Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
Thats probably the ideal scenario in a conventional war environment.

The problem of the US was that the initial (production line) training was very basic and that of replacements was even less. This was a significant problem it itself.

You want to avoid the need for a continuous flow of replacements? Don't take the casualties. Not that easy in war. Easier if you have smart officers and tough and experienced NCOs and troops. Also not that easy.
I think it was considered better to let units shrink due to losses and work with these smaller units as long as possible - a depleted unit which has strong coherence was better than a larger units which lacked it - then bring them back to authorized strength when you have the opportunity to incorporate the replacements, i.e. training time is available, more a "batch" approach in contrast to the "continuous flow".

IIRC the same approach was used by the British army in the Napoleonic era.