"Dupuy's Evaluation of WW2 Divisions" Topic

Is there a list on the internet of the various combat ratings that dropped out of Dupuy's equations? Failing that which of his books has the most extensive listings?

I've only got 'Numbers, Predictions & War', but it has the ratings for the divisions he looked at in Italy.

It also has CEVs for a number of 'contemporary' wars, including both 67 and 73 AIW, and battle analyses for the Kaiserschlacht and Waterloo. The latter is a little tongue in cheek as it includes Napoleon be rating as 'worth 40,000 men'.

Perhaps the most interesting bit is the use of the model doing what it was designed to do – evaluate the outcome of battles on the cental front in Germany.

iirc there is a summary table for the WW2 divisions in Zetterlings 'Normandy 1944', along with an entertaining account of a campaign by a member of one of the divisions listed to get it moved up the list as he seemed to take it as a personal insult it wasn't at the top!

People get really bent out of shape about his stuff, same as they do with Marshall. They are only numbers, and if you can't measure something you can't manage it….

My favorite of his: one atomic bomb is equal to one million arrows.

I am surprised it is only a million arrows.

As I said, they are only numbers, but they do need to be taken in context as the overall effect of a weapons system in his model is within the context of target dispersion, posture etc.

I guess. Always reminded me of this,though:

youtu.be/8s3UogfAGg0

I once knew a retired Air Force colonel who wrote his own rules based solely on weapons systems. Went over to his house once. He'd just finished a solo game of William the Conqueror vs The Army of the Potomac. Guess who won?

Was it Bullwinkel?

Is he the Swiss Bullwinkle?

But no. Maybe it was Henry V,it was a long time ago,and my memory's a bit hazy. But the Yanks got shot full of arrows while they were reloading.

Indeed they do get a bit bent, Martin.

Imagine my surprise to learn that one of the members of the club I game with when in Denver actually wrote a history of his father's division because he felt that Dupuy had treated its record unfairly and underrated it.

I was a bit taken back by the ratings (as told by my brother, I didn't read the whole book), but it apparently really touched a nerve with that club member.

iirc there is a summary table for the WW2 divisions in Zetterlings 'Normandy 1944', along with an entertaining account of a campaign by a member of one of the divisions listed to get it moved up the list as he seemed to take it as a personal insult it wasn't at the top!

IIRC it was the US 88th Div. I think that Dupuy had pretty much rated it as one of the top Allied divisions, it was the effrontery of rating German divisions higher that was bugging the bloke. I haven't got the book in front of me mind, so I could have messed the story up.

I did eventually find a copy and look these up myself, so:

US:
1st Armd: 69
3rd Inf: 65
4th Armd: 60
39th Inf: 63
45th Inf: 59
85th Inf: 63
88th Inf: 81
XII Corps: 71
XX Corps: 55

British:
1st Inf: 65
5th Inf: 56
7th Armd: 62
46th Inf: 68
56th Inf: 52

German:
HG Pz: 96
Pz Lehr: 71
3rd Pz Gr: 81
4th Para: 70
11th Pz: 98
15th Pz Gr: 81
16th Pz: 77
29th Pz: 64
65th Inf: 71
94th Inf: 93
361st Inf: 78
362nd Inf: 73
XIII SS Corps: 80

There are various measures given – I have taken the "Average Relative Effectiveness %". Dupuy himself queried the values, saying that they didn't reflect the airpower involved, and of the weather and terrain and speculated that US 1st Armd, US 85th and US 88th in particular benefited from this (all their evaluated battles took place in good weather in Italy May-Jun 44), whereas some of the other divisions fought protracted battles in bad weather and worse terrain.

How does it go? Lies, damned lies and statistics?

Yes, maybe. Do you think Dupuy was using statistics to lie and prove some point?