Mystics & Statistics

A blog on quantitative historical analysis hosted by The Dupuy Institute

How Common are Casualty Estimates?

I do note that several of the talking heads on TV have mentioned that providing a casualty estimate is standard practice when briefing for a military action. This may be the case, I have never been to one of those briefings. But….while casualty estimates for a single proposed operation may be common, my experience is that they are not that common when it comes to evaluating wars.

There were certainly multiple estimates done in 1990 for the 1991 Gulf War both inside and outside the Government. A number of estimates were high and many have never been publicly released. I have yet to have seen any systematic analysis of the casualty estimates done for the Gulf War. Most of these were based upon combat models, so as such, serve as a validation test for these combat models. Wikipedia used to have a discussion on this issue, but it has since disappeared. Needless to say, the estimate derived from a combat model made before a war is probably something that would be very telling. The fact that DOD never conducted an analysis after the war of the various estimates is also very telling.

Now, we did do an estimate in fall of 1995 for a Bosnia peacekeeping operation (the Dayton conference ended with a peace agreement in November 1995). This was the only estimate done for this operation. According to rumor, the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for Operations Research (DUSA-OR) if they could do such an estimate, and were told that there was no methodology to estimate casualties in an Operation Other Than War (OOTW) (see page 309, America’s Modern Wars). So The Dupuy Institute ended up doing such an estimate, and we did it based upon two different methodologies (see Appendix II, America’s Modern Wars).

As far as I know, we were also the only people who did an estimate in 2004/2005 for the cost and duration of an extended guerilla war in Iraq. Some one else may have done some work on duration, as I kept hearing the statement made that guerilla wars lasted an average of ten years. I could never tell if that figure was pulled from our work or if someone else did some similar work. Regardless, I think we were the only people who did an analytically based casualty estimate of the war. See Chapter 1, America’s Modern Wars.

Now, when I was writing America’s Modern Wars, I decided to look into what estimates had been made in the first half of the 1960s for the war in Vietnam. I really could not find anything analytical, although my search was not exhaustive (meaning I am still waiting for someone to prove me wrong). But, it does not appear that any analytically based estimate was made during the 1960s for casualties and duration for what turned into America’s third bloodiest and second longest war. See pages 4, 29-30, America’s Modern Wars.

So, there appears to have been an estimate done for the casualties for a strike on Iraq (although I doubt it will be made public). On the other hand, it is doubtful if anyone has done an estimate for the full range of options, or addressing the Iranian counter-options, or examining an extended conflict with Iran. This would certainly have to address the range of counter-strikes and other options available to Iran if such a conflict further developed. For various reasons, the DOD seems hesitant to do these types of estimates.

Now, I happen to think our decision makers would be better served if they indeed did have some estimates of casualties and duration of these conflicts when they were contemplating their options. They were not done for the Vietnam War, only one estimate was done for Bosnia and I think only one estimate was done for the continuing war in Iraq. I am guessing, based upon that track record, no such estimate has been made for an extended conflict with Iran.

Speaking at Historicon in Lancaster, PA., Friday 12 July

I will be speaking at Historicon in Lancaster, PA., Friday 12 July. Historicon is one of the three major annual wargaming conventions run by the Historical Miniatures Gaming Society (HMGS). It will be run from 10 July-14 July, 2019. Their website is here: https://www.hmgs.org/general/custom.asp?page=HconHome

As part of this large convention, they have organized a “War College.” This is an impressive effort that includes 18 lectures on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. I have the last lecture on Friday, from 6 – 7 PM. The speakers for this series include published authors Paul Westermeyer, Pete Panzeri, Steve R. Waddell and John Prados, among others. Lecture descriptions are here:                                                                               . https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.hmgs.org/resource/resmgr/historicon/hcon_19/pels/19_war_college_pel_6-19-2019.pdf

I will be doing a presentation similar to the one I did at  the New York Military Affairs Symposium (NYMAS). It is on War by Numbers: Understanding Conventional Combat.

Casualty Estimates for Conflict with Iran – Killed and Wounded

Sometimes in the discussion of casualties, people confuse the word “casualties” with killed. Casualties are all those people who are killed, wounded, missing or captured. It also sometimes includes Disease and Non-Battle Injuries (DNBI), or those injured or killed in accidents. For example, in the Mayaguez operation in 1975 there were 18 Marines killed in action, 3 Marines missing in action (and captured?) and 23 people killed in a helicopter accident before the invasion of Tang Island.

If you are doing a casualty estimate, it can either be based upon total killed (in combat or from all causes) and may include wounded. Depending on the combat situation and wounding agent, the number wounded is often between 3 to 10 per person killed (see War by Numbers, Chapter 15: Casualties). In the case of air to ground strikes, we would expect the wounded-to-killed ratio to be on the higher side. If there is good medical care, this also affects the wounded-to-killed ratio.

