Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is that folks assert simple facts and when innocently asked for substantiation instead of answer the question, prefer to deflect? Oh well.
Any way, what I have found is interesting for example:
During WWI U.S. forces had 11,516 total deaths out of 4,734,991 men at arms.
During WWII the U.S. suffered 116,516 deaths out of 16,112,566 men at arms.
Roughly the same rates, except that WWI stats are for `1917-1918 one year, while the WWII stats comprised 1941-1946, (Source: Congressional Research Service). It is hard for me to imagine that the WWI casualties rates for France, Great Britain or Germany were greater for World War 2, which is why I asked for your sources.
Because you do not do reading which is essential to understand a complex subject. It was not innocent inquiry on your part as you were stung by my imagined reading assignment.
Why is that folks assert simple facts and when innocently asked for substantiation instead of answer the question, prefer to deflect? Oh well.
Any way, what I have found is interesting for example:
During WWI U.S. forces had 11,516 total deaths out of 4,734,991 men at arms.
During WWII the U.S. suffered 116,516 deaths out of 16,112,566 men at arms.
Roughly the same rates, except that WWI stats are for `1917-1918 one year, while the WWII stats comprised 1941-1946, (Source: Congressional Research Service). It is hard for me to imagine that the WWI casualties rates for France, Great Britain or Germany were greater for World War 2, which is why I asked for your sources.
I just noticed how woefully incorrect your figures are.
WWI: 4,743,826 men in uniform. 53,513 battle deaths and 63,195 died from disease or injury.
WWII: 16,353,659 in uniform. 292,131 battle deaths and another 115,185 disease or injury.
When you add in the wounded, 1 in 12 became a casualty in WWI and 1 in 16 during WWII.
By comparison, 1 in 3 became a casualty during the Civil War, 1 in 40 in Vietnam, 1 in 615 during the Gulf War. In the current war, as of May, 2011, the casualty rate is 1 in 29.
Soldiers have been going over the top and suffered high casualty percentages from defensive fire since firearms gained primacy on the battlefied. Difference with WW1 is the huge number of soldiers that were available to the attacker/defender per given acreage of battlefield and density and extended range of killing weapons with non-line of sight weapons artillery. Moreso if WW1 Western Front post 1914 is studied as an extended siege and the loss rates are much more in line with history during a storming attempt.(Good reason the British termed these Forlorn Hopes) Less fatalities due to sickness in the case of WW1 compared to previous sieges in history.
As is well known by those who study the field, line infantry units in WW2 and even Vietnam suffered the same or higher loss rate as line infantry in WW1.
Because you do not do reading which is essential to understand a complex subject.
Dude! You don't have fracking inkling about my library or my reading interest. You don't have a clue about my education, or professionally published research nor do you know that having been involved in the production of documentaries over the last for years and subsequent desire to shift into the area of documentary production, hence my interest in documentaries as part of my professional development. So spare me the pomposity.
Quote:
It was not innocent inquiry on your part as you were stung by my imagined reading assignment.
I believe that I recognized that possibility and stated as much. However having been involved in this form and others, I also know that responses such as your can be deflections. We all have to be careful who we address one another because it is very easy to misread the intentions of others due to our ignorance of our respective personalities and writing styles.
I just noticed how woefully incorrect your figures are.
The figures were not incorrect, however what they reflect may be at question. They were not posted to be a definitive answer to the question but a basis for spurring further discussion and in that regard it was somewhat successful.
Quote:
WWI: 4,743,826 men in uniform. 53,513 battle deaths and 63,195 died from disease or injury.
WWII: 16,353,659 in uniform. 292,131 battle deaths and another 115,185 disease or injury.
When you add in the wounded, 1 in 12 became a casualty in WWI and 1 in 16 during WWII.
By comparison, 1 in 3 became a casualty during the Civil War, 1 in 40 in Vietnam, 1 in 615 during the Gulf War. In the current war, as of May, 2011, the casualty rate is 1 in 29.
