Casualty rates put in perspective.

[Saurdaukar]

Just reported on CNN:

Casualty rates for all major US wars in the last 100 years.

World War I:  1 in 15 KIA/wounded

World War II:  1 in 15 KIA/wounded

Korean War:  1 in 13 KIA/wounded

Vietnam War:  1 in 15 KIA/wounded

Gulf War:  1 in 1500 KIA/wounded


Assuming 100-300 casualties this go, as thats about the average most Americans expect, we're right back at 1 in 1500 KIA/wounded.

I wonder what we've been doing differently since 1975.  In any event - its nice to see a little perspective as a background to the "Casualty Show" which seems to have replaced the "War Show" on major networks.

[Pongo]

In combat units those numbers are low by a factor of 10.
 Except maybe for the gulf war.

[ccvi]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I wonder what we've been doing differently since 1975.

Inflated numbers by support overhead.

[Major_Hans]

I read one statisic about the first Gulf War that said we normally lose X ammount of soldiers in training accidents each year.

In 1991 during the Gulf War a lot of training wasn't being done, because the men were in position in the desert.....and just sitting there.

We lost fewer soldiers that year.  It was actually safer to be at war than to be home and training.

[Erlkonig]

It might have something to do with the fact that the ground attack in '91 was completed in a couple weeks - as opposed to the near decade spent on the ground in Vietnam.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
It might have something to do with the fact that the ground attack in '91 was completed in a couple weeks - as opposed to the near decade spent on the ground in Vietnam.

Granted... but how many ground troops used in those 10 years?  I bet it comes close to evening out.

[-ammo-]

Don't get me wrong, I am AD and I whole heartedly back USCENTCOM and US/CIC.  Bagdad smells like Stalingrad to me, but not at the same level.

[Pongo]

50 dead allready.
Probably 5 times that wounded.
The fight is really just getting started.
comments?

[funkedup]

Originally posted by Pongo
50 dead allready.
Probably 5 times that wounded.
The fight is really just getting started.
comments?

They jumped off early without enough air prep.
And they aren't using Turkey.
And they are trying really hard to minimize damage to civilians and infrastructure.
All of these things mean more casualties for the coalition, and a longer war than the picture the media painted beforehand.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  
If anybody supported the initiation of war and didn't consider this, then I hope they learned a lesson.
I still think it needs to be done.

[Pongo]

And I think it will be done.
I dont know about jumping early though. Rumsfeld and co seem to have believed that the Iraqis would pack it in if they took out some of Saddams swiming pools.

[funkedup]

Re:  Jumping off early
The embedded reporter with 3rd/7th cav said their timetable got moved up by 24 hours when the "decapitation strike" happened.  They got about 6 hours notice and had to roll.

[Pongo]

Honesty.
Would that have made any difference to the sitution they are in.
An extra couple of hundred sortis would not have put a dent in the Guard cause they were not targeting them. It would not have put a dent in the Fedakin cause they werent targeting them. And it woudnt have put a dent in the Turks cause they werent targeting them.
This didnt need 24 hours of prelim. It needed 24 days of prelim.
That would also have given them time to bring arround the other Mech inf div from the Med.
But then they would be guerrenteed to fight in the heat of summer.. and they gambled that they would be able to bluff the Iraqis into surrendering.
Or some other combination of miss calculations.

[funkedup]

Originally posted by Pongo
This didnt need 24 hours of prelim. It needed 24 days of prelim.

Yep I agree totally.
I wonder if part of the problem is that the Iraqi units near Bagdhad are placed in areas that are difficult to hit from the air.  By difficult I mean close to things that the coalition does not want to bomb.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Pongo

This didnt need 24 hours of prelim. It needed 24 days of prelim.

I doubt that was possible. Rumor has it they went in because the Iraqis were beginning to torch oil wells in the south.  Also, it was necessary to take control over the western deserts.


And if you want perspective...

June 6th 1944.
Ten men died every second. Up and down the coast.

[mjolnir]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I wonder what we've been doing differently since 1975.  

It wasn't until part way through the Vietnam war that the idea of precision guided munitions really came into practice.  The first real use was a pair of F-4 Phantoms blowing up a bridge with LGMs, IIRC.  Since then, a LOT of money and effort has gone into developing better, more accurate bombs to kill only what we want to kill, with minimal collateral damage.  This makes the preliminary air strikes much more effective, thus reducing the threats to the ground forces when they roll in.

Combine the vast increases in technology with the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 which completely revamped the command structure of the military to get all branches of service working together and to keep the talking heads in Washington from trying to run another war the way they did in Vietnam, and it's not too surprising that our casualty rates have dropped dramatically.