Mystics & Statistics

A blog on quantitative historical analysis hosted by The Dupuy Institute

Counting Holes in Tanks in Tunisia

M4A1 Sherman destroyed in combat in Tunisia, 1943.

[NOTE: This piece was originally posted on 23 August 2016]

A few years ago, I came across a student battle analysis exercise prepared by the U.S. Army Combat Studies Institute on the Battle of Kasserine Pass in Tunisia in February 1943. At the time, I noted the diagram below (click for larger version), which showed the locations of U.S. tanks knocked out during a counterattack conducted by Combat Command C (CCC) of the U.S. 1st Armored Division against elements of the German 10th and 21st Panzer Divisions near the village of Sidi Bou Zid on 15 February 1943. Without reconnaissance and in the teeth of enemy air superiority, the inexperienced CCC attacked directly into a classic German tank ambush. CCC’s drive on Sidi Bou Zid was halted by a screen of German anti-tank guns, while elements of the two panzer divisions attacked the Americans on both flanks. By the time CCC withdrew several hours later, it had lost 46 of 52 M4 Sherman medium tanks, along with 15 officers and 298 men killed, captured, or missing.

Sidi Bou Zid00During a recent conversation with my colleague, Chris Lawrence, I recalled the diagram and became curious where it had originated. It identified the location of each destroyed tank, which company it belonged to, and what type of enemy weapon apparently destroyed it; significant battlefield features; and the general locations and movements of the enemy forces. What it revealed was significant. None of CCC’s M4 tanks were disabled or destroyed by a penetration of their frontal armor. Only one was hit by a German 88mm round from either the anti-tank guns or from the handful of available Panzer Mk. VI Tigers. All of the rest were hit with 50mm rounds from Panzer Mk. IIIs, which constituted most of the German force, or by 75mm rounds from Mk. IV’s. The Americans were not defeated by better German tanks. The M4 was superior to the Mk. III and equal to the Mk. IV; the dreaded 88mm anti-tank guns and Tiger tanks played little role in the destruction. The Americans had succumbed to superior German tactics and their own errors.

Counting dead tanks and analyzing their cause of death would have been an undertaking conducted by military operations researchers, at least in the early days of the profession. As Chris pointed out however, the Kasserine battle took place before the inception of operations research in the U.S. Army.

After a bit of digging online, I still have not been able to establish paternity of the diagram, but I think it was created as part of a battlefield survey conducted by the headquarters staff of either the U.S. 1st Armored Division, or one of its subordinate combat commands. The only reference I can find for it is as part of a historical report compiled by Brigadier General Paul Robinett, submitted to support the preparation of Northwest Africa: Seizing the Initiative in the West by George F. Howe, the U.S. Army Center of Military History’s (CMH) official history volume on U.S. Army operations in North Africa, published in 1956. Robinett was the commander of Combat Command B, U.S. 1st Armored Division during the Battle of Kasserine Pass, but did not participate in the engagement at Sidi Bou Zid. His report is excerpted in a set of readings (pp. 103-120) provided as background material for a Kasserine Pass staff ride prepared by CMH. (Curiously, the account of the 15 February engagement at Sidi Bou Zid in Northwest Africa [pp. 419-422] does not reference Robinett’s study.)

Robinett’s report appeared to include an annotated copy of a topographical map labeled “approximate location of destroyed U.S. tanks (as surveyed three weeks later).” This suggests that the battlefield was surveyed in late March 1943, after U.S. forces had defeated the Germans and regained control of the area.

Sidi Bou Zid02The report also included a version of the schematic diagram later reproduced by CMH. The notes on the map seem to indicate that the survey was the work of staff officers, perhaps at Robinett’s direction, possibly as part of an after-action report.

Sidi Bou Zid03If anyone knows more about the origins of this bit of battlefield archaeology, I would love to know more about it. As far as I know, this assessment was unique, at least in the U.S. Army in World War II.

So What Were the LSSAH Tigers Doing?

Of course, the Battle of Prokhorovka is famous for the hundred German Tiger tanks that were destroyed by the Fifth Guards Tank Army. In the Fifth Guards Tank Army report of 30 September 1943, they claimed to have killed 53 Tigers from 12-24 July. Somehow, this story grew to 70 Tigers killed on the tank fields of Prokhorovka (Rotmistrov, 1960) and I gather in some accounts it was rounded up to the nearest hundred. It became the standard Soviet story, and the figures 70 and or 100 Tiger tanks killed being repeated in many post-war accounts, including Rotmistrov’s. It was an absurd claim that oddly enough was picked up without critical analysis by many western historians and repeated. Yet the German unit records were readily available, but apparently no one thought of checking them. Literally dozens of books and articles were written over three decades with these false claims in them. The situation was so appalling that I ended up adding an appendix to my Kursk book called “A History of the Histories” that discusses how these obviously absurdly incorrect legends showed up in books by established historians like Goeffrey Jukes, Martin Caidin, John Erickson, and Glantz and House (When Titans Clashed, 1995).

In 1993, Trevor Dupuy warned me that the Battle of Prokhorovka did not go as the legend says it did. Even though his book Great Battles on the Eastern Front (1982) picked up the swirling tank battle story, they (Dupuy and Martell) were careful not to state any armor loss figures (“Both sides suffered heavy losses…”, page 79). So, the week before my first meeting in Moscow I ran over to the archives and pulled up the SS Panzer Corps unit records for the 11th, 12th and 13th of July. This basically took a half-day and from those records alone, the story was clear. Apparently for the last three decades none of the dozens of western historians writing about Prokhorovka had taken the time to do that.

We then flew to Moscow to meet with Col. Sverdlov and our Russian research team. Col. Fyodor Sverdlov was a war veteran who fought with an infantry battalion in the Battle of Moscow in 1941 and was a staff officer through most of the rest of the war. He was wounded three times. After the war he had written eight or more books (plus ghost-wrote some books for higher ups), became a PhD and was a professor at Frunze Military Academy. Col. Sverdlov started our conference in October 1993 by saying something like: “I was at Prokhorovka right after the war, and I didn’t see a hundred Tigers.”

This was the before I mentioned the SS unit records I came armed with. I was prepared for an extended and painful discussion on the subject, but it was clear from the start that Sverdlov, having served, did not believe the Communist propaganda (unlike so many of the western historians had). This would be a subject revisited multiple times in many other discussions. I found him opened minded and fairly unbiased. He was also very critical of the Soviet Army and the way that they operated. He was independent and analytical, and not overly nationalistic.

So, LSSAH had 4 Tigers operational on the 12th of July (most sources agree on this). According to Frieser, page 126, they did not start the day on the front line (which is not unusual). The company of four Tigers arrived during the battle and deployed on the division’s left wing. After that…..I don’t know what they did. This would have probably put them opposite to the XVIII Tank Corps. There are reports that in Andreyevka, the 181st Tank Brigade met a large column of German tanks (Kursk, page 932, Prokhorovka page 318). Andreyevka is marked on the map above (from page 317 of Prokhorovka).

Now, we do not know whose tanks are those that were in that “large column.” It could have been the tanks from one of the two panzer battalions of Totenkopf (Pz IIIs and IVs), or it could have been the Totenkopf SS Assault Gun Battalion (StuG IIIs), or the Totenkopf SS Self-propelled Antitank Company (Marders), or the unaccounted for extra panzer battalion or panzer company that LSSAH appears to have had (Pz IVs), or the LSSAH Assault Gun Battalion, or the LSSAH Self-propelled Antitank Company, or some combination of this above. Clearly, four Tigers by themselves don’t account for a “large column.”

In the thirty-third paragraph of Ben Wheatley’s article (starting with “On the other side of the ditch…”), he also has the four Tigers coming up and deploying on the division’s left wing. He then has an extended discussion of the Tiger’s operations starting at paragraph thirty-nine (“At the same time as Hill 252.2…”). He has them engaged in a major dual with the 170th Tank Brigade and then the 181st Tank Brigade. It almost appears from his account that these 4 Tigers single-handedly fought and halted breakthroughs by these two Soviet tank brigades. This seems a little much.

One source given is Frieser, page 127, which does quote Georg Loetsch, one of the four Tiger tank commanders. He states “In the morning, the company was on the left wing of II Armoured Battalion when about 50 enemy tanks, from the cover of copses and hedges, came storming towards us in a broad wedge formation…” He then claims to have shot two T-34s. It appears to be a big step from this quote to single handedly having four Tigers stop two attacking tank brigades. If he shot 2, and if the other 3 Tigers did as well, then this is only 8 tanks. Who shot the rest?

Now, I did not include the Loetzsch account in my books. Perhaps I should have.

But, there clearly were other German forces in the area. The XVIII Tank Corps records are a little confused and spotty on this action, but there are a few lines that stand out:

From: Combat Report #37, 1400, July 12, 1943:

The enemy is putting up stubborn resistance and is falling back in the pt, 217.9-Komsomolets Sovkhoz direction. Enemy artillery is firing intensively on our troops from the Greznoye area.

Our neighbor on the left [XXIX Tank Corps] is fighting for Komsomolets Sovkhoz.

The XVIII Tank Corps reached the following lines:

110th TBde: 500 meters east of Mikhalovka

181st TBde: occupied Oktyabrskii Sovkhoz and is fighting along the line Andreyevka-ht. 241.6

170th TBde: fighting along the line of the ravine southeast of Mikhalovka.

 

From: Combat Report #38, 0330, July 13, 1943

In attempting to reach the Belgorod highway, XVIII Tank Corps unexpectedly ran into the enemy’s well-organized resistance, which featured buried tanks and assault guns along the line ht. 217.9-ht. 241.6

From: Account of 18th TC’s Combat Activities, July 12-24 1943:

Time of attack is 0830 on July 12…At 0830 the corps’ units attacked (just mentioned because Ben Wheatley appears to use a different time in his account).

The terrain in the corps’ attack zone is cut by three deep ravines….which is the 181st and 170th Tank Brigades, advancing in the first echelon, were forced to attack on the corps’ left flank near the enemy strong point at Oktyabrskii Sovkhoz. 170th TBde, attacking on the left flank, by 1200 had lost 60% of its equipment.

Despite these losses, overcoming the enemy’s fire resistance, the corps’ units took the Oktyabrskii Sovkhoz and by 1200 were fighting along the line: 181st TBde-Andreyevka-ht. 241.6; 170th TBde-the ravine southeast of Mikhailovka; 32nd MotRBde was fighting for Andreyevka.

The corps’ units, continuing to carry out their mission, by the end of the day had reached the line 200m east of the Bogoroditskoye church-southern outskirts of Vasilyevka-Andreyevka-two windmills at Preslestnoye-further along the northern slopes of the ravine southeast of Andreyevka-the Oktyabrskii Sovkhoz.

By the end of the day the enemy attempts a frontal tank attack from the Kozlovka-Greznoye area, with the simultaneous attempt bypass the corps; units from the Kozlovka-Polezheyva direction, using Tiger tanks and self-propelled guns and intensively bombarding our lines from the air.

This last reference was clearly to the actions of the Totenkopf SS Division north of the Psel. I have been there. It is called the Psel River. It looks like a creek. There are pictures of it at Prelestnoye in my book (see pages 241 or 184, depending on which book you have access to).

XVIII Tank Corps encountered the enemy’s well-organized and powerful anti-tank defense, consisting of tanks and assault guns along the line of ht. 217.9-ht. 241.6.

In order to avoid excessive losses in men and equipment, I ordered the corps’ units to take up defensive positions along it new lines.

A certain irony in the last paragraph. Bakharov (XVIII Tank Corps) was relieved of command shortly after the battle, although the XXIX Tank Corps had suffered worse losses.

From: Operational Report #1, 1900, July 12, 1943, 5th GTA

18th TC, with 80th Gds Mortar Rgt, advancing from the line Prelestnoye-Prokhorovka, by 1400 captured Mikhalovka.

At 1400 the corps repulsed an enemy counterattack by 50 tanks from the Bororoditskiye area, and by 13 “Tigers” from the area of ht. 226.6

If the first part of this last sentence in correct, then that would mean there were certainly more tanks than 4 Tigers in the area. Which German tanks were there and where did they come from? The second part of this sentence is clearly an attack by up to 11 Tigers of Totenkopf SS.

The Corps’ further advance was contained by the enemy’s powerful artillery and mortar fire from the Greznoye area, and by tank fire from the Bogoroditskoye area.

Again, tanks in Bogoroditskoye, which is on the Psel, between Andreyevka and Vasilyevka.

From: Operational Report #2, 0700, July 13, 1943, 5th GTA

18th TC, with 80th Gds Mortar Rgt, by the end of July 12 had taken the eastern outskirts of Vasilyevka, but its further advance was halted by the enemy’s artillery and tank from the area of the western outskirts of Vasilyevka. The corps is on the line Petrovka-Mikhalovka and has consolodated and is regrouping.

From: 5th Guards Tank Army’s Combat Activities from July 7-24, 1943 (compiled September 30, 1943)

The initial time of 1000 set for the attack was moved back by the front commander to 0830 on July 12. At 0830, following a short artillery preparation, the corps moved into the attack.

170th and 181st Tank Brigades….and by 1430, after fierce fighting, had taken the Oktyabrskii Sovkhoz and had reached Andreyevka and Vasilyevka, and advance of 6-7 km.

At 1330 the first-echelon brigades were fired on by 13 “Tiger” tanks from the area of ht. 226.6, which were moving in the direction of the northwestern outskirts of Mikhailovka.

This is Totenkopf firing at them. There is only one mention in the Soviet records I have of them engaging any Tigers to their west or south, meaning on their side of the Psel River (it is in the next paragraph). Dr. Wheatley’s account has the Tigers operating from “Hill” 241.6 (grid location 33.3 and 53.6 or four km from SW corner of Vasilyevka at 30-56).

36th Gds Tank Regiment [the Churchills] encountered heavy fire from Tigers and AT guns from the ravines 2 km south of Mikhailovka, where it suffered heavy casualties.

In Andreyevka 181st TBde met a large column of enemy tanks. As a result of the battle that followed, the Germans suffered heavy casualties and were thrown back on Kozlovka.

Now, I put the first part about the “large column” in my book(s). I did not put the second part in, as this is the usual exaggeration of results that appears in this report written by Rotmistrov and Grishin. In their defense, bad results in their actions could have resulted in their arrest. Self-preservation clearly was a factor influencing this account, especially in light of Stalin’s call the evening of 12 July (see pages 1024-1025 or 404-405).

At 1800 on July 12 the corps’ brigade finally took Vasilyevka and reached Kozlovka.

The corps, on the line ht. 279.9-3 km southwest of Kozlovka-ht. 241.6, encountered heavy enemy fire resistance from assault guns, tanks buried in the ground, and fierce aerial bombardment, which made any further advance impossible.

Again, the mention of assault guns (which a lot of sources seem to forget about) and dug-in tanks. Not sure about the dug-in tanks, but both Totenkopf SS and LSSAH Division’s had an assault gun battalion of 10 to 21 StuG IIIs ready for action Armed with a 75mm gun and well armored, these were the second best “tanks” on the battlefield (after the Tigers).

Anyhow, it is clear the XVIII Tank Corps was facing a lot more than just 4 Tigers. The question is, who else was there?

So did the Soviet 31st Tank Brigade attack on the morning of 12 July 1943?

In the thirty-fifth paragraph of Ben Wheatley’s article he states that “The 32nd and 31st Tank Brigades advanced with the railway embankment on their left flank and the Oktiabrskiy State Farm (and the surrounding area) on their right flank (See Figures 4-7).” See: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16161262.2019.1606545

This is news to me. Perhaps because such an attack by the 31st Tank Brigade on the morning of 12 July 1943 is not clearly reported by the Fifth Guards Tank Army or XXIX Tank Corps in the Soviet unit records that I have. To quote from their records:

XXIX Tank Corps (Combat Report #74, 1900, July 12, 1943):

31st TBde is attacking behind 32nd TBde to the right of the highway in the direction of Kosomolets Sovkhoz-ht. 258.2-Luchki-Bolshie Mayachki. By 1400 the brigade had reached the area 1 km northwest of the Oktyabrkii Sovkhoz.

XXIX Tank Corps (Combat Report #75, 2400, July 12, 1943):

31st TBde, upon reaching the northeastern outskirts of the Oktyabrskii Sovkhoz, was delayed by the enemy’s artillery and mortar fire and by his ceaseless air activity. Four enemy tank and artillery counterattacks on the Okyabrskii Sovkhoz were repulsed. Losses: 20 T-34s and 18 T-70s knocked out and burned. Tanks in line: 3, with the location and condition of the remained being investigated. 

Fifth Guards Tank Army’s Combat Activities from July 7-24, 1943 (compiled September 30, 1943 by army commander Lt. General Rotmistrov and military council member Maj. General Grishin):

The corps was deeply echeloned: 32nd TBde was on the right flnak in the first echlon; 31st TBde was in the second echelon, attacking in the Krasnyi Oktyabr-Ht. 242.5-Komsomolets Sovkhoz direction….53rd MotRBde attacked behind 32nd and 25th Tank Brigade along the railroad in the direction of the Komsomolets Sovkhoz.

The next sentence of this report claims: “The enemy also launched his main blow along the railroad toward Prokhorovka, hoping to break the resistance of our units and take Prokhorovka from the march.” This is, of course, not correct. It then states:

At 1300 32nd and 31st Tank Brigades, following a fierce meeting engagement with enemy tanks along the approaches of the road south of the Okyabrskii Sovkhoz, were halted by strong enemy tank and AT fire, as well as by aerial bombardment; the brigades went over to the defensive along this line and repulsed four strong tank counterattacks, which results in heavy enemy losses.

Needless to say, this paragraph is not entirely correct either.

I also checked Zamulin and he has does have a little more detail on the 31st Tank Brigade’s operations. To quote:

Colonel S. F. Moiseev’s 31st Tank Brigade was supposed to follow it [32nd Tank Brigade], but Moiseev’s battalions were slow in moving into the jumping-off positions (page 310)…Immediately after 1000, at the moment when the second echelon of Kirichenko’s 29th Tank Corps (the 31st Tank Brigade) entered the battle, the Germans began an intensified bombardment of the assault wedges of both our tank corps east of the Oktiabr’skii State Farm (page 317)….The situation in the 31st Tank Brigade at the start of the attack received only a brief description in combat documents: ‘The pace of the offensive has slackened; the brigade has begun to mark time in place.’ (pages 317-318)….[quoting from a corps account] ‘b) The 31st Tank Brigade: At 0830 following the signal (the rocket artillery salvo), the attack of the tanks and infantry began without artillery preparation or air cover…The tanks suffered heavy losses from the enemy’s artillery fire and aviation…At 1030 the tanks reached the border of the Oktiabr’skii State Farm. Further advance was stopped by the ceaseless influence of the enemy’s aviation.’ (page 319)….[and quoted from the brigades political officer] The large losses, especially in equipment, and the insufficiently active advance of our brigade by the strong influence of the enemy’s aviation….and the enemy’s strong artillery and mortar fire….The long presence of the tanks and personnel in their starting positions (eight hours) allowed the enemy….’ (page 319)…The brigade commander [32nd Tank Brigade] moved up into the first echelon, bringing with him the 277th and 278th Battalions of the 31st Tank Brigade and directing the remnants of that brigade toward the State Farm at top speed. (page 321)…at 1300 the tanks of the 181st, 32nd and 31st Tank Brigades, together with the infantry of the 136th Guards Rifle Regiment finally broke into the Oktiabr’skii State Farm (page 327)….”

So, it does not appear from Zamulin that the 31st Tank Brigade participated in the initial attack either. It also does not appear that the 31st Tank Brigade advanced much beyond Oktyabrskii Sovkhoz, if at all. This does contradict some Soviet maps of XXIX Tank Corps operations (which the map in this blog post is drawn from…see page 321 of the Prokhorovka book).

Just to confuse the discussion Zamulin then states (page 327):

At 1300….broke into the Oktiabr’skii State Farm. Having finally overrun the first line of antitank defense on Hill 252.2, a group of 29th Tank Corps tanks poured down the hill’s southwestern slopes in pursuit of the retreating enemy in the direction of the Komsomolets State Farm. But after several hundred meters of the chase, something happened which shocked their crews. Several T-34s, moving in the lead at high speed, suddenly vanishing into the deep anti-tank ditch.

Note that most other accounts have Soviet T-34s driving into the ditch in the morning. There are no footnotes or sources indicated for this paragraph.

The 31st Tank Brigade was deployed in second echelon behind the 32nd Tank Brigade. In Soviet doctrine, they usually attacked with the first echelon and held the second echelon until they could see how the battle was developing. Advancing behind the first echelon force of the 32nd and 25th Tank Brigades was the 53rd Motorized Rifle Brigade. The tank ditch in question was one to one-half kilometers to the south, southwest and west of Oktyabrskii Sovkhoz (see pages 934 or 323 of my books for the map). So, where did this claim for an attack on the morning of the 12 July by both the 32nd and 31st Tank Brigades come from?

 

————————

P.S. One final note from the 30 September report by Rotmistrov and Grishin:

Losses suffered by Fifth Guards Tank Army in battle, July 12-24, 1943:

T-34s: 276

T-70s: 128

Mk-4 Churchill: 11….

122mm self-propelled gun: 14

76mm self-propelled gun: 10…

Killed, wound, missing: 14,393 men

.

Losses Inflicted on the Enemy by Fifth Guards Tank Army, July 12-24, 1943

1. Tanks: 454 (including Tigers: 53)

2. Self-propelled guns: 20….

16. Killed and wounded: 15,164

17. Captured: 146

 

Peter Perla on Prediction

Col. Trevor Nevitt Dupuy Arlington, Virginia, 2 June 1995 Photograph by Gary S. Schofield

Peter Perla has been around the industry a while, although I have never intersected with him. He was the keynote speaker at the Connections Wargaming Conference in 2017. His presentation was “Peter Perla on Prediction,” which has great alliteration. It is here: https://paxsims.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/connections-us-2017-wargaming-conference-proceedings.pdf

Early in his presentation he quotes Trevor Dupuy (on page 5 of his presentation). He states that he said to Trevor Dupuy “Good grief, Trevor, we can’t even predict the outcome of a Super Bowl game much less that of a battle!” Trevor Dupuy responded “Well, if that is true, what are we doing? What’s the point?”

He then quotes Jim Dunnigan as saying (on page 7): “If you want your wargame to predict the future, you better make sure it can predict the past.”

Of course, this last point is why The Dupuy Institute has developed databases on the Battle of the Bulge, Kursk, Battle of Britain, some 1200 battles since 1600, and over 100 post-WWII insurgencies.

Now, I do happen to agree with those two gentlemen. Dr. Perla presentation then goes on for a while (and I have gotten into the shameful habit of speed reading most things now) and finally concludes (on page 43) in response to the question “Why do we wargame?” with  “We do it to help us all make more accurate predictions by leveraging all our combined knowledge, experience and creativity, so that we can make more effective decisions in complex and uncertain situations.”

Let quote his entire paragraph, so I don’t look like I am just cherry-picking the phrases I want (as opposed to how some people our using our report The Historical Combat Effectiveness of Lighter-Weight Armored Forces):

We do it to help us all make more accurate predictions by leveraging all our combined knowledge, experience and creativity, so that we can make more effective decisions in complex and uncertain situations. We do it to question, to learn and to understand. We do it because Wargames entertain; they stir the imagination. Wargame engage; they stimulate the intellect. And Wargames enlighten; the create synthetic experience. And it is experience, both real and synthetic, that makes abstract risks tangible and effective planning possible.

And as Matt Caffrey has said on so many occasions, we do it because wargames save money, and most importantly, wargames saves lives. That’s why I have been doing this for forty years. I hope you all will continue to do it for forty more.

I gather this is different than what he used to state.

Anyhow, the next Connections Wargaming Conference is up in Carlisle, PA on 13-16 August, 2019. See: https://connections-wargaming.com/. I probably will not be attending. Still, this is a worthwhile effort that has been run for decades by Matt Caffrey, now of the Air Force Research Laboratory, along many others.

 

P.S. In Peter Perla’s presentation he uses this picture of Trevor Dupuy. The photograph was taken by Gary. S. Schofield on 2 June 1995.

No Action on Validation In the 2020 National Defense Act Authorization

Well, I got my hopes up that the Department of Defense modeling and simulation community was finally going to be forced, kicking-and-screaming, to move forward; ensuring that their models were properly validated, not build upon a “base of sand” and making sure they are not assembled like some “house of cards.” This was to come about through four paragraphs in the Senate’s initial markup of the National Defense Authorization Defense Act (NDAA) of 2020 that instructed DOD to assemble a team “..to assess the quality of these models and make recommendations…not later than December 31, 2020.”

The original four paragraphs are here:

U.S. Senate on Model Validation

Well, it looks like this is not going to happen !!!

According to a little research done by Shawn Woodford, it turns out that that modeling and simulation validation proposal in the original Senate Armed Services Committee report for the 2020 NDAA dated 11 June 2019 did not make it to the final Senate 2020 NDAA bill, passed on 2 July 2020. The proposal was also not included in the House version. The House and Senate versions are now being reconciled in committee and the final 2020 NDAA will probably be approved soon now that there is a general bi-partisan overall budget agreement. There will be a defense budget, but, it appears that it won’t address validation. There is a slim possibility this could change if it is added back in by committee at the last minute.

