 |
|
Casualties due to Arty - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Casualties due to Arty (/showthread.php?tid=40301) |
Casualties due to Arty - Boston33 - 04-28-2007 I just read that around 75% of casualties in WWII were caused by artillery. This is contradictory to what I have always heard and been taught. Have any of you guys heard a number like that? RE: Casualties due to Arty - Mike Abberton - 04-28-2007 RE:��Casualties due to Arty - Glenn Saunders - 04-28-2007 A couple other interesting points to this discussion is: - the high rate of friendly fire casualities caused by artillery - there is an appendix in a book I read not long ago which discussed the amount of friendly sharpnel taken from Cdn wounded. - another point specific to the Series discussed on this forum, when two Infantry units are side by side exchanging DIRECT fire, you have to figure some of those casualties are caused by mortars which are in fact indirect fire weapons too. If you talk to (or read) guys like Blackburn (a Cdn Artilleryman and FOO) and take everything at face value, than you would come away in AWE of the speed that Arty could respond, the number of guns that a 2Lt could call up with a "Victor target" firing all the Guns from CORPS on short notice. Read the other side and see how many of these shells fell short (or long) because of atmospheric estimates that were wrong, worn gun barrel or any number of other effects and you may come away wondering which side if correct or where the truth actually falls. Glenn RE: Casualties due to Arty - Richrd - 04-28-2007 The U.S. Army classified any splinter wound as an artillery wound. Artillery, mortars, grenades, even tank crewmen wounded by fragments of hull or AP shot in a penetrated tank, anything that was obviously not a bullet or bayonet. So, I think that twenty percent for small arms is pretty accurate. RE: Casualties due to Arty - JonS1 - 04-29-2007 Why people wonder about this without reference to anything other than gut feeling is beyond me. One of the canonical references for this is: Quote:Beebe, Gilbert W., and De Bakey, Michael E. Battle Casualties: Incidence, Mortality, and Logistic Considerations. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1952. 277 p. UM24.1941-45.B4.That study is referenced all over the show, one in particular is Mark, Eduard, Aerial Interdiction: Air Power and the Land Battle in Three American Wars. Washington DC: Center for Air Force History, 1994. pp.178 (available online). Mark is referring to the effects of Op STRANGLE, and notes that in particular it limited the availability of artillery round to the Germans, then notes Quote:... In a theater [Italy] where more than 60 percent of all casualties were caused by artillery fire, this was clearly an important accomplishment for interdictionand in turn refers to Beede and de Bakey, pp. 135, table 5. See, also, table 40 here: http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/korea/reister/ch3.htm Incidentally, the same broad pattern holds true for WWI - the vast majority of cas were caused by artillery, despite what you may have read about MGs, barbed wire, and tanks. RE: Casualties due to Arty - Richrd - 04-29-2007 U.S. Army statistics are as follows. In North Africa Bullets accounted for 20% of all casualties. Splinters, mines, bombs,and misc, totalled 80%. In the Med: 14% small arms and 64% artillery. In NW Europe: 23% small arms and 69% Artillery. Presumably the balance were mines, bombs, etc. RE: Casualties due to Arty - Richrd - 04-29-2007 http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/default.htm This site has everything you could ever want about wounds and casualties in WW2. Beware, there are some pretty gruesome pictures in one chapter. |
){kind=link}