jgg, Great, terriffic. So let's pack our shit and git. The expensively and completely trained Iraqi Army can certainly handle any mopping up actions. Time to go.
On Sep 9, 2:52 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > should not be taken for granted... In part the low rate is very rare > in the history of warfare... > > http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20080909.aspx > > >>> The war in Afghanistan has been notable for how low the casualty rate > >>> has been for troops killed in combat. We'll use a standard measure of > >>> combat losses, the number of troops in a combat division (12-20,000 > >>> troops) who are killed each day the division is in combat. Since late > >>> 2001, there have been .12 American combat deaths per division day in > >>> Afghanistan. During the Vietnam war, the average division lost 3.2 troops > >>> a day, which was similar to the losses suffered in Korea (1950-53). In > >>> Iraq, the losses have been .44 deaths per division per day. By > >>> comparison, during World War II the daily losses per American averaged > >>> (over 400-500 combat days) about twenty soldiers per day. On the Russian > >>> front, German and Russian divisions lost several times that, and often > >>> over a hundred a day for weeks on end. > > For short campaigns, which Iraq and Afghanistan are not, the losses > were similar. That's why the concept of "days in combat" is used. > During World War II, and before and since, divisions would often be > out of the combat zone for days, or weeks, before going back into > action. Thus the spectacular six week German conquest of France in > 1940, saw their combat divisions taking 30 dead (on average) per day. > But during another spectacular military victory, the 1967 Six Day War, > Israeli dead were 22 per division per day, and that actually went down > to 18 a day during the less spectacular 1973 war. > > By contrast, the three week invasion of Iraq in 2003 saw U.S. troops > suffering 1.6 dead per day per division. During the 2006 Israeli war > in Lebanon, Israel lost 8 soldiers per division per day. > > With the dramatic drop in casualties, came another big shift. In World > War II, one in three casualties was killed. In Iraq and Afghanistan, > only 12 percent of the casualties were fatal. This does not change the > dramatic difference between combat losses then and now. In World War > II, U.S. divisions suffered about 60 dead and wounded per combat day, > while in Afghanistan there has been one (1) per combat day, and in > Iraq, 3.5. So by any measure, U.S. troops have learned how to avoid > getting hit. U.S. commanders see the reasons as better equipment, > tactics, weapons, leadership and training than in the past. With an > all-volunteer force, the troops are smarter and more physically fit as > well. Many of the life-saving innovations U.S. troops have come up > with in the past seven years have not gotten much publicity. Good news > doesn't sell, but in this case, it has definitely saved lives. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