So, with President Trump mentioning an estimate of 150 killed, are we then looking at 600 to 1650 casualties (killed and wounded)? Were they really looking at over 1,000 casualties from the air strikes in three locales? That is hardly a “surgical air strike” to borrow a phrase from the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is possible that someone garbled the phrase killed and casualties. This has happened multiple times before.

Casualty Estimates for Conflict with Iran

I noted today, via tweet from President Trump, that “..when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General.”

Now, we have done a few casualty estimates for conflicts: 1) The 1991 Gulf War estimate done by Trevor Dupuy that was briefed to the House Armed Services committee in 1990 and was the source of his book If War Comes, 2)  the Bosnia casualty estimate that The Dupuy Institute did for the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JSC) in 1995. This is discussed in depth in Appendix II of America’s Modern Wars, and 3) The Iraq casualty estimate that we did in 2004 for Center of Army Analysis (CAA) and OSD Net Assessment. This is discussed in depth in the first Chapter of America’s Modern Wars. So, we know something about casualty estimation and actually have a documented, provable track record.

We have no idea what casualty estimation was done for a strike or conflict with Iran. We have not been involved in that. Most likely, if a properly developed casualty estimation was done, it was done with a range of results. For example, our Bosnia estimate was that in the case of an extended deployment (which is what was done) it was estimated that there was a 50% chance that U.S. killed from all causes in Bosnia in the first year would be below 17 (12 combat deaths and 5 non-combat fatalities) and a 90% chance U.S. killed would be below 25 (see page 308 in America’s Modern Wars).

So, I am guessing that President Trump was not told that there would be 150 killed, he was probably given a range of estimates, of which that was probably the upper boundary of that range. Still, these numbers get people’s attention. I gave a briefing one morning on our Iraq estimate after a three-day weekend…and as one colonel commented during the briefing “This is a hell of a briefing to wake up to after a long weekend.” (see page 18, America’s Modern Wars).

Have They Been Reading Our Blog?

From January through April we ended up doing more than two dozen blog posts on the issue of validation. I also addressed the subject in my book War by Numbers (Chapter 18: Modeling Warfare). It is, of course, an issue I have writing about since 1997 with my article in Volume I, No. 4 of our modeling newsletter (here: http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/tdipub4.htm). We also did a number of efforts inside of the DOD to promote validation, the most significant being our Casualty Estimation Methodologies Study (May 2005) (see: http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/tdipub3.htm). This report resulted in at least one manager at one agency recommending that we be terminated from all contracts with them because we criticized their models. The response to all this discussion was underwhelming to say the least, until now:

U.S. Senate on Model Validation

And then out of the blue, here comes the Senate Armed Services Committee report. We have no idea where this came from, who did it, or why? Were they reading our blog?

Summation of our Validation Posts

The Population Situation in 2050

I got into doing posts on demographics on a whim. It was not something The Dupuy Institute or I have ever studied in any depth.

Still, it is hard not to notice that it is going to have a long-term impact on the world over the next decades. A look at the situation in 2020 vice 2050 shows the impact (population figures in millions):

………………………………….2020……………………….2050
United States…………………334…………………………389
China…………………………1,403………………………1,348
India…………………………..1,389………………………1,705

Russia………………………….143………………………….129

Japan…………………………..125………………………….107
Germany………………………..80……………………………75

 

Asia…………………………..4,598…………………………5,267
Africa…………………………1,340…………………………2,478
Europe…………………………740……………………………707

Latin American………………667……………………………784

     and Caribbean

Northern America………….371……………………………433

Oceania…………………………42……………………………..57

 

All these figures are from the website: https://www.populationpyramid.net/japan/2050/

Now, that site nicely also provides a population pyramid for each nation. One of the most unbalanced cases is Japan in 2050, where the population has been in decline since 2010:

In this case you have 46 million people age 60 or over, and only 44 million people between the ages of 20 and 59. Is this an economically sustainable scenario? It only gets worse over time. Does 80 become the new 30?

An older post on the same subject:

Population Now versus 2050

 

5th Guards Fighter Regiment, 7 July 1943

La-7, Kursk Battle Museum, Belgorod (photo by Christopher A. Lawrence)

The Fifth Guards Fighter Regiment was the highest scoring Soviet air regiment of the war with 739 victories claimed. It was lead by twice Hero of the Soviet Union, Major Vasilii Zaitsev (1911-1961) who was credited with 34 kills during the war (and 15 or 19 shared kills). The unit’s deputy command was ace Lt. Vatalii Popkov (1922-2010), also twice Hero of the Soviet Union who was credited with 41 kills during the war.

