What is the acceptable casualty rate in a modern battle

[harry hackedoff]

White Boy was taking the piss and no-one noticed
Hell White boy, fives

China using human waves along with N. Korea are doing themselves a favor and our troops get to really push the limits of those crew served weapons.

OORAGH, Sempers

[Whitey]

I was giving a stupid answer to a stupid question. Wasn't it your William Shaking Spears who said " Lay on Mc Duff and damn be the first man to cry, Hold Enough!"
Well he said something like that. I figure war is like that, you lay on until someone says uncle.
Used too people had stomaches for war, now they get sqeemish quicker.
No one will ever be happy, nations vs. nation states, cultures, ethicities, religion. Someone will always be killing somebody.

[BenChug]

50% casualty ratio is acceptable after that the mission will probably not continue unless the shit has been piled so high that they can convince the other half its worth it.

[anglo-saxon]

50% casualty ratio is acceptable after that the mission will probably not continue unless the shit has been piled so high that they can convince the other half its worth it.

Ben, you are confusing combat effectivenes with moral acceptability. By the way, a 50% unit is not combat effective when force ratios are taken into account. 75% is more like it.

[cambridgebloke]

A-S = always relevant, always accurate and always knowledgable.

Cheers Si

[Whitey]

I know we prefer a 3 to 1 ratio when attacking an enemy. If we don't have that we add weapons platforms to increase our firepower and mulitiply our force.

[Artist]

Zero killed
Zero wounded
Zero MIA
Zero POW

ZERO. OK?

Artist

[anglo-saxon]

I know we prefer a 3 to 1 ratio when attacking an enemy. If we don't have that we add weapons platforms to increase our firepower and mulitiply our force.

Weapons systems can definitely incease combat power. For instance, planning a counter battery shoot with MRLs with a range of 40Km or a series of fast air sorties would be a prudent consideration during OPP (Operational Planning Process), before the Blue forces even cross the Line of Departure. This would go a long way to reducing casualties from en indirect fire later, thus retaining force ratio at least somewhat in tact. However, there are also other ways to increase combat power, one of which is mobility. For instance, an airmobile assult to take a key bridge in tact on a high speed route could pay serious dividends later, by allowing mech/armoured forces to punch through without having to waste time/lose momentum while covering an engineer bridging task. Other combat multipliers include engineers themselves (esp in their mobility tasks), air defense assets, and enhanced intel assets (such as SF, UAV, HUMINT and PSYOPS which, although controlled by a much higher agency, nevertheless provide an enhanced "picture" of the battle field via timely INTSUMS).

[BenChug]

Depends what level your working at.
Its 50% in recce.
Morally I would have to agree with Artist '0.'

[anglo-saxon]

Depends what level your working at.
Its 50% in recce.
Morally I would have to agree with Artist '0.'

"Recce" would not constitute a unit, but a sub-sub-unit. A unit (i.e., a battle group in reality, these days) is as effective as the sum effectiveness of its parts. If a unit as at a point where it is no longer operationally effective, it is highly likely that its entire recce assets (in a mech context) will have dissappeared in a red mist some considerable time prior to that state occurring! A simple JANUS exercise is amply demonstrative of this.