This is the third part of my extended review of The Stress of Battle by David Rowland. It is such a strong piece of operational research that I thought that it would be useful for wargame designers (and players) to understand what the research evidence is for what went on in WW2 battles.
Fighting in Woods
The data comes from an analysis of 120 battles that took place in woods or forests from the US Civil War to the Korean War. It also applied all the things from the previous research and tried to see how woods differed from combat in other types of terrain.
| Woods | Open | Urban | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attacker casualties per defence MG (at 1:1 force ratio) |
0.818 |
2.07 |
0.76 |
| Force Ratio Power Relationship |
0.418 |
0.685 |
0.50 |
- Defence is less effective in woods, most likely because limited fields of view mean that the engagement ranges are shorter
- Combat degradation is greater in woods during night battles
- Artillery suppression is less effective in woods (presumably because the trees absorb some of the shell splinters)
- Attack casualties reduce with attacker experience (after ten battles attacker casualties are half of that of inexperienced troops)
Continued in Part 4 – Operational Research on Anti-Tank Combat
Related articles
