Discussion
Ok, so a bit of hyperbole to grab your attention, but I was watching the news this morning and the stats made me think.
1735 US troops killed in Iraq, out of 140,000. That's 1.2%, 1 in 80.
Obviously that's not the actual odds, because of troop rotations there have been more than 140,000 personnel there in total.
Still, makes you think:(
1735 US troops killed in Iraq, out of 140,000. That's 1.2%, 1 in 80.
Obviously that's not the actual odds, because of troop rotations there have been more than 140,000 personnel there in total.
Still, makes you think:(
1932 Coalition troops dead times 10 wounded.
The Kevlar body armour and helmets are keeping many troops alive that in previous wars would've been killed.
Also battlefield medical care has advanced even since GW1
In World War II, 30 percent of the Americans injured in combat died.
In Vietnam, the proportion dropped to 24 percent.
In the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 10 percent of those injured have died.
The Kevlar body armour and helmets are keeping many troops alive that in previous wars would've been killed.
Also battlefield medical care has advanced even since GW1
In World War II, 30 percent of the Americans injured in combat died.
In Vietnam, the proportion dropped to 24 percent.
In the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 10 percent of those injured have died.
Hilts said:
1932 Coalition troops dead times 10 wounded.
The Kevlar body armour and helmets are keeping many troops alive that in previous wars would've been killed.
Also battlefield medical care has advanced even since GW1
In World War II, 30 percent of the Americans injured in combat died.
In Vietnam, the proportion dropped to 24 percent.
In the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 10 percent of those injured have died.
Iraq and Afghanistan can't be compared with Vietnam and World War 2 due to the later wars being against insurgents instead of a full-sized prepared army.
I would like to see the how well the US would do against an equally sized and an equal in technology force, my guess is we'll see higher than WW2 ratio's. I doubt kevlar will be much help against modern missile artillery or modern assault rifles. Tanks are also pretty much moot in modern weaponry since portable missiles and even low-tech RPG's can destroy them quickly.
Vietnam was unique in the fact that it took a lot of the US armies technological advances away from them and they ended up having to fight on NVA terms a lot of the time. They did however have near total air superiority which accounts for the very high NVA casualities (including high civilian losses).
cotty said:
scorp said:
Quite low really, look at total-war examples like WW2, the casuality figures were staggering.
Thats because they charged machine gun nests instead of taking them out with an RPG (rocket propelled grenade)
True only for WW1.
An RPG is pretty dumb to use on a soft target, since it is essentially an anti-armour weapon.
Most of the casualties in WW2 were on the eastern front, which consisted of mainly mobile armour clashes. The urban fighting in russian city's took a heavy toll on both sides too, this was more down to the close-quarter nature of the fight, as opposed to charging prepared defences (machine gun nests).
>> Edited by scorp on Wednesday 29th June 13:45
MilnerR said:
Ok, 2 years in Iraq = 1800 dead or 900 per year. 8 years in Vietnam = 58000 dead or 7250 per year. To say that vietnam was full open warfare while Iraq has basically been a policing/occupation conflict the casualties are pretty high.
Tactically Iraq is a much worse situation than vietnam since there is no front line to hide your troops behind for safety, so that would inflate the casualties somewhat (car bombings, etc).
scorp said:
1932 Coalition troops dead times 10 wounded.
The Kevlar body armour and helmets are keeping many troops alive that in previous wars would've been killed.
Also battlefield medical care has advanced even since GW1
In World War II, 30 percent of the Americans injured in combat died.
In Vietnam, the proportion dropped to 24 percent.
In the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 10 percent of those injured have died.
Iraq and Afghanistan can't be compared with Vietnam and World War 2 due to the later wars being against insurgents instead of a full-sized prepared army.
I would like to see the how well the US would do against an equally sized and an equal in technology force, my guess is we'll see higher than WW2 ratio's. I doubt kevlar will be much help against modern missile artillery or modern assault rifles. Tanks are also pretty much moot in modern weaponry since portable missiles and even low-tech RPG's can destroy them quickly.
Vietnam was unique in the fact that it took a lot of the US armies technological advances away from them and they ended up having to fight on NVA terms a lot of the time. They did however have near total air superiority which accounts for the very high NVA casualities (including high civilian losses).
Scorp,
I know Challenger 2 crew persons that have been in Iraq, one of them in one incident was struck by 7 RPG's without a problem. And this wasnt even an uparmoured Churchill wearing Chally
rich1231 said:
Scorp,
I know Challenger 2 crew persons that have been in Iraq, one of them in one incident was struck by 7 RPG's without a problem. And this wasnt even an uparmoured Churchill wearing Chally
I believe the Challenger tanks have a special armouring (chobham armour or something, too lazy to google). Most armoured units are infact APC's (see Warrior) which are vulnerable to shape charge weapons.
Don't forget thar RPG's are on the low end of the technology spectrum when it comes to armour piercing.
Another factor is the angle in which the charge strikes the armour, it has to be perfectly perpendicular to be effective, hitting sloped sides will just scratch the surface, so saying it took 7 RPG's doesnt really tell you how good the armour is, since you didnt mention the range or the angle of penetration.
The British tanks are apparently the most heavily armoured tanks in the world, but i doubt it would withstand a single direct hit from another modern tank firing a 120mm armour piercing round at it - this also applies for distances up to a kilometre.
I have seen pictures from the on going Iraq conflict of US M1A1 Abrahm tanks completely penetrated by point blank RPG's.
The Churchill is a WW2 tank isnt it ?
>> Edited by scorp on Wednesday 29th June 14:36
>> Edited by scorp on Wednesday 29th June 14:38
scorp said:
scorp said:
Quite low really, look at total-war examples like WW2, the casuality figures were staggering.
Thats because they charged machine gun nests instead of taking them out with an RPG (rocket propelled grenade)
True only for WW1.
An RPG is pretty dumb to use on a soft target, since it is essentially an anti-armour weapon.
Do you mean if someone was hit by an RPG it would not detonate as it needs to hit something solid
cotty said:
Do you mean if someone was hit by an RPG it would not detonate as it needs to hit something solid
It needs a metallic target as the shaped charge is effectively a lance like metal object which vapourises and penetrates metallic armour.
The armour penetration of a common iraqi RPG (RPG7) is 320mm of steel (googled).
There are RPG projectiles designed to attack different kinds of armour found in modern tanks (RPG warheads designed specifically for reactive armour for instance)
It might kill a human at point blank, but that is more down to the kinetic energy, it wouldnt explode or anything, probably blow a burning hole in them (more likely to cause a casualty than actual death)
link about RPG7's : www.g2mil.com/RPG.htm
>> Edited by scorp on Wednesday 29th June 16:09
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff