Here's a good roundup from Strategy Page on why the US military is able to kill
their enemies so effectively while taking historically low causalities.
Why 21st CenturyWarfare Is Different
August 14, 2011: After ten years of fighting, the war on terrorhas caused
51,600 American military casualties (6,200 dead and 45,400 wounded).This
includes a small number of CIA, State Department and other agencypersonnel.
Over 99 percent are Department of Defense. Not all the casualtieswere from
combat, with 21 percent of the deaths from non-combat causes. InWorld War II
that was 25 percent. Iraq fighting accounted for 71 percent of thedeaths and 70
percent of the wounded. Outside of Afghanistan and Iraq,operations in dozens of
other countries represented 2.5 percent of deaths, butabout 71 percent of these
were from non-combat causes.
The first 21stcentury war was quite different than the 20th century conflicts.
For one thing,far fewer Americans are being killed or wounded in combat. And
fewer and fewerof those who are wounded die. It’s a continuing trend. Last
year, eight percentof the wounded died, compared to eleven percent in 2009.
There are severalreasons for more troops surviving battle wounds (and injuries
from accidents).An obvious cause is body armor. Improvements over the past
decade, in terms ofdesign and bullet resistance, account for about 20 percent
of the decline incasualties. There's a down side to this, as the body armor is
heavier andcumbersome. This reduces a soldier's mobility, and increases
casualties a bit(and saves some enemy lives as well.)
Another majorfactor is medical care, which has gotten much better, quicker and
faster. Notonly are procedures more effective, but badly wounded soldiers get
to theoperating table more quickly. Medics now have capabilities that,
duringVietnam, only surgeons possessed. Movement of casualties to an operating
roomis much faster now, partly because of better transportation, but also
becauseof more efficient methods, and operating rooms that are placed closer to
thebattlefield.
Another majorfactor is the change in what caused casualties. Explosions (like
roadsidebombs) are less likely to cause fatal wounds. For example, currently
12.9percent of bullet wounds are fatal, compared to 7.3 percent for bombs and
3.5percent for RPGs (and grenades in general). The enemy in Afghanistan prefers
touse roadside bombs, because U.S. troops are much superior in a gun battle.
Allthis contributed to the changing the ratio of wounded-to-killed, that
was6-to-1 in Vietnam, to 10-1 now.
In Iraq andAfghanistan, there has also been a dramatic reduction in combat
deaths comparedto Vietnam, and previous 20th century wars. The death rate
(adjusting for thenumber of troops involved) in Iraq was a third of what it was
in Vietnam. It'seven lower in Afghanistan. There was such a massive reduction
in combat deaths thatthe percentage of deaths that were from non-combat causes
actually went up. Forexample, there were 47,359 (81.4 percent) combat deaths in
Vietnam, and 10,797(18.6 percent) from non-combat causes. In Iraq it is 80
percent and 20 percent.In Afghanistan it is 70 percent and 30 percent. The
ratio of dead to wounded isalso different in Iraq (1 dead for 7.2 wounded)
compared to Afghanistan (1 deadfor 8.1 wounded)
There are alsodifferences in the types of casualties. For example, in Vietnam,
bullets caused38 percent of the deaths. In Iraq, it was only 19 percent, and 27
percent inAfghanistan. The Iraqis are notoriously bad shots, even though the
urban battlespace in Iraq was very similar to Vietnam. There is more of a
tradition ofmarksmanship in Afghanistan, despite (or probably because of) the
frequentlylonger distances involved. The superior body armor has made life much
harderfor enemy marksmen, as chest shots are now frequently useless and fatal
headshots are very difficult.
In Vietnam,15.7 percent of U.S. combat deaths were caused by IEDs (Improvised
ExplosiveDevices), while in Iraq and Afghanistan it peaked at about 60 percent,
and thendeclined. Casualties were avoided, or made less severe with the
development ofspecial armored vehicles (MRAPs) that reduced the impact of the
explosives. Theroadside bomb is a much less effective weapon, a loser's weapon,
because itkills more civilians than enemy troops and played a major role in
turning thelocals against the Iraqi terrorists and Afghan Taliban.
Aircraftrelated deaths (from crashes) were 14.6 percent of the combat
fatalities inVietnam, while it was only a few percent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The currenthelicopters were built with Vietnam experience in mind, and are more
resistantto damage and safer to crash land in. Ground vehicle related deaths
were twopercent in Vietnam, but more than double that in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Most ofthe ground vehicle deaths were non-combat related. That's because from
WorldWar II to the present, the U.S. armed forces put huge numbers of trucks
andother vehicles on roads (often poorly maintained, or shot up), at all hours,
inall weather and with drivers fighting fatigue. There being a war on,
thevehicles often proceeded at unsafe speeds.
What made the experienceso different today, versus past wars? It was a
combination of things. The mostimportant difference is that the troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan are fightingsmarter. While the Vietnam era troops were
representative of the generalpopulation, the post-Vietnam era army is
all-volunteer and highly selective.The troops are smarter, healthier and better
educated than the generalpopulation. During the last three decades, new
attitudes have developedthroughout the army (which always got most of the
draftees). The army, so tospeak, has become more like the marines (which was
always all-volunteer, andmore innovative as a result). This ability to quickly
analyze and adapt getsrecognized by military historians, and other armies, but
not by the media. Italso saves lives in combat.
Thisinnovation has led to better training, tactics and leadership. Smarter
troopsmeans smarter and more capable leaders, from the sergeants leading fire
terms(five men) to the generals running the whole show. Smarter troops leads
totactics constantly adapting to changes on the battlefield. The better
tactics,and smarter fighting, has been the biggest reason for the lower death
rate.
Better weaponsand equipment have made U.S. troops less vulnerable to attack.
GPS guided weaponshave made the biggest difference. There are now GPS guided
bombs, shells androckets. This enables troops to hit a target with the first
shot, and be closerto the explosion (the better to move right in and take care
of armed enemysurvivors). Another benefit is much fewer civilian casualties. In
both Iraq andVietnam, the enemy frequently used civilians as human shields, and
the bettertrained American troops were able to cope with this in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
And then therewas night vision gear. This first appeared during Vietnam, but in
four decades,the stuff has gotten better, lighter and cheaper. Every soldier
has nightvision now, as do most combat vehicles. There are also better radios,
betteruniforms, even better field rations. It all made a difference.
Then there wasthe Internet, which enabled the troops to get in touch with each
other. Thismade a big difference. Not just for the grunts, but also for the
NCOs andofficers. Each community had different problems and solutions. With the
Internet,they could easily discuss the problems, and quickly share the
solutions. Thetroops did this by themselves, and it was up to the military to
play catch up.Life-saving tips are passed around with unprecedented speed. This
made a majordifference in combat, where better tactics and techniques save
lives.
Computers andvideo games had an impact as well. The draft ended about the same
time thatpersonal computers and video games began to show up. So there have
been threedecades of troops who grew up with both. It was the troops who led
the effortto computerize many military activities, and video games evolved into
highlyrealistic training simulators. The automation eliminated a lot of drudge
work,while the simulators got troops up to speed before they hit the combat
zone.Computers also made possible doing things with information, especially
aboutthe enemy, that was not possible before. A lot of troops understand
operationsresearch and statistical analysis, and they use it to good effect.
Research hasalso shown that heavy use of video games trains the user to make
decisionsfaster. That's a lifesaver in combat.
UAVs andTrackers took a lot of the fog out of war. For nearly a century, the
troops onthe ground depended on someone in an airplane or helicopter to help
them sortout who was where. In the last decade, the guy in the air has been
replaced byrobots. UAVs, especially the hand held ones every infantry company
has, nowgive the ground commander his own recon aircraft. He controls it, and
it worksonly for him. Combat commanders now have a top-down view of his troops,
and theenemy. This has made a huge difference, creating some fundamental
changes inthe way captains and colonels command their troops. For higher
commanders, theGPS transponders carried by most combat vehicles, provides a
tracking systemthat shows a real-time picture, on a laptop screen, of where all
your troopsare. This takes a lot of uncertainty out of command.
Livingconditions enabled troops in combat to be more alert and effective.
Somecivilians think air-conditioned sleeping quarters for combat troops, and
lotsof other goodies in base camps, is indulgent. It is anything but. Getting
agood night's sleep can be a life-saver for combat soldiers, and AC makes
thatpossible. Showers, Internet links to home and good chow do wonders for
morale,especially for guys getting shot at every day. Good morale means a more
alert,and capable, soldier. The combat units often go weeks, or months, without
theseamenities, but the knowledge that these goodies are there, and eventually
to beenjoyed, takes some of the sting out of all the combat stress. The rate
ofcombat fatigue in Iraq has been much lower than in Vietnam, or any
previouswar.
The enemy inIraq and Afghanistan was not as effective as the Vietnamese were.
The Talibanare more effective than the Iraqis, but not by much. All this is
partly this isdue to cultural factors, partly because in Vietnam, the North
Vietnamese weresending trained soldiers south. The North Vietnamese also had
commandos("sappers"), who, while small in number, caused a lot of anxiety,
andcasualties, among U.S. troops. The irregular (Viet Cong) troops in
SouthVietnam, where largely gone after 1968 (as a result of the failed
TetOffensive), but even these fighters tended to be more deadly than the
averageIraqi gunman or Afghan warrior. The Iraqi troops have had a dismal
reputationfor a long time, but they can still be deadly. Just not as deadly as
theirVietnamese counterparts. The lower fighting capability of the Iraqis saved
lotsof American lives, but got far more Iraqis (including civilians) killed.
TheAfghans have a more fearsome reputation, but in practice they are no match
forprofessional infantry. And conventional wisdom to the contrary, they have
beenbeaten many times in the past. They are blessed, after a fashion, to live
inthe place that is not worth conquering. So whoever defeats them, soon leaves.
Finally, thereis the data advantage. The military (especially the army, which
has collected,since Vietnam, massive amounts of information on how each soldier
died) hasdetailed records of soldier and marine casualties. The army, in
particular,collects and analyzes this data, and then passes on to the troops
new tacticsand techniques derived from this analysis. The army restricts access
to thedata, as it can provide the enemy with useful information on how
effective theyare. Some basic data is made public, but the details will be a
locked up fordecade or more. Studying this data is a full time job for many
people in themilitary, and there is a constant stream of suggestions resulting
from thisanalysis, and those suggestions often turn into yet another small
decline incombat deaths.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language.
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
