Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Some numbers on Iraq....

2,594,000 US soldiers served in Vietnam. 211,512 total casualties, 8.1% of all who served. 153,303 (5.9%) were wounded, 58,209 (2.2%) were killed, with 47,424 (1.8%) deaths from enemy action. 81.5% of deaths were from combat, 72.5% of casualties survived.

1,789,000 US soldiers served in Korea. 139,858 total casualties, 7.8% of all who served 103,284 (5.8%) were wounded, 36,574 (2.0%) were killed, with 33,741 (1.9%) deaths from enemy action. 92.3% of deaths were from combat, 73.8% of casualties survived.

16,112,566 US soldiers served in WWII. 1,077,245 total casualties, 6.7% of all who served. 671,846 (4.2%) were wounded, 405,399 (2.5%) were killed, with 291,557 (1.8%) deaths from enemy action. 71.9% of deaths were from combat, 62.4% of casualties survived

Approximately 130,000 US soldiers have been deployed in Iraqi since Bush declared "victory". Since then, there have been 13,845 total casualties, or 10.7% of all who served. 12,319 (9.5%) have been wounded, 1,526 (1.2%) have been killed, with 1,161 (0.8%) deaths from enemy action. 76.1% of deaths are from combat, 89.0% of casualties survive.

So the actual death rate is lower, but the wounded rate is MUCH higher than the past 3 wars. The main reason the death rate is lower is probably because of improvements in medicine and patient transport, as evidenced by the 89% survival rate vs. 73% in Vietnam and 62% in WWII.



( 2 pieces of cheese — Leave some cheese )
Jun. 16th, 2005 08:53 pm (UTC)
I notice the casualty rate for each war is higher than the one before, and Iraq is significantly higher than the rest. I wonder how much of this is more effective weapons, how much is that we put soldiers into more and more dangerous situations, etc.
Jun. 16th, 2005 11:18 pm (UTC)
This was actually mentioned on a History Channel program. In WWII, troops could go weeks without seeing action. To get to and from the front lines required walking or using a jeep/truck. Starting with Vietnam, we could helicopter troops into and out of battle in a matter of minutes.

And then there's the changing face of the battlefield. In WWI, the front was almost completely static. In WWII, the Allies had the advantage most of the time (at least after D-Day), but the front lines still moved fairly slowly. In Korea, the front shifted back and forth many times as first the North invaded, then the UN pushed the North back, then the Chinese got involved, then the UN counterattack, etc. In Vietnam, there really wasn't really any defined "front", skirmishes could pop up just about anywhere, even in supposedly allied controlled cities like Saigon.

The same situation is happening in Iraq. There is no "front". We're fighting guerrillas and terrorists who can strike anywhere at any time.

This is even more dangerous than Vietnam, because while the VC were cunning and desperate, they were not generally suicidal. We're fighting people who think they are going to heaven if they blow themselves up and take out a few Foreign Devils. WE CANNOT WIN AGAINST THIS, PERIOD.
( 2 pieces of cheese — Leave some cheese )