CEV.

This is coolbert:

In a number of previous blog entries, I have cited the figures given by the American military historian,
Trevor N. Dupuy. Dupuy makes a point of asserting that during World War Two [WW2],
it would take 120 Englishmen or American soldiers to defeat 100 Germans soldiers.
Also, according to Dupuy, it would take about 200 Russians to defeat 100 Germans.

Upon what does Dupuy base these assertions??

Let me elucidate on this.

Dupuy arrives at these figures using mathematical equations and analysis of historical battles of
WW2. These equations allow the analyst to derive a figure called combat effectiveness value [CEV]
It should be noted that we are talking about a figure that applies at the unit echelon ONLY of brigade or higher. Using the CEV derived from analysis of WW2 battles allows
Dupuy to arrive at, and, state his assertions of troop effectiveness ratios.

Dupuy has also arrived at similar CEV figures based upon analysis of combat from the various wars fought between the Israelis and the forces of the Arab nations. And amazingly, Dupuy states that the CEV between the Israeli and the Egyptian is very similar,almost exactly so, to the CEV that existed in WW2 between the Russian and the German.

According to Dupuy:

"in the 1973 war . . . the Israeli combat effectiveness superiority was nearly two-to-one. In other words: 100 Israelis, in effectively organized military units, were approximately the combat equivalent of about 200 Egyptians similarly organized. It is evident that a single Israeli soldier was not on the average twice as strong, or twice as intelligent, or twice as good a soldier as his Egyptian counterpart. In fact, on a man-for-man basis, there appears to be little qualitative difference between the opponents. So the comparison is valid only in terms of organized units."

And why is this so?

Several reasons and factors are cited by Dupuy, to include:

"Israeli combat units were more aggressive, more effective in the integrated employment of their weapons, more responsive to leadership."

"What was the reason for this Israeli superiority both in unit combat effectiveness and in top level leadership? There appear to be three elements to the answer.

In the first place, from company to top command, the Israeli leaders were more flexible, aggressive, and dynamic.

Second their doctrine, and its execution,were more suitable to the conditions in which they fought.

Third,the more Western-oriented and more cosmopolitan Israelis seems to have adapted better to the weapons and technologically sophisticated equipment with which they had been provided . . .they were clearly more self-reliant, while at the same time they were better able to cooperate with each other in team tasks and were more receptive than the Arab soldiers to military discipline and training.

They were more flexible, more alert, more aggressive than their opponents, although individually
 they do not seem to have been braver, more intelligent, or more highly motivated. In combat as a group they were more effective."

"IN COMBAT AS A GROUP, THEY WERE MORE EFFECTIVE."

This says a a lot, doesn't it??

Remember, this CEV is applicable only when speaking of organized military units at the brigade or higher echelon.

Personal comments:

I would disagree with Dupuy that the Israeli does not seem to bemore motivated that the Egyptian.
 I would think that the Israeliin all probability is MUCH more highly motivated that the
Egyptian. I would think that almost all Israelis have theperception that to lose even ONE
war against the Arab forces wouldmore or less mean the obliteration of their nation. They CANNOT
lose. And yes, the Israeli just seems to be BETTER at handling themachinery, the technology,
and the impedimenta or war that isnecessary to success upon the modern battlefield.
NOT that much better, but better, nonetheless.

[One area of Israeli expertise that IS MUCH better is theirexcellent ordnance department.
The Israeli has a special ability to repair and bring back into service damaged weaponry,
such as tanks, and do so in very quick time. According to Dupuy:"They [the Egyptians]
believed that they had destroyed 144 Israeli tanks,but in fact total Israeli tank losses had been
no more than 40.Unclassified Israeli sources are confusing. However, of a totalof about
40 Israeli tanks lost that day, all but about sixwere soon back in action! This is indicative
of Israeli ability to repair and restore to combat status damaged equipment.This MUST be a
significant advantage on their [Israeli] part!!]

Israelis are "white". They fight in the manner with which a European
or American army would fight. Their thought processes and
outlook are similar. They execute in war as would Europeans or Americans.
They are just better at organizing themselves for war. Period!!

And also, it is undeniable that the Israeli just tends to be MORE aggressive than the Arab. Israeli does not allow for something to happen, they MAKE something happen. Aggressiveness and carrying the war TO the enemy is a trademark of Israeli military operations. And with good reason!!

coolbert.