muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) (01/15/91)
From: pur-ee!muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) In any war event, when does most of the casualties to the combatants occur ? [Air raids ? ground assaults ? etc]
gt8389a@prism.gatech.edu (Scott E. Harris) (01/16/91)
From: gt8389a@prism.gatech.edu (Scott E. Harris) In article <1991Jan15.021152.22475@cbnews.att.com> pur-ee!muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes: > >In any war event, when does most of the casualties to the combatants occur ? >[Air raids ? ground assaults ? etc] Without a doubt, the most casualties occur in ground attacks, or in assaults on ground forces. -- Scott E. Harris -- Charlie Parker Lives! Georgia Institute of Technology -- Go Jackets! Sting 'em! UUCP: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt8389a Internet: gt8389a@prism.gatech.edu
bell@krypton.arc.nasa.gov (bell hel co.) (01/16/91)
From: bell@krypton.arc.nasa.gov (bell hel co.) In article <1991Jan15.021152.22475@cbnews.att.com>, pur-ee!muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes... >In any war event, when does most of the casualties to the combatants occur ? >[Air raids ? ground assaults ? etc] Artillery.
military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (01/16/91)
From: military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) In article <1991Jan15.021152.22475@cbnews.att.com> pur-ee!muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes: > >In any war event, when does most of the casualties to the combatants occur ? >[Air raids ? ground assaults ? etc] As today's replies show (and tomorrow's will no doubt continue to show) this question doesn't lend itself to a pat answer. It's too loosely worded. Readers will interpret this in different ways, based on their own knowledge and experience. For instance, I would first say "artillery inflicts the most casualties," but that presumes an active battlefield. Suppose, instead, the land battle stagnates and a strategic air campaign is carried out. Then the correct answer will be "downed aircrews." Or if the warfare reduces itself to a simple blockade, ships' crews may account for the bulk of the casualties. Even if we limit ourselves to a "traditional" land campaign of the WWII pattern (for no particular reason) the question is tricky. Does it ask "which sort of weapon injures the most people ?", or "what phase of the battle accounts for the most casualties ?", or even "what weapon system inflicts the most casualties per unit time ?" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bill Thacker Moderator, sci.military military-request@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 Send submissions to military@att.att.com
kagst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kevin A. Geiselman) (01/18/91)
From: Kevin A. Geiselman <kagst@unix.cis.pitt.edu> In article <1991Jan15.021152.22475@cbnews.att.com> pur-ee!muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes: > >In any war event, when does most of the casualties to the combatants occur ? >[Air raids ? ground assaults ? etc] "During World War II, artillery accounted for 58% of all casualties. In open plains and deserts, 75% of the casualties were artillery caused; in mixed terrain, 63%; and in forests and towns, 50%. Today most combat troops have armored transport, but artillery guns, munitions and their methods of employment have improved considerably. In addition, armies are more motorized and more dependant on supplies of fuel, ammunition and spares, all carried by unarmored vehicles. Even heavily armored Russian divisions consist of 68% unarmored vehicles, perfect targets for the new, improved artillery. The infantry, and everyone else, has more to fear." James F. Dunnigan "How to Make War" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin A. Geiselman Internet : kagst@unix.cis.pitt.edu : kagst@pittvms.bitnet (412) 241-5447 US Mail : 301 Overdale Rd. Pittsburgh, PA 15221-4435
js1s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan Reed Sylvie) (01/18/91)
From: Jonathan Reed Sylvie <js1s+@andrew.cmu.edu>
As a field artilleryman, I can most assuredly state the the most
casualties in a conventional war do in fact come from artillery
barrages. In Field Artillery School (Fort Sill, OK), we were told that
upwards of 70% of the damage to soldiers and equipment in conflicts from
WWII to the present day were in fact caused by field artillery. They
don't call it "The King of Battle" for nothing...
CDT Jon "Fluffy" Sylvie
Carnegie Mellon Universitymuttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) (01/18/91)
From: pur-ee!muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) In article <1991Jan16.012141.8051@cbnews.att.com> military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes: |From: military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) |In article <1991Jan15.021152.22475@cbnews.att.com> pur-ee!muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes: |> |>In any war event, when does most of the casualties to the combatants occur ? |>[Air raids ? ground assaults ? etc] |As today's replies show (and tomorrow's will no doubt continue to show) |this question doesn't lend itself to a pat answer. It's too loosely |worded. |Readers will interpret this in different ways, based on their own |knowledge and experience. For instance, I would first say "artillery |inflicts the most casualties," but that presumes an active battlefield. When the battle has all ended and when casualty counts are made the question can surely be asked where did the most casualties occur ? In another cut, it may also be asked how many of casualties actually occured in battles as opposed to mines, sniper fire and the like.
mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU ( * * Hunter * * ) (01/19/91)
From: mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU ( * * Hunter * * ) Once again, pierce@bcstec.boeing.com (Greg Pierce) declares... >(Ranjan S Muttiah) >>In any war event, when does most of the casualties to >>the combatants occur ? [Air raids ? ground assaults ? etc] > >I read statistics derived from the Vietnam War which made >the conclusion that the bulk (65-70%) of enemy >casualties were a direct result of the grunt in >the field with his M-16/M-60. Actually, the 65%-70% of shoot-down percentages are correct to a certain extent. From analysis of the Vietname conflict, about 65% to 70% of American aircraft shot down in Vietname were because of damage to critical fuel systems. That were not multipully redundant. Gunfire, etc. is somewhat irrelevant, because damage can occur because of nearly any sort of weapon... Hunt---> -- mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU=======Adm. Michael "Hunter" Huang, NCC-1736=======# mhuang@nike.CalPoly.EDU // Amiga: The Vision of Tomorrow mhuang@FubarSys.com \X/ Project: "SimStar: The Next Simulation" mhuang@caticsuf.cati.CSUFresno.EDU=="This project is so secret...Or it it?"==#
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (01/19/91)
From: jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) In article <1991Jan17.052222.27310@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >Point of information: In WWII, 80% of casualties suffered in battle by >the US Army were absorbed by the infantry. This number is even more >shocking when you consider that only 10% of the Army were infantrymen. I don't find this very shocking at all when you consider that the people doing the fighting are infantrymen! Stating that this is shocking is akin to saying "Wow, you know that in the average football game, players take most of the injuries and the coaching staff almost takes NONE!?" Not being facetious, just making what I thought was an obvious observation. Brian
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (01/19/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> > >Without a doubt, the most casualties occur in ground attacks, or in > >assaults on ground forces. > > Point of information: In WWII, 80% of casualties suffered in battle by > the US Army were absorbed by the infantry. This number is even more > shocking when you consider that only 10% of the Army were infantrymen. According to Vietnam statistics on casualty evacuation, 51% of deaths were caused by small arms and 65% of wounds were caused by artillery fragments. Causes Deaths(KIA) Wounds(WIA) Small Arms 51% 16% Artillery Fragments 36% 65% Booby Traps, Mines 11% 15% Punji stakes -- 2% others 2% 2% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Location of wounds are categorized in the following areas: Head and Neck, Upper Chest, Lower Abdomen, Arms, Legs. Location of wounds Fatal Non-fatal Head and Neck 39% 14% Upper Chest 19% 7% Lower Abdomen 18% 5% Multi-sites 16% 20% Legs 7% 36% Arms 1% 18% --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The high proportion of fatalities were due to head and neck wounds attributed to the reluctance of troops in combat to wear their helmets. The proportion of small arms KIA in Vietnam was a significant increase over World War II (32%) and Korea (33%). Medical reports indicate that this was due to the AK-47's lightweight, high-velocity rounds. These bullets caused large entry and exit wounds, left severe tissue damage, and affected blood vessels out of the direct path of the bullet. The AK-47 rapid fire increased the proportion of multiple wounds. (Source: Vietnam Studies, Medical Evacuation, Department of the Army Pamphlet) mike schmitt
A512JANW%HASARA11.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Jan Wim Wesselius) (01/21/91)
From: Jan Wim Wesselius <A512JANW%HASARA11.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> On 19 January 1991 Brian K. W. Hook (jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu) wrote: | In article <1991Jan17.052222.27310@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu | (Allan Bourdius) writes: |> Point of information: In WWII, 80% of casualties suffered in battle by |> the US Army were absorbed by the infantry. This number is even more |> shocking when you consider that only 10% of the Army were infantrymen. | I don't find this very shocking at all when you consider that the people | doing the fighting are infantrymen! Stating that this is shocking is akin | to saying "Wow, you know that in the average football game, players take | most of the injuries and the coaching staff almost takes NONE!?" | Not being facetious, just making what I thought was an obvious observation. Well, whether or not you think it shocking, the average American volunteer or conscript certainly has experienced it that way, which (among other causes) led to the generally recognized rather poor quality of the American infantry soldier in this century (see, e.g., Dunnigan *et al.*). In armies where this imbalance is smaller the PBI tends to be more respected and valued, if only because of increased self-respect... Jan Wim Wesselius, University of Amsterdam A512JANW@HASARA11 // Wesselius@SARA.NL
det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) (01/21/91)
From: det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) pur-ee!muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes: >From: pur-ee!muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) >In any war event, when does most of the casualties to the combatants occur ? >[Air raids ? ground assaults ? etc] That is a pretty vague question. I would suggest (equally vaguely) that artillery "provides" the most casualties in an active. In a static situation, however, sickness and disease are the biggest source. I believe that up to %3 per day of a division in a static emplacement will become incapacitated due to disease and the like. Without a viable and/or efficient replacements system, you would be suprised how fast your division becomes a cadre at that rate... derek -- Derek "Tigger" Terveer det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG - MNFHA, NCS - UMN Women's Lax, MWD I am the way and the truth and the light, I know all the answers; don't need your advice. -- "I am the way and the truth and the light" -- The Legendary Pink Dots