"Battlefield troop density and lethality of battles " Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 27 Sep 2014 10:14 p.m. PST |
Interesting thread here… link Amicalement Armand |
WCTFreak | 27 Sep 2014 10:31 p.m. PST |
|
tuscaloosa | 28 Sep 2014 7:01 a.m. PST |
A discussion based on incorrect assumptions and misunderstandings… For example, "During late XIX century wars […], an average soldier serving in the army had more chances to survive the war than at any point ever since and the same pattern seems have been followed during World War I." They completely miss the point. Increased survivability of overall soldiers is because in the last 150 years, armies' logistical tails have grown immensely, meaning that many more soldiers than ever before are serving in logistics/rear areas, and not engaging in combat. During the horse & musket era, a much greater proportion of soldiers were serving in combat. |
Legion 4 | 28 Sep 2014 7:25 a.m. PST |
|
GarrisonMiniatures | 28 Sep 2014 8:11 a.m. PST |
Also, better medical facilities may have helped… |
Lion in the Stars | 28 Sep 2014 2:15 p.m. PST |
When you have a divisional wedge of 10:1 (for every 10,000 troops, only 1000 of them are fighters), that will produce an order-of-magnitude decrease in casualties all by itself. However, when you add the major advances in medical tech in the last twenty years (seriously, injuries that were not survivable 30 years ago are considered survivable now), as well as the generally much faster time from injury to medical treatment in the first place, chances of dying in combat are a lot lower. But the first rule of statistics is to compare like with like! |
Tango01 | 28 Sep 2014 9:04 p.m. PST |
No mention my friend. Amicalement Armand |
Martin Rapier | 29 Sep 2014 4:26 a.m. PST |
As Lion says, medical improvements have made a huge difference. Disease killed far more soldiers before the twentieth century than battle ever did. In terms of combat loss proportions, it isn't a very controversial conclusion that as weapon lethality has increased, the response of deploying in hugely more dispersed formations has reduced daily casualty rates and increased battle durations. To actually deliver that enhanced capability, you need a big tooth to tail ratio, so measuring casualty rates at divisional level is not unreasonable. Average daily divisional loss rates in WW2 for attacking formations was around 3%, the big difference with comparing such loss rates with Gettysburg, Waterloo or Hastings, is that battles lasted for days, weeks, months…. so the cumulative loss rates are very high, but only in those elements actually exposed to combat. These sorts of numbers have been taken apart in excruciating detail by Dupuy, Rowlands, Biddle etc as you need to understand them to build accurate models of combat. |
Lion in the Stars | 29 Sep 2014 9:58 a.m. PST |
Let's see here… in WW1 there were no flanks to turn on the Western Front. In WW2, there were gaps between divisional areas of responsibility, as well as a lack of massive trenchworks across the area. So even if you were hitting the center of another division's area of responsibility, there was still a good chance that you'd be able to find a flank to turn. Vietnam: What battle lines? |
optional field | 03 Oct 2014 10:56 a.m. PST |
To build on what tuscalosa & Lion in the Stars have said: There is a synergy between these developments. The massive increase in the scale of logistics and the level of medical technology have led to reduced casualties because those developments mean 1) fewer soldiers are serving on the front lines 2) because injuries that are not immediately fatal are more likely to be survivable and 3) because soldiers rarely want for usable equipment, decent nourishment, or shelter. In the 18th century a soldier might well starve due to insufficient provisions(e.g. the British during the Saratoga campaign), become casualties due to a lack of shoes or proper clothing (e.g. French forces in Russia in 1812 or the Continental Army at Valley Forge), and become ill due to an open wound or unsanitary conditions. Now (2014) most soldiers are not direct combatants, which usually (but by no means always) means they are less likely to be facing the enemy directly and often. That leads to a massive reduction in the number of killed and wounded. Regardless of soldiers' roles as combatants or support personal they will seldom suffer casualties due to a lack of proper nourishment. Nor will a soldier likely become injured because he (or she) lacks proper footwear and is on the march for 12 hours a day, as often happened in the 18th century. Even infantry soldiers on a very long patrols will seldom walk for that long, and even if they do they will not be doing so barefoot. When those infantry do fight they will not want for ammunition or indirect support from artillery because the long logistic tail provides those in ample supply. Those soldiers who are wounded will be more likely to survive simply because they have access to antibiotics (deaths to infection have been rendered very rare in First World militaries), and expert medical care. It's also worth noting that (IIRC) first war that saw more casualties due to enemy action than disease was the Boer War, barely more than a century ago. The availability of antibiotics alone has reduced casualties by several orders of magnitude. Thus fewer soldiers are facing the enemy as combatants. Regardless of their role they are well supplied (at least compared to a century or more ago) in both food, clothing which makes them overall, healthier and less prone to infection or exhaustion. When they fight they will not be prone to desperate measures due to a lack of ammunition (it is would be beyond belief if a NATO unit fighting anywhere in the world were to perform a bayonet charge in desperation after exhausting their ammunition, but in the mid-19th century the Foreign Legion forever secured its reputation as an elite force by doing that very thing) which in turn will lead to fewer casualties. Finally the far fewer who are injured are much more likely to recover due to excellent care. None of which is to say modern soldiers have it easy. Many soldiers daily perform tasks daily that most civilians around the world would blanch at. It is simply to say that today for most who do serve their conditions are far better than those of soldiers in centuries past, due to a combination of factors. |
Tango01 | 03 Oct 2014 11:33 a.m. PST |
Good thread. Agree with you my friend. Amicalement Armand |
|