Gentlemen, I must be getting old. I rarely have been guilty of such written miscommunication.
You are of course correct in saying the number does not exist, for all the reasons cited, and more. Forager, I may perhaps illustrate I know at least something about the military as I say in the same breath that of course the number does exist.
I am not looking for a precise number. As you all so ably pointed out, the variables are both numerous and chaotic. If you want me to add more, I can readily do so: size of the combat unit(s) being supported, the climate, the intensity of combat, the operational level of experience of the units, and the length of the supply chain are five that spring immediately to mind. A cook may be rifleman, a rifleman a scrubber of pots and pans, a unit will rarely if ever have its exact TO&E as drawn up on paper. Supply/transport troops regularly pass in and out of combat zones, perhaps multiple times a day. And so on.
Looking back at how I failed in my writing, I think it may have started with a single word choice: I said I was looking for a “solid” number. I didn’t mean precise. Or actual. I had said was that while looking (through my books and specifically on the Internet) for some number, an approximate ratio of support to combat troops at a “typical” (that’s a sardonic quoting of the word, BTW) moment of WWII combat, you get numbers all over the place, doubtless in part due to the exact variables that have been mentioned. What I wanted to find was a number, a ratio, along with the definitions used to achieve it (whether that definition was precise or loose). A number that was “solid” in that sense: imperfect, theoretical, the starting point of planning, or if you prefer, total BS (but at least with an explanation of how the BS was arrived at).
The reply from 383man prompted me to try to clarify: I was not looking for an aggregate number, because that loses the at-one-point-in-time element. I attempted to illustrate my meaning by using a workplace analogy. My bad: I infer some of you took it too literally.
My comment about civilian secretaries was deliberate humor, but apparently that failed to come across. Or at least that’s how I interpret the response from JR, and perhaps others. One of the risks of writing a facetious comment, I guess.
With all that said, I repeat: of course the number does exist (and in probably quite a few variations). You could not conduct any planning without it. The number may be integral to unit design: you don’t create an artillery unit of Long Toms without providing the trucks necessary to move the guns. A Division or Corps was designed with x number of medical units, and so on. In the same fashion, you don’t try to advance your forces across a hundred-mile front (or whatever) without at least trying to make sure they will have supplies and resources to do it. The army certainly had figures for things like the combat consumption of fuel and ammunition, and knew it had to move x tons to keep those soldiers supplied, and doubtless knew that moving the supplies distance y took z men and trucks. Sure as hell such planning was imperfect. Yes, the numbers changed over time and with different locations. The planners were sure to know the sandy environment of North Africa, for example, was going to be tough on equipment, and therefore planned to increase repair facilities and resources accordingly (including repairmen) – but increase them from what? They had to have a starting point.
That’s the sort of number I’m looking for. A ratio: theoretical, flawed, how ever you would like to describe it – along with the assumptions the number is based on, so you can see what it does and does not cover. The same sort of thing that obviously some researchers have been able to access, because they DID come up with the 1:7 and 1:15 ratios I mentioned, the 1:10 ratio of 383man, and the 30:1 ratio proffered by Rising Sun. Unless the researchers “made them up,” they were based on something. The ratio by itself, as you pointed out, means little. With the rationale of how the number was arrived it, it means more, and I’m curious to see how much more it means.
The topic of support personnel is rarely discussed. You certainly are more likely to find a book on Patton’s campaign around Metz than about the soldiers that supplied the campaign. In books, I’ve seen a ratio mentioned in a stray sentence or two, in passing, but never with the explanation of how the number was arrived at. I had thought with all the people with a common interest, the odds of someone knowing of such a discussion would be higher.
If that’s not the case, so be it.
)