The 2020 NDAA SASC Report, 11 June 2019:
https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/srpt48/CRPT-116srpt48.pdf

The 2020 NDAA S. 1790 SASC final markup, 2 July 2019:
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s1790/BILLS-116s1790es.pdf

The 2020 NDAA HR 2500 HASC final markup, 12 July 2019:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2500/text

We would love to know who got those four paragraphs placed into the original Senate NDAA mark-up to start with; and afterwards, why they were then stripped out of the final bill. Clearly someone felt it was important enough to be put in there (as do we). We do not know who those “someone” are. And….who was it that stepped in from wherever and made sure those four paragraphs were removed?

If anyone knows anything further about this, please let us know.


P.S.

Source for 1991 RAND “Base of Sand” paper:                                                                 . https://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/N3148.html

The phrase “house of cards” we used in a report we did on casualty estimation methodologies (Casualty Estimation Methodologies Studies, 25 July 2005, The Dupuy Institute, page 32). To quote:

In 1991, Paul Davis and Donald Blumenthal employed the term “base of sand” to describe the essential modeling problem of the day. They described one of the core problems as a lack of a vigorous military science.

Unfortunately, this was the responsibility of the operations research community. Understanding military science was part of what ORO [Operations Research Office] was attempting to do in its early days. It was the operations research community who proposed the models, felt they could develop models, sold them to the military, spent the budget and finally produced the models built upon a “base of sand.” As such, they are the community that needs to correct the problem and produce this theory of combat. They are the scientists.

Yet, the problem is bigger than a “base of sand.” This phrase implies that there is a shortfall of data to start with. Yet every complex model (and most of these models are complex) is built from a number of interrelationships within the model. This is even more so for hierarchy of model structures. Each of these inter-relationships, which are often model unique constructs, is often built upon “expert judgment.” Therefore, the “base of sand” does not just start at the bottom, but carries through to each individual function within a model. As such, what has been built upon this “base of sand” is a “house of cards.”

Deja Vu all over again

Afghan police in training, 5 October 2010 (taken by William A. Lawrence II)

Recent article on Afghan troop size: https://news.yahoo.com/afghan-troop-numbers-drop-sharply-040851162.html

A few points from the article:

  1. There are now 42,000 less troops reported for the Afghan security forces.
  2. U.S. has 14,000 troops there
    1. Of those, 9,000 involved in training, advising and assisting Afghan security forces.
  3. “The change was part of an effort by the United States and its partners to reduce opportunities for corrupt ANDSF officials to report ‘ghost’ (nonexistent) soldiers and police on personnel rolls in orders to pocket the salaries.”

A few observations:

  1. Didn’t we have the same issue in Vietnam (1965-1973) with the South Vietnamese Army?
  2. Our analysis of counterinsurgency efforts focused on force ratios and the political concept behind the insurgency. This does affect the force ratios (see America’s Modern Wars).
  3. It is good that we are correcting this, but we are in our 18th year of this war. What were we doing the previous 17?
  4. Does this again establish that: “The real lesson from history is that no one learns any lessons from history.”

Validation of Wargaming Simulation Models – Confusion !!

[Clinton Reilly has been a regular commentator on this blog. We present here a guest blog post from him]

Originally, I was heartened to read in your blog that the U.S. Congress is setting up a committee to oversee the validation of wargaming models, which were seen to be of doubtful validity. Validation is obviously a ‘good thing’ as it enhances models and so they produce more useful and reliable results. Your blog has put forward several articles to this effect.

I hastened to communicate this to a senior member of the Australian Defence Science and Technology (DST) group expecting an enthusiastic response, in anticipation of the Australian government following suit. However, much to my surprise, the said member addressed the MORS Modelling and Simulation Community of Practice (CoP) saying that this was a matter of some concern as the testing and validation may not be tailored to the objectives of the individual models. Members were asked to comment on this alarming prospect. There was no comment.

While this is a possibility, it seems to me that in such a rational field the logical argument that tests must be tailored to objectives would prevail. It seems hardly worth saying!

So, I replied with a more heartening email to CoP members that validation was only to be seen as a boon and should be welcomed and encouraged. Wargames would be improved. I also emailed the MORS Wargaming CoP with a similar message, again asking for comment on the posts in the MORS Modelling and Simulation CoP.

Now this is where the confusion sets in. In the weeks since the emails were sent no one has replied. There has been no direct comment to me either. Why I ask? In a military community where modelling and wargaming is a central activity – why has no one replied on either the validity of current models or the need for greater validation?

I am submitting this to your blog in the hope that someone in the worldwide wargaming community has an opinion. Is there a problem with extensive validation of existing models? Is a program of validation needed to improve a low level of validity?  Does anyone care about the standard of current models and their outputs?

