Scenario: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies

[shahadi]

According to the Office of Naval Intelligence: "The naval buildup includes three new classes of advanced submarines and several new types of warships that the report warns will “provide a flexible platform for Russia to demonstrate offensive capability, threaten neighbors, project power regionally (my emphasis), and advance President Putin’s stated goal of returning Russia to clear great power status.”

Source: http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...naval-buildup/

And, this is another tidbit: “We’re back to the great powers competition,” Adm. John M. Richardson, the chief of naval operations, said in an interview.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/wo...rise.html?_r=0

So, it seems the Russians want to up the ante to become a "peer" adversary to essentially challenge the US, the UK, and NATO anywhere and everywhere.

=====

[Suhiir]

Much like China, tho perhaps less important than it is to China, Russia lacks a navy that has any hope of matching the combined US/UK capability. A few subs one way or the other really don't make much difference.

[IronDuke99]

Russia has a very out of date navy right now. The two major units in the Russian Task Force shadowed by the Royal Navy recently, on its way to the Med, a Carrier and a large guided missile cruiser, were both old, Soviet era ships.

Russia, rather like Germany in the 19th-20th century suffers from geography in terms of her Navy. To operate as a Blue Water Navy the Russians have to get out of the Baltic or the Black Sea or operate (and defend) a significant base in the remote far east of Siberia. All them very hard to do. Plus it would be hugely expensive to maintain three significant fleets. Russia is, and always has been, mainly a Land Power.

Longer term, China has much more coastline on more open warm water and also has a lot more money than Russia. The Chinese are also looking to become a Carrier Navy, but it will be a while until the Chinese fleet could really challenge the USN and its major allies -Australia and Japan- in that part of the world.

Prediction: Japan will have a Carrier again by the end of the 20's. Indeed Japan (and Australia) already have flat top ships large enough to operate F35B.

Then there is India, with a Carrier Navy, that has been drawing a little closer to the US and UK lately (the Indian Air Force and the RAF carried out some joint training last year) in the face of the increased threat from China, etc.

[jp10]

In considering the OP question and not addressing terminology, I have thought of this.

We know how public reaction in the US to the casualty levels in Iraq and Afghanistan was portrayed.

I just quickly grabbed these numbers to see how it related as a % of total force.

1,429,995 total US Military Strength (at some point)

AFGHANISTAN

2,386 KIA in Afghanistan as of October 18th, 2016
20,049 WIA

22,435 total 2.46 % of total force


IRAQ

4,424 KIA as of June 29, 2016
31,952 WIA

36,376 total 6.47 % of total force

So if you are searching for a figure to be an upper limit of unacceptable casualties (US), perhaps 2% for start of political dissent, 6% for serious dissent and 10% for collapse of government? (4% between the different levels) of total forces involved.

Not etched in stone, just a quick calculation to test the theory.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by jp10

So if you are searching for a figure to be an upper limit of unacceptable casualties (US), perhaps 2% for start of political dissent, 6% for serious dissent and 10% for collapse of government? (4% between the different levels) of total forces involved.

I'd look at Vietnam too.

9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the official Vietnam era from August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975.
2,709,918 Americans served in uniform in Vietnam.
58,148 were killed in Vietnam.
75,000 were severely disabled.
23,214 were 100% disabled.

But there is one MAJOR factor numbers can't account for.
Public perception.
If the public totally supports (WW II), generally supports (the "War on Terror"), is kept generally ignorant (the Russia vs the Ukraine), or is generally opposed (Vietnam) to a war the "acceptable casualties" vary considerably.

[jp10]

I agree that it is a very 'sliding scale' type of approach. Historical battles could more easily be analyzed to use this method as a rough guide to determine victory/defeat levels by casualties rather than victory points.

To increase casualty effects in the game currently a creator must edit the units to increase a loss effect to be greater/less for a particular side.

It could be done easier if an option in the game could be added during battle/scenario/campaign creation to add/decrease victory point modifiers between the forces to give more/less weight to casualty points for a side or even a 'political effect' modifier to reflect external support or even world reaction to a conflict.
This could offer battles that a player could tactically win but suffer defeat or draw in a larger context. Could add three victory results? Military (or tactical)/Strategic/Political ? Decisive Military Victory/Strategic Draw/Political Minor Defeat ?

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by jp10

I agree that it is a very 'sliding scale' type of approach. Historical battles could more easily be analyzed to use this method as a rough guide to determine victory/defeat levels by casualties rather than victory points.

To increase casualty effects in the game currently a creator must edit the units to increase a loss effect to be greater/less for a particular side.

It could be done easier if an option in the game could be added during battle/scenario/campaign creation to add/decrease victory point modifiers between the forces to give more/less weight to casualty points for a side or even a 'political effect' modifier to reflect external support or even world reaction to a conflict.
This could offer battles that a player could tactically win but suffer defeat or draw in a larger context. Could add three victory results? Military (or tactical)/Strategic/Political ? Decisive Military Victory/Strategic Draw/Political Minor Defeat ?

Interesting.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by jp10

It could be done easier if an option in the game could be added during battle/scenario/campaign creation to add/decrease victory point modifiers between the forces to give more/less weight to casualty points for a side or even a 'political effect' modifier to reflect external support or even world reaction to a conflict.
This could offer battles that a player could tactically win but suffer defeat or draw in a larger context. Could add three victory results? Military (or tactical)/Strategic/Political ? Decisive Military Victory/Strategic Draw/Political Minor Defeat ?

Not sure it could be done in a scenario but you could in a campaign as you can set the victory levels.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by jp10

I agree that it is a very 'sliding scale' type of approach. Historical battles could more easily be analyzed to use this method as a rough guide to determine victory/defeat levels by casualties rather than victory points.

To increase casualty effects in the game currently a creator must edit the units to increase a loss effect to be greater/less for a particular side.

It could be done easier if an option in the game could be added during battle/scenario/campaign creation to add/decrease victory point modifiers between the forces to give more/less weight to casualty points for a side or even a 'political effect' modifier to reflect external support or even world reaction to a conflict.
This could offer battles that a player could tactically win but suffer defeat or draw in a larger context. Could add three victory results? Military (or tactical)/Strategic/Political ? Decisive Military Victory/Strategic Draw/Political Minor Defeat ?

You can do it yourself just set up Excel with the formulas you want & enter the scores.

[jp10]

Thinking it further, maybe different terms for each?
military battle results: (current) decisive defeat/minor defeat/draw/minor victory/decisive victory
Strategic: planning disrupted/operations delayed/no effect/ position improved/ operational advantage
Political: world condemnation/ citizen dissension / draw/ prestige gain/ global acclaim

Anyone with better terms?