Soldiers have been going over the top and suffered high casualty percentages from defensive fire since firearms gained primacy on the battlefied. Difference with WW1 is the huge number of soldiers that were available to the attacker/defender per given acreage of battlefield and density and extended range of killing weapons with non-line of sight weapons artillery. Moreso if WW1 Western Front post 1914 is studied as an extended siege and the loss rates are much more in line with history during a storming attempt.(Good reason the British termed these Forlorn Hopes) Less fatalities due to sickness in the case of WW1 compared to previous sieges in history.
As is well known by those who study the field, line infantry units in WW2 and even Vietnam suffered the same or higher loss rate as line infantry in WW1.
Actually, the term "forlorn hope" emanated from the Penisular War in Portugal and Spain, from 1808 to 1814.
It described small parties of British troops who attempted a " coup de main" on a fortified locale, such as at Badajoz, or Ciudad Rodrigo. Usually led by a young officer, hoping for glory and, at least a brevet promotion in rank.
I just noticed how woefully incorrect your figures are.
WWI: 4,743,826 men in uniform. 53,513 battle deaths and 63,195 died from disease or injury.
WWII: 16,353,659 in uniform. 292,131 battle deaths and another 115,185 disease or injury.
When you add in the wounded, 1 in 12 became a casualty in WWI and 1 in 16 during WWII.
By comparison, 1 in 3 became a casualty during the Civil War, 1 in 40 in Vietnam, 1 in 615 during the Gulf War. In the current war, as of May, 2011, the casualty rate is 1 in 29.
What made a huge difference in WW2 was antibiotics. More died of the result of injury (battle or other) than directly through infections. A lot of people who don't read history are very uninformed about the world without anti-biotics.
Later, with Korea, you have a vastly improved forward medical system and MASH units, even quicker in later wars. A good many in our present wars would have died of wounds or disease even in WW2.
The civil war was so tragic in that more perished of disease than battle, in part because of the poor conditions in imprompto camps. Given the state of medicine then it is hardly a surprise.
Is it fair to slam generals for not using flanking attacks in a situation where there were no flanks?
In France, from late 1914 to the summer of 1918, if there was going to be an attack, it had to be a frontal one. With their options on this so limited, the generals on both sides had to devote themselves to coming up with ways to make an effective frontal attack. They tried lots of different things, gas, immense prepatory bombardments, attacking with elan, mining underneath the trenches, tanks, surprise attacks without preliminary bombardments, storm trooper tactics....and none of these things were effective enough to alter the static strategic situation.
The one attempt at an end around resulted in the Gallipoli calamity.
What would you have done if you had been one of the generals in this situation?
Why is the premise that one must attack?
I mean look at D-day. They waited until they had overwhelming advantages in men and materials and then struck.
Would we give the planners a pass on D-day if they got annihilated on 10 previous attempts trying different odd tactics but going before they had truly dominating numbers, air superiority etc?
I view a number of the "innovative attacks" to still be somewhat 1/2 arsed lacking in coordination and concentration of force.
If you cannot launch an overwhelming attack, then hunker down...bait the enemy and let them run out into the open taking massive demoralizing casualties.
P.S. My comment was also a direct reference to Black Adder whose last season put the characters into the trenches during WW1. If you've never seen the show I would highly encourage it as it's hillarious and packed with stellar talent.
What made a huge difference in WW2 was antibiotics. More died of the result of injury (battle or other) than directly through infections. A lot of people who don't read history are very uninformed about the world without anti-biotics.
Later, with Korea, you have a vastly improved forward medical system and MASH units, even quicker in later wars. A good many in our present wars would have died of wounds or disease even in WW2.
The civil war was so tragic in that more perished of disease than battle, in part because of the poor conditions in imprompto camps. Given the state of medicine then it is hardly a surprise.
Good post. My relatives unit was The Reapers out of northern IL....he died of typhoid during the winter.
His unit lost during service 3 Officers and 94 Enlisted men killed and
mortally wounded and 5 Officers and 103 Enlisted men by disease.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