On 7 July the regiment’s records report the following kills:

Date    Pilot                            Plane               Time                           Notes

7 July   Lt. Shumilin                Me-109G          0710-0817

7 July   Jr. Lt. Belyakov          Me-109             0855-0945

7 July   Jr. Lt. Glinkin              Fw-190             0855-0945

7 July   Lt. Bayevskii               Me-109            1440-1610

7 July   Lt. Yaremenko            Ju-88               1730-1835

7 July   Jr. Lt. Glinkin              He-111             1730-1835

7 July   Captain Dmitriyev      Ju-52                1730-1835

7 July   Major Pindyur             Me-109             2000-2110

7 July   Lt. Stokolov                Me-109             2000-2110

7 July   Jr. Lt. Bugreyev          Me-109             2000-2110

7 July   Jr. Lt. Kalsin               Me-109             2000-2110

7 July   Jr. Lt. Sverlov             Me-109             2000-2100                   ***

 

It also reports the following losses:

Date    Pilot                            Plane               Time                           Notes

7 July   Lt. Shumilin                                         1730-1835                   *

7 July   Jr. Lt. Belyakov                                   1730-1835                   **

7 July   Jr. Lt. Sidorets                                    1730-1835                   Did not return

7 July   Jr. Lt. Sverlov                                      2000-2100                   ***

 

* Lt. Shumilin after an air battle made a forced landing on wheels in the area of Mikhailovka. The pilot was seriously wounded.

** Hit by fire from antiaircraft artillery and an Fw-190, pilot cross the front line and made a landing. Pilot was wounded in the legs. Plane was burned on the ground by German artillery and mortar fire.

*** but he himself was caught in fire by two Me-109s, as a result, the La-5 burned and the pilot died.

            So for 7 July, they claimed 8 Me-109s and four other planes at a loss of four planes, two pilots lost and two pilots wounded. On 7 July, the German VIII Air Corps lost 4 or 5 Me-109s (see Tables IV.27 and IV.28 of my Kursk book, page 1416). This was but one fighter regiment of the 26 fighter regiments in the Second and Seventeenth Air Armies on 7 July 1943.

U.S. Senate on Model Validation

This link is to report 116-48, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 by the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, dated June 11, 2019: https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/srpt48/CRPT-116srpt48.pdf

While this 609 page report is probably worth reading from cover to cover, that I have not done. On the other hand, pages 253-254 are worth quoting (the bolding in the text is mine):

Evaluation of modeling and simulation used for force planning and theater operational requirements

The committee notes that the Department of Defense uses a large number and variety of computer models and simulations to support decision-making about force structure, resource allocation, war gaming, and priority weapons platforms and technologies to develop and deploy in support of likely operational scenarios. These models are used to develop information to brief decision makers, including the Congress, about, for example, the current state of the balance of forces in the Pacific and European theaters, the outcomes of likely war scenarios, and the need for investments in advanced technologies and new warfighting capabilities.

The committee is concerned that the quality, accuracy, and dependability of these models, given their important role in decision making processes, has not been adequately validated. The committee notes that technical and engineering models used to develop systems such as body armor and missiles are rigorously verified and validated for veracity of assumptions and technical accuracy using real world data. Other models, such as those used in the financial sector, are developed using expertise from a variety of disciplines, including economics, sociology, and advanced mathematics. The committee is concerned that the models used by organizations including the Joint Staff, Office of Net Assessment, war colleges, and service-level planning entities are simplistic by comparison and not subject to the same level of scrutiny.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish an independent team of academic and industry modeling and subject matter experts to review the quality of modeling and simulation used for force planning, war gaming, resource allocation, and other senior leader decision-making associated with implementation of the National Defense Strategy. The team shall review the technical quality of models currently in use, including their ability to simulate as required by application; physics and engineering, socio-economic impact, readiness, global financial markets, politics, and other relevant inputs and outputs. The team shall assess the quality of these models and make recommendations for investments or policy changes needed to enhance and continuously validate current and future modeling and simulation tools employed to enable senior-level decision-making.

The committee directs the Secretary to support the team with expertise as needed from the Joint Staff, Office of Net Assessment, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, and other relevant organizations. The Secretary shall ensure that the team has sufficient resources and access to all data and records necessary to perform its analysis. The committee directs the Secretary to deliver a report on the independent team’s assessments and recommendations with any additional comments, and a specific concurrence or non-concurrence for each recommendation, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives no later than December 31, 2020.

A big thank you to the person who brought this to my attention.

