that this means UK (8th Army) and US (5th Army)?

Not exactly the expected answer when one looks at the divisional analysis?

I note that none of the “possible” reasons for this contradiction was that 8th Army planned and conducted more well thought through operations that matched tasks to capabilities more realistically.

:D :D

Regards

Tom


Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#228

Post by Mori » 25 Jun 2020, 22:43

Richard Anderson wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 20:45
Not ignored, more like unknown, and uninterested in such analysis. Your average "historian" has little knowledge of or interest in OR analysis, its historiography, or its significance. Try to find references to Millet and Murray, AORG, RAC, or anything similar in ANY current military history.
Well, published less than a year ago, this one refers to Murray a lot. It's a study on adaptation and innovation, and then Murray is essential.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#229

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Jun 2020, 22:55

Aber wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 21:21
Richard Anderson wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 20:49
An OLI is an OLI whether it is infantry, armor, or artillery.
And IIRC NPW gives OLI for only a limited set of weapons - 60mm mortar, 105mm howitzer, Sherman tank, and P-47 for WW2.
I thought NPW or Understanding Defeat gave some simplified OLI calculation methodology? Fraid its been years since I actually looked.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#230

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Jun 2020, 22:59

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 20:52
I'm still not sure, from what you say, that enough allowance is made for the disorganisation inherently inflicted on a formation by the chaos and confusion of an amphibious landing - I think it probably took several days for a division launched ashore to become equal once more to the sum of its parts.


There is an amphib factor, worse than the river factor IIRC, but again, trying to replicate just the invasion part is difficult, so all engagements are more or less 24 hours.
I'm happy to agree to disagree though... :thumbsup:

BTW there is an argument (but I wouldn't dare make it!) that British formations performed better under 8th Army rather than under 5th Army in Italy. All to do with the supply of tea and rum I expect. :lol: :lol: And of course the language barrier... 8O
Well, 10 Corps did much better on the Garigliano than the II Corps did on the Rapido, while both were under Fifth Army...that isn't saying much though. :lol:
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#231

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Jun 2020, 23:02

Mori wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 22:00
I thought you had guessed: I am pretty familiar with both SUSA and Veritable-Grenade. So, no, it wasn't a case of "overwhelming" the Germans, and I am absolutely certain you also know that. You repeat that data about these campaigns is "nonexistent". This is a preconceived opinion. I found a lot of data about these events, as did authors who worked on them before me.
Oh goody. So then you found daily division-level strength and casualty data for the Germans? Armor and artillery strengths and losses to match? Excellent.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#232

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Jun 2020, 23:07

That's a blast from the past. 2000! Really? Seems like it was just yesterday.
I guess that this means UK (8th Army) and US (5th Army)?
Probably. I'd have to dig to be sure, but I suspect for. A consequence of the (rev) British engagements IIRC.
Not exactly the expected answer when one looks at the divisional analysis?
Mostly because when I took another look at the engagements, 10 Corps from Salerno to the Garigliano did better than what the initial analysis tended to show.
I note that none of the “possible” reasons for this contradiction was that 8th Army planned and conducted more well thought through operations that matched tasks to capabilities more realistically.

:D :D
Actually, the "set piece" factor was introduced precisely because of that.

Now stop taking me away from actual work to revisit ancient history.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#233

Post by Mori » 25 Jun 2020, 23:30

Richard Anderson wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 23:02
Mori wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 22:00
I thought you had guessed: I am pretty familiar with both SUSA and Veritable-Grenade. So, no, it wasn't a case of "overwhelming" the Germans, and I am absolutely certain you also know that. You repeat that data about these campaigns is "nonexistent". This is a preconceived opinion. I found a lot of data about these events, as did authors who worked on them before me.
Oh goody. So then you found daily division-level strength and casualty data for the Germans? Armor and artillery strengths and losses to match? Excellent.
Well, I can't claim it's whatever level of detail of the Dupuy thing because... because said Dupuy thing is not published. There's no description how precise should the numbers be for the engagements in the database (ie: does it matter if input for losses is 123, with 3 significant figures, instead of 100, with 1 significant figure? It wouldn't be hard to run sensitivy tests to tell).

