An interesting read... - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

An interesting read...

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Robin_Hoodlum
Jan 25, 2010 9:46:39 www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articl...

Interesting, no?
#2
zombie_babies
Jan 25, 2010 9:55:07 It's just like every other war, really. Even in WWII, more guys were knocked out of combat by things associated with the place instead of the people they were fighting - especially in the Pacific. Still, the way the media presents the amount of deaths is sickening. I'm not sure if this is still correct, but the number of US dead during the entire Iraq conflict was a little more than double the amount of Brits that died when the Bismarck blasted the Hood from the sea. 1415 men died. In about 3 minutes. The amount of men and women that have died is a tragic number, of course. But it's got nothing on other conflicts.
#3
modern_iconoclast
Jan 25, 2010 9:56:42 They get better at what they do.
I think better tactics and equipement has to do with it.

Terrain must have some part in the equation as well, don't know much about warfare myself but I think it'd have more casualities fighting in the jungles of Viet-Nam than the deserts of Irak.

Interesting to see that nowadays, military suffer mostly from the same illness that tourists does.
Still a dangerous job.
#4
Escef
Jan 26, 2010 4:27:03 Traditionally, armies lost more soldiers to disease than combat. You have a large number of people living in close quarters, poor living conditions, and poor sanitation.
#5
death_isthe_begining
Jan 26, 2010 10:37:46 You know I knew there were casualties from disease and psychological but I didn't realize that the pecentage was quite that high. Good to know.
#6
grumpycelt
Jan 26, 2010 11:09:26 As I recall, in the first Gulf War many more died from friendly fire than from combat with enemy forces... except for that lucky shot from Saddam's forces that hit a military hospital.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Robin_Hoodlum Jan 25, 2010 9:46:39	www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articl... Interesting, no?
#2 zombie_babies Jan 25, 2010 9:55:07	It's just like every other war, really. Even in WWII, more guys were knocked out of combat by things associated with the place instead of the people they were fighting - especially in the Pacific. Still, the way the media presents the amount of deaths is sickening. I'm not sure if this is still correct, but the number of US dead during the entire Iraq conflict was a little more than double the amount of Brits that died when the Bismarck blasted the Hood from the sea. 1415 men died. In about 3 minutes. The amount of men and women that have died is a tragic number, of course. But it's got nothing on other conflicts.
#3 modern_iconoclast Jan 25, 2010 9:56:42	They get better at what they do. I think better tactics and equipement has to do with it. Terrain must have some part in the equation as well, don't know much about warfare myself but I think it'd have more casualities fighting in the jungles of Viet-Nam than the deserts of Irak. Interesting to see that nowadays, military suffer mostly from the same illness that tourists does. Still a dangerous job.
#4 Escef Jan 26, 2010 4:27:03	Traditionally, armies lost more soldiers to disease than combat. You have a large number of people living in close quarters, poor living conditions, and poor sanitation.
#5 death_isthe_begining Jan 26, 2010 10:37:46	You know I knew there were casualties from disease and psychological but I didn't realize that the pecentage was quite that high. Good to know.
#6 grumpycelt Jan 26, 2010 11:09:26	As I recall, in the first Gulf War many more died from friendly fire than from combat with enemy forces... except for that lucky shot from Saddam's forces that hit a military hospital.