Author Topic: US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?  (Read 1363 times)

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2004, 11:24:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rpm

If an american soldier gets shot by a terrorist, develops complications from the wound and dies, he wasn't killed by a terrorist in a war.
He died of natural causes.


I was guessing about that.  It was based on an article I read recently about a widow that wants her husbands name on the veitnam memorial wall.  He died about 10 years ago due to complications from wounds he recieved in 1968.  She claims (and I agree with her in most aspects) that her husband is a death in the vietnam war.  IIRC her request was denied.

The interesting thing about this entire conversation (and I know RPM you were being a smart arse but I was actually being serious)  What time frame (if there is one) determine weather a person is a KIA in a war if he/she dies due to wounds recieved?  They are more or less a casualty but when do they actually become a statisitical KIA?

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2004, 11:29:07 PM »
The Iraqi military was defeated quickly, that was what Bush was referring to.  The insurgency was not known as a organized force at that time.  Bush and crew have screwed up with regards to the insurgency and alot of other things but at that time and at that place Bush was in line and can only be faulted for overconfidence in the face of an apparent major victory.
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2004, 11:31:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Yeager
The Iraqi military was defeated quickly, that was what Bush was referring to.  The insurgency was not known as a organized force at that time.  Bush and crew have screwed up with regards to the insurgency and alot of other things but at that time and at that place Bush was in line and can only be faulted for overconfidence in the face of an apparent major victory.


Good point,

Most people don't realize that the invasion itself was the finest example of manuver warfare ever seen.  I heard a General say that it made the Blitzkrieg of WWII look like a turtle race in comparison.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2004, 12:51:46 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Good point,

Most people don't realize that the invasion itself was the finest example of manuver warfare ever seen.  I heard a General say that it made the Blitzkrieg of WWII look like a turtle race in comparison.


The oposition looked like a day care compared to WW2 as well. Doubt he pointed that out.
but it was a hell of a victory.

Offline Schaden

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2004, 01:06:28 AM »
Don't think so - current deaths stand at 1,319 whilst combat casualties are at 9,981 - slightly higher than the normal 7-1 ratio of dead to injured on active service.

The higher use of body armour and kevlar has probably been countered by the use of explosive ambush tactics where although death has not been the outcome severe injuries are - those troops injured being saved only by quick evacuation to mash units within 30 to 60 minutes of injury.

1,000 deaths a year with 8,000 to 10,000 serious casualties - loss of limb, burns, loss of sight - would not be unrealistic totals per annum in urban counter insurgency operations of this size and intensity.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17938-2004Dec21.html

Offline Schaden

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2004, 01:11:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Good point,

Most people don't realize that the invasion itself was the finest example of manuver warfare ever seen.  I heard a General say that it made the Blitzkrieg of WWII look like a turtle race in comparison.


That was just the opening round - the reason the US Army gained a "victory" is that the Iraqi army simply didn't fight - they simply removed themselves from the battlefield and then changed tactics to those more suited to taking on a superior conventional force.

It is interesting to note that only once in the last century did a ruling foreign power manage to win against local insurgents. Probably due to the fact that in that case the insurgents were ethnic Chinese and not indigenous to the country involved.

The odds of it happening again are not good.

Offline Ping

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2004, 04:40:58 AM »
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

DOD Instruction 7730.22, ("Reports of U.S. Casualties in Combat Areas," January 20, 1967, and March 20, 1973) provided that the Vietnam casualties to be reported were all those occurring within the designated combat areas and those deaths occurring anywhere as the result or aftermath of an initial casualty occurring in a combat area. The current related document, Military Personnel Casualty Matters, Policies, and Procedures" DoD Instruction 1300.18, December 18, 2000, is simply silent on this critical matter.

It is somewhat difficult to imagine that nearly 15,000 people were sufficiently sick or injured to require evacuation from the theater, but that only ten of them subsequently succumbed to the condition that required their evacuation. Overall, the ratio between wounded to killed-in-action is running about ten to one -- about 7,000 wounded in action with over 700 killed in action. The ratio of those evacuated due to combat wounds [over 1,500 as of 01 August 2004] to those who died subsequent to evacuation [eight reported], presents a ratio on the order of two-hundred to one, which is puzzling. It is also puzzling that over 4,000 were evacuated due to non-battle injuries, but only two subsequently died and that over 7,000 were evacuated due to disease, but that none of them died.

http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/02/week_2/10_iraq2.html
 Published: 10-Feb-2004
More than 11,000 medical evacuees have come through Andrews in the past nine months, the Air Force says.
Most, we suspect, from Iraq. But that's 8,000 more than the Pentagon says have been wounded there.
{snip}
There'd been a suicide at the Center the previous week. Another of what the Pentagon terms a "non-hostile" death - in other words, one that won't figure on its list of fatalities,
[snip]
But when it comes to the wounded, an astonishing situation has arisen: the Pentagon's figures clash wildly with those of the US Army.
The Pentagon lists 2,604 wounded in action and just 408 "non-hostile wounded".
But the Army says many thousands more have been medically evacuated from the conflict zone.
Why the discrepancy? Well, the Pentagon doesn't count as victims soldiers who come back with brain injuries or psychiatric disorders, those hit by friendly fire or those who've crashed in their military vehicles.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2004, 05:01:48 AM by Ping »
I/JG2 Enemy Coast Ahead


Offline Mini D

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6897
      • Fat Drunk Bastards
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2004, 07:57:56 AM »
When I was in South America, we had 40 people at a camp in the middle of the jungle.  4 of them were evacuated to Panama in 1 month due to illness or spider bite (brown recluse).  10% in one month.

I think Andrews is feeling the brunt of having 1/3 of the US's military forces one hop away.  I also think the media has zero concept of what goes on with the military and is easily mystified by a number.

Offline lada

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1810
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2004, 12:20:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mini D
When I was in South America, we had 40 people at a camp in the middle of the jungle.  4 of them were evacuated to Panama in 1 month due to illness or spider bite (brown recluse).  10% in one month.



Insect won, you guys sux :D

Offline Mini D

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6897
      • Fat Drunk Bastards
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2004, 12:38:19 PM »
I blame lack of adequate body armor for that one.

Offline Schaden

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2004, 12:45:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mini D
I blame lack of adequate body armor for that one.


Though not surprising when one takes into account the high humidity and general sneakiness of spiders...

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2004, 01:05:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and technically I don't think if you die as a result of wounds sustained in combat that you are considered a KIA


Well, the problem is that as far as I understand any soldier who is not blown up to pieces instantly and gets any kind of medical treatment can be counted as "non-combat loss".

American way of counting losses encourages such statistics, at least I came to such a conclusion reading some literature.

Please tell me if I am wrong. No chest-thumping please, only people who really know what really goes on.

Offline Suave

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2950
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2004, 01:26:42 PM »
No, if you are a casualty WIA (wounded in action) and you later die (DOW-died of wounds) as a result of wounds sustained in combat  then you are a combat loss. But you are not a KIA.

KIA-killed in action
MIA-missing in action
CIA-captured in action
DOW-died of wounds
POW-prisoner of war
WIA-wounded in action
DWC-died while captured
DWM-died while missing

KIA, DOW, DWC, DWM all count as combat deaths as far as I know.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2004, 01:34:07 PM by Suave »

Offline FUNKED1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6866
      • http://soldatensender.blogspot.com/
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2004, 01:43:38 PM »
I don't want to violate Suave's privacy but I know him personally and he "really knows what goes on" when it comes to military medical treatment and hospitals.

Offline Suave

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2950
US soldiers' deaths tops 5000?
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2004, 01:47:20 PM »
Actually I googled it :cool: