Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH
Which ever side they are on, I feel they'll do their duty for whatever their motivation is given the proper tools to do the job and the leadership to guide them.
|
I hear you loud and clear. And, that sentiment is much aligned with the Israeli investigation of the poor performance of her forces in the 2008 Second Lebanon War.
From Kober's much cited report we find the following: "An investigation committee headed by Major General (res.) Yoram Yair found that during the war
commanders’ sense of responsibility for the lives of their troops over shadowed their commitment to fulfill their missions."
The assertion, "...they'll do their duty for
whatever their motivation is given the proper tools to do the job and
the leadership to guide them," coincides with the conclusion reached in the Yair report as I have noted here; namely, that the leader's respnsibility to their troops mitigated their mission objective.
In short, the Israeli soldiers were led by commanders who did not press on with the mission, but as that company that suffered eight casualties one night at Bint Jbeil the company commander halted and withdrew.
There is no question Western armies are casualty adverse.
What we would like to do is capture the effect of a casualty adverse force in the game.
Other than introduce an additional scoreboard such as the Battle Calculation Sheet, scenario designers could significantly increase the cost of Western forces, in particular infantry units.
As an example, a USMC Fire Team cost would rise to 577 from 77.