Does anyone reading this blog have a comment?

Clinton Reilly

Managing Director

Computer Strategies Pty Ltd

Sydney, Australia

Status of Defense Act

A month ago, I flagged pages 253-254 of the report 116-48, supporting the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. This report is here: https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/srpt48/CRPT-116srpt48.pdf

This kicker was the statement that “The committee is concerned that…these models…has not been adequately validated….using real world data….[and] are simplistic by comparison…” The entire four paragraphs are quoted in this blog post:

U.S. Senate on Model Validation

The current text of the actual Defense Act, dated 6/27/19 is here: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s1790/BILLS-116s1790es.pdf

Now, I don’t know how these two 609- and 1726-page documents connect, but I gather the requirements still exist to have a team “..to assess the quality of these models and make recommendations…not later than December 31, 2020.”

Does anyone know anything further about this effort?

Comments on the Photo Recon Article

The actual article by Ben Wheatley of his analysis of the photo recon from 14-16 July 1943 is here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16161262.2019.1606545

Shorter article by him is here: https://defenceindepth.co/2019/06/07/in-pursuit-of-prokhorovka/

I believe all my previous posts on Prokhorovka discuss the issues of tank loss counts to exhaustion, so I will not take the time to address his article point by point. Let me just highlight a couple of items.

It is a useful effort in that he identifies the four Pz IVs close to Hill 252.2 that are destroyed. These were almost certainly from Ribbentrop’s 6th Panzer Company. In Ribbentrop’s account he also states that four of the seven tanks in his company were lost (and his was damaged). It is always useful to have confirming evidence to an interview. Post-war interviews are not always the most reliable source. I did interview a veteran of the Spanish-American War (1898) once. That was an interesting experience.

He then makes the statement that “To the author, it seems impossible that any worthwhile publication or exhibition relating to the battle of Prokhorovka could not include the remarkable Luftwaffe photographs contained within this article.”

Well, as I did include the 32 of aerial photographs in my book….I guess that would qualify my book as worthwhile. On the other hand, he list four works in the previous paragraph (including Zetterling and Zamulin) but does not list my book. Nor it is referenced in his footnotes. Curious.

The article discusses the fight between the LSSAH Division and the XVIII and XXIX Tank Corps. It is clear he has defined the fight on the tank fields of Prokhorovka as a fight between those three units. As he stated in second paragraph of his article: “The chief protagonists of the battle of Prokhorovka, the 5th Guards Tank Army and the German SS Panzergrenadier Division ‘Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler’, fought over a battlefront of no more than 3km between the river Psel and the Storozhevoye Woods.”

He leaves out the involvement of Totenkopf and Das Reich in that fight, and the fact that Totenkopf engaged the XVIII Tank Corps to some degree and Das Reich clearly was engaged with significant parts of the XXIX Tank Corps, especially in and around the Storozhevoye Woods. This does distort the picture.

In addition he focuses on destroyed tanks. Clearly the Germans lost more tanks that five that day, but if you only count totally destroyed tanks, it does give a distorted figure.

So, in the end, he ends up with 5 tanks lost versus 200+. I ended up with an estimated 19 versus 155 for the same fight. This is not a big difference. We are quibbling over the details. But it would be nice to get these figures as close to real as possible. It is difficult as the locations and actions of many of the battalions this day are not exactly known. It was a large dramatic fight that people were too busy to document at the time.

There are lots of other things I could quibble about in his article, but I will pass on that for now. One thing he does that annoys me is refer to the “II SS Panzer Korps” on multiple occasions. Why the German spelling of Corps? He does not use the Russian spelling for their corps.

Summation of the Prokhorovka Blog Posts

Have just done a series of posts on Prokhorovka over this last week. As usual, I find it easier to write in bits and pieces then to put together one long (boring) article. Anyhow, the nine blog posts on Prokhorovka for this last week are (in order of posting):

Kursk Aerial Photos

Tank Losses on 12/13 July 1943

What About Totenkopf’s Losses?

And elements of the XXIX Tank Corps….

Damaged versus Destroyed Tanks

So What Tanks did LSSAH Lose on the 12th?

But it really wasn’t just a tank battle

The Importance of the Tank Ditch

One Final Note

There have also been a number of useful comments made to them. They are worth reading.

Tomorrow I will briefly discuss the Ben Wheatley article.