Secretary of Defense – 3

Looks like we are on our third secretary of defense. Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan has withdrawn his nomination due to domestic violence problems that apparently included a baseball bat. The current Secretary of the Army, Mark Esper will be nominated for Secretary of Defense. We have a brief bio of him in this post:

Secretary of the Army, take 3

The Secretary of Defense has existed since 1947, when James Forrestal became the first. He later committed suicide. There have been 28 men (no women) who have been Secretary of Defense (including 3 acting). Of those, ten served in the U.S. Army: Hagel, Panetta, Perry, Aspin, Weinberger, Clements, Richardson, McNamara (U.S. Army Air Forces), Marshall, Johnson (WWI). Nine have never served in the military (Shanahan, Carter, Cohen, Cheney, Taft, Brown, Schlesinger, McElroy and Wilson).

How Many Maneuver Brigades Does the U.S. Have?

The U.S. Army has 10 divisions, one spare division headquarters (7th U.S. Division), three corps headquarters (I, III, XVIII Airborne Corps) and one (or seven) army headquarters (First Army). The U.S. Marine Corps has three divisions.

The norm is that a U.S. Division has three maneuver brigades, one artillery brigade and one combat aviation brigade. A number of our divisions have two maneuver brigades with a third one often being a national guard brigade. Let us count up the number of active duty maneuver brigades were currently have:

……………………………….Armored..Stryker..Infantry..Artillery..Aviation..Sustainment

Unit…………………………..Bde………..Bde…….Bde………Bde……..Bde……….Bde

1st Armored Division………..2…………..1………………………1…………..1……………1

1st Cavalry Division…………3…………………………………….1…………..1……………1

1st Infantry Division…………2…………………………………….1…………..1……………1

2nd/7th Infantry Division………………….2…………0 + 1……..1…………..1……………1

3rd Infantry Division…………2……………………….0 + 1……..1…………..1……………1

4th Infantry Division…………1…………..1………….1………….1…………..1……………1

10th Mountain Division………………………………..2 + 1……..1…………..1……………1

25th Infantry Division……………………..1………….3………….1…………..1……………1

82nd Airborne Division………………………………..3………….1…………..1……………1

101st Airborne Division……………………………….3………….1…………..1……………1

2nd Cavalry Rgt……………………………1

3rd Cavalry Rgt…………………………….1

3rd Infantry Brigade……………………………………1

173rd Airborne Bde…………………………………….1

75th Ranger Rgt………………………………………..1

5 Special Forces Groups……………………………..(5)

1st Marine Division…………………………………….4…………..1………….1……………1

2nd Marine Division……………………………………4…………..1………….1……………1

3rd Marine Division…………………………………….2…………..1………….1……………1

Total…………………………10……………7…………25 + 3……13………..13………….13

 

So, the total count is 42 maneuver brigades (not counting the national guard brigades). The +3 Infantry Brigades are national guard brigades. For the sake of simplicity, are infantry-like units (airborne, marines expeditionary brigades, marine regiments, ranger regiments, etc.) are counted as infantry brigades. The two cavalry regiments are counted as Stryker brigades. The three Marine air wings are counted at aviation brigades. The Marine artillery regiments are counted as artillery brigades. Not counted are the five special forces groups, which each consist of 4 battalions and tend to be 3,000-4,000 strong.

An armored brigade in 2014 has 4,743 troops (90 Abrams tanks, 90 Bradley IFVs and 112 M-113s), A Stryker brigade in 2014 has 4,500 troops and 300+ Strykers. An Infantry brigade in 2014 has 4,413 troops. The 75th Ranger Regiment has 3,623 personnel authorized. A Marine Regiment has around 4,900 personnel. The Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) is around 2,200 personnel and there are one to three MEUs in each of the three Marine Expeditionary Brigades.

The National Guard has:

……………………………Armored..Stryker..Infantry..Artillery..Aviation..Sustainment

Unit…………………………Bde……….Bde…….Bde………Bde……..Bde……..Bde

28th Infantry Division……………………..1…………1…………………….1

29th Infantry Division………..1………………………2…………………….1

34th Infantry Division………..2………………………2…………………….1

35th Infantry Division………………………………….3…………………….1

36th Infantry Division………..1………………………3 + 1…………………1

38th Infantry Division………..1…………..,………….2

40th Infantry Division………………………………….3……………………..1

42nd Infantry Division…………………………………2……………………..1

Total……………………………5…………..1……….18+1………………….7

4th Marine Division (reserve)…………………………2………….1………..1

The +1 is the regular army 3rd infantry brigade, which is listed above.

So the National Guard and Marine reserve has 29 maneuver brigades (counting the three assigned to regular army units and not counting the regular army unit assigned to the 36th Infantry Division) and 8 combat aviation brigades and Marine Corps air wings. There are also two national guard special forces groups.