Something I didn't expect

[sburke]

Was looking on wikipedia on the 1st ID and noted the division lost more dead and wounded in Vietnam than in WW2. Maybe I should have expected that, but frankly I did not. Granted the time span is longer, but still.... I would guess that had more to do with the grunts having to fight it out at closer range? Perhaps someone actually knows and can explain that better.

[dieseltaylor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Infantry_Division_%28United_States%29

[dieseltaylor]

Having followed the link : ) and seen it is a five yeaar stint as opposed to an 11 month stint it does make sense. Perhaps perception is altered by the downplaying of casualties during the period.

I suspect that as naval losses and air losses were trivial the comparison of overall losses compared to WW2 would not have seemed vast- if that comparison was ever made.

This is a very useful article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Speaking of statistics and the Vietnam War, the one statistic that has always blown me away with regard to that war was when I read somewhere that in one year of the Vietnam War when the saturation bombing campaign was at its peak, more tonnage of bombs were dropped on that relatively tiny portion of land known as North Vietnam than was dropped by the USAF during the entire Second World War.

Simply mind blowing.

Regards

KR

[JonS]

Yep. Those B-52s sure were good dump trucks.

(The version of that stat I've heard is that Vietnam - or Cambodia? - is the most bombed country on earth, beating the total tonnage dropped on Germany or Japan during WWII ... although I'm not sure how that accounts for those two nukes)

Edit: Google tells me that Laos and Cambodia each recieved more bombs than were dropped in WWII.

[Michael Emrys]

...more tonnage of bombs were dropped on that relatively tiny portion of land known as North Vietnam than was dropped by the USAF during the entire Second World War.

I certainly don't doubt it, given that the USAF did not come into existence until after the war when it was created as an entity separate from the Army.

Pedantically yours,

Michael

[Affentitten]

I certainly don't doubt it, given that the USAF did not come into existence until after the war when it was created as an entity separate from the Army.

Pedantically yours,

Michael

Not to mention that the RAF (and Dominions) were dropping a fair bit of tonnage too.

[Tero]

On the infantry casualty figures: if artillery fragments are supposed to have been the greatest cause for infantry KIA in WWII what was the case during Vietnam War for the US casualties ? AFAIK the NVA/VC relied more on small arms and booby traps than indirect fire in their operations. They supposedly grabbed the enemy belt when ever possible to negate the enemy superiority in indirect firepower. The WIA number during WWII is comparable to the Vietnam figure, despite the disparity in deployment time in years (and supposedly in days in action).

[Michael Emrys]

Not to mention that the RAF (and Dominions) were dropping a fair bit of tonnage too.

Yes, let's not mention that, shall we? Otherwise, they'll be claiming that they won the war all by themselves, when we know that it was the US that did that.

Michael

[Redwolf]

The standards of what constitutes being "wounded enough" to be counted as a casualty have changed between 1945 and 1965.

I would think just counting dead would be slightly more useful. Not really that much more useful since improvements in first aid and transport for wounded soldiers (helicopters) also happened so that number isn't a good indicator of how much lead in the air they were facing either.

[JonS]

On the infantry casualty figures: if artillery fragments are supposed to have been the greatest cause for infantry KIA in WWII what was the case during Vietnam War for the US casualties ? AFAIK the NVA/VC relied more on small arms and booby traps than indirect fire in their operations. They supposedly grabbed the enemy belt when ever possible to negate the enemy superiority in indirect firepower. The WIA number during WWII is comparable to the Vietnam figure, despite the disparity in deployment time in years (and supposedly in days in action).

Strasngely enough, apparently it was broadly true in Vietnam too.

Link

Although 'indirect' is defined as "artillery, mortar, rocket, land mines, etc."

[Tero]

Strasngely enough, apparently it was broadly true in Vietnam too.

Link

Although 'indirect' is defined as "artillery, mortar, rocket, land mines, etc."

Here's a breakdown which lists cause types in more detail.

http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwc1.htm

According to this source small arms fire was the single most greatest cause for fatal casualties at 31,8% , followed by booby traps etc at 27,4. Artillery is "only" a third of them at 8,4%. Aircraft crashes tops indirect fire casualties at 14,7%.

[Bigduke6]

Those stats linked by Tero for some reason separate indirect and artillery (I don't get it either), if you factor them together they caused more death than small arms.

Also, those stats are deaths, i.e., wounds that were survived weren't counted. I think it's reasonable to assume that small arms injuries all and all were more fatal than indirect/artillery injuries, and therefore that indirect/artillery caused more casualties, percentage-wise, than deaths.

I think the really unnerving part of those stats, though, is the amount of technically preventable death. Factor together sickness, friendly fire, accidents, and aircraft and vehicle crashes, and you come up with something like 25 - 30 per cent, depending on how you want to view things like burns and suicides. And of course many of the aircraft crashes weren't accidents but due to enemy action.

But in any case it's not an insignificant number. All goes to show you, the military is just not good for your health.

[Tero]

Those stats linked by Tero for some reason separate indirect and artillery (I don't get it either), if you factor them together they caused more death than small arms.

As I read it it separates IED's, command detonated mines, booby traps such as bunji pits, mines and other "passive hazards" from indirect and direct fire artillery. Yes, calculated together they top small arms fire but separately show "pure" artillery fire was responsible for a fraction of the casualties compared to small arms and "passive hazards". Can't say if the rocket fire refers to RPG or recoilles rifles but I assume it does as Katyusha fire is not dissimilar to artillery fire in the receiving end.

Break down here is more specific.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/vietnam/casualties.asp#9

It does however seem to corraborate the other sources indication. The cause listed as multiple fragmentary wounds is open to interpretation but even if they are counted solely as artillery related and not as caused by mines or other wound inflicting causes the count falls short of the small arms as cause for fatal casualties as "other explosive devices" is clearly not to be counted as artillery.

Also, those stats are deaths, i.e., wounds that were survived weren't counted. I think it's reasonable to assume that small arms injuries all and all were more fatal than indirect/artillery injuries, and therefore that indirect/artillery caused more casualties, percentage-wise, than deaths.

True. But if statistics are used then it must follow that the number of wounded due to indirect fire artillery must be proportionate to the deaths caused. For the sake of argument the number of indirect fire KIA is 14 000. The number of WIA is I believe in the region of 300 000. If we give, say, 200 000 to artillery then for every one indirect fire KIA there should have been ~14 WIA as opposed to 18 000 small arms KIA there would have been ~5 WIA.

I think the really unnerving part of those stats, though, is the amount of technically preventable death. Factor together sickness, friendly fire, accidents, and aircraft and vehicle crashes, and you come up with something like 25 - 30 per cent, depending on how you want to view things like burns

and suicides. And of course many of the aircraft crashes weren't accidents but due to enemy action.

I was as surprised as you when going through the figures.