Anyway, there is certainly enough data to run your model in an accurate enough way.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#234

Post by Richard Anderson » 26 Jun 2020, 00:02

Mori wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 23:30
Well, I can't claim it's whatever level of detail of the Dupuy thing because... because said Dupuy thing is not published. There's no description how precise should the numbers be for the engagements in the database (ie: does it matter if input for losses is 123, with 3 significant figures, instead of 100, with 1 significant figure? It wouldn't be hard to run sensitivy tests to tell).
The "significant figure" is whatever the combat unit recorded or can be calculated from available data. It doesn't require a sensitivity test to tell if accurate data is used.
Anyway, there is certainly enough data to run your model in an accurate enough way.
Okay, so then you do have or can derive daily strength and casualty figures. Or multi-day figures for a multi-day engagement.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#235

Post by Mori » 26 Jun 2020, 08:51

Richard Anderson wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 00:02
Mori wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 23:30
Well, I can't claim it's whatever level of detail of the Dupuy thing because... because said Dupuy thing is not published. There's no description how precise should the numbers be for the engagements in the database (ie: does it matter if input for losses is 123, with 3 significant figures, instead of 100, with 1 significant figure? It wouldn't be hard to run sensitivy tests to tell).
The "significant figure" is whatever the combat unit recorded or can be calculated from available data. It doesn't require a sensitivity test to tell if accurate data is used.
Hum... "significant figure" has another definition for me: it's the number are digits that carry meaningful contributions to its measurement resolution. I'm talking elementary science here.

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#236

Post by Mori » 26 Jun 2020, 09:14

Richard Anderson wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 00:02
Okay, so then you do have or can derive daily strength and casualty figures. Or multi-day figures for a multi-day engagement.
Certainly with as good a reliability as what was done for the other NW Europe engagements in the database.

It's a pity Dupuy and al. did not give details how to collect data: sources to check, numbers to collect, rules for interpolation etc.

You could imagine a project more open to user-generated content. I am certain some people would gladly feed the database with data from their favorite engagements should the method made public. Just think of what effort designers of wargames put into order of battles and strength assessment - and they certainly don't do it for the money.

But going this way is not possible if you're stuck with a 20th century mindset.
Last edited by Mori on 26 Jun 2020, 17:25, edited 2 times in total.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#237

Post by Richard Anderson » 26 Jun 2020, 17:08

Mori wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 08:51
Hum... "significant figure" has another definition for me: it's the number are digits that carry meaningful contributions to its measurement resolution. I'm talking elementary science here.
Why do I feel like I'm repeating my conversation with Bob Helmbold about what time is in the database?
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#238

Post by Mori » 26 Jun 2020, 17:24

Richard Anderson wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 17:08
Mori wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 08:51
Hum... "significant figure" has another definition for me: it's the number are digits that carry meaningful contributions to its measurement resolution. I'm talking elementary science here.
Why do I feel like I'm repeating my conversation with Bob Helmbold about what time is in the database?
I'm not too sure, and forgive me if this is plain wrong: it seems calling to usual scientific concepts (e.g., importance of random samples in statistical analysis, assessing what's significant in a measurement vs. useless over-precision) are not what you are most familiar with. Nothing wrong, of course, and do not see that as criticism. It may just explain why we seem to misunderstand each other.

Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#239

Post by Aber » 26 Jun 2020, 17:56

Mori wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 23:30
Well, I can't claim it's whatever level of detail of the Dupuy thing because... because said Dupuy thing is not published. There's no description how precise should the numbers be for the engagements in the database (ie: does it matter if input for losses is 123, with 3 significant figures, instead of 100, with 1 significant figure? It wouldn't be hard to run sensitivy tests to tell).
From what I can tell from Numbers, Predictions and War the data does not have to be very precise.

For example the theoretical value of a 105mm howitzer is given as 239.0. However modifiers for Terrain, Weather, Season, Air Superiority, Posture, Leadership, Training/Experience, Morale, Logistics are shown to modify this to a range which covers 56.9 to 527.0. Therefore the qualitative judgements about these factors will probably more than outweigh small inaccuracies in the data.

These days when you can do complex calculations in spreadsheets it should be possible to analyse sensitivities to see what the key factors are that drive the model results.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Differing views of Overlord

#240

Post by Richard Anderson » 26 Jun 2020, 17:56

Mori wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 09:14
Certainly with as good a reliability as what was done for the other NW Europe engagements in the database.
Really? How do you know that? Since you will not describe what the documentary "sources"you have found are.
It's a pity Dupuy and al. did not give details how to collect data: sources to check, numbers to collect, rules for interpolation etc.
Why should he/we? You still fail to understand, it was not done as an academic exercise, but as a business, with competitors.
You could imagine a project more open to user-generated content. I am certain some people would have gladly fed the database with data from their favorite engagements had the method made public. Just think of what effort designers of wargames put into order of battles and strength assessment - and they certainly don't do it for the money.
How would you propose to do that 1967-1977 when much of the original data were collected on paper? Chain letters? Or 1990 when the ACDSB was completed? Or 1995 when the KDB was completed. And how do you do such under the specifications of a government procurement contract?

You think designers of wargames don't do it for the money? What then do they do it for...cheese? Perhaps that explains the fate of Avalon Hill, Game Designers Workshop, Battleline, and so many others.
But going this way is not possible if you're stuck with a 20th century mindset.
That may be so, but unfortunately the database is a 20th century construct, for better or worse.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”