Battle casualties or accident casualties?

[rick7475]

I am not trying to offend here, but the Ottawa Citizen ran a front page article over the list of Canadians who have died. They listed 11 (not including the Canadian from Gatineau Quebec who died in a helicopter crash with the US Army). Of these 11, 4 were friendly fire, 2 were from the LAV 3 roll-over, and the rest were KIA.

Certainly it is dangerous to be overthere and the risk is great, but I find it a little innacurate for the news media to portray all the deaths as battle-related, or at least this is what I gather from the slant of the articles.

Friendly fire is very sad and a part of war, but it can also happen in peacetime during training. The LAV 3 roll-over could have happened on the roads in Canada.

Again, not to lessen the sacrifice of those soldiers who died from accidents in Afghanistan, but to add them to a list of casualties inferring they died from enemy fire is innacurate, and what my concern is that groups opposed to Canadian Military operations will use those numbers to inflate their position that Canadian soldiers are dying in combat overseas. I think it would be more responsible to report that 11 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan, and 5 KIA and 6 through accidents and friendly fire, plus others who are Canadian citizens serving in the US military.

I hope I am not out of line, but does anyone else feel that the reporting of casualties should be more sensitive and accurate as to not fuel the anti-war sentiment?

 

[Armymedic]

Your numbers are off...

4 killed by friendly fire,
3 soldiers, 1 civilian killed by enemy actions, and
3 killed in veh accidents.

Accidents, have always and will always be a leading cause of injury and death amongst our soldiers overseas. We can prepare an train for enemy action, but nobody can really do much to prevent deaths in accidents, except try to prevent the accidents themselves.

On a related note, I was reading back about the first few yrs of UNPROFOR in Bosnia. Without further investigation, I am beginning to believe we suffered many more casualties in the first 4 yrs of Bosnia, then we have so far in Afghanistan....

Was Bosnia more dangerous, or are we just better prepared now?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..or are the media reports more skewed now because THAT [Bosnia] was "peacekeeping? :

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I believe we had somewhere around 29 deaths all told in Bosnia and traffic safety was MAJORILY harped upon.

 

[ZipperHead]

I don't know what difference it makes to ANYBODY how someone dies in the line of duty, be it a police officer run over while ticketing someone (like the one drinking/driving commercial shows), a firefighter dying while rescuing someone, or a soldier in a vehicle rollover: the individual was serving their country, community, province, or what have you, and doesn't lessen their contribution.

I understand that you didn't try to offend Rick, but it has always been a pet peeve of mine to hear someone (especially those that have managed to never get deployed overseas with 20+ years in) downplay the death of a soldier in an accident overseas: "Well, they didn't die in combat. What's the big deal?!?". The last place I wanted to die was in a ditch in Bosnia (because of a rollover). I think most people would prefer to die in bed, with 22 year old twin sisters in attendance  >, but as AM mentioned, accidents have taken a huge toll on deployments overseas, and dead is dead: tell the mother or father, or wife or husband, or especially children, that the death was less, because it was an accident. I attended the funeral of my OC (Major Mariner), who died in a vehicle accident while training in England, and his little fella didn't understand that it was his daddy in the coffin that all the soldiers were carrying.

One scene from "Band of Brothers" that will always stay with me is where the drunk guy kills buddy, after the war is over: imagine fighting all the way through Europe through WWII, just to have asshead kill you. Just goes to prove that life isn't fair.

As for the anti-war crowd: I echo the FUQM sentiment. I think most people are anti-war, but the people who "protest" are usually so out of touch with what it is soldier's do while overseas that they shouldn't even be listened to. They watch clips from the '60's of things like the My Lai massacre, and try to make it sound like all soldier's are that way. Unfortunately, there are people who listen to this nausea.

I was very impressed seeing the interview with Cpl Davis' father, who had every right to be angry that his son died overseas, but he showed a lot of courage and strength (and most likely helped the morale of the troops overseas) when he said that he believed in what his son, and all the soldiers overseas, were/are doing. I would hope that I could be that strong in the face of adversity. I think the war protesters choose not to listen to people like him, because it doesn't fit their script.

Here's to hoping that the soldier's on operations stay safe, and come home to their families,

Al

 

[military granny]

Now first I must say I did try my hardest to stay out of this one but as you can read that didn't work. My son was in that LAV and the one question I will ask you Rick and any others that think like that. do you really think it matters to him how his best buddies died over there? Does anyone think an accident makes it any easier or harder. When a brother dies no matter how it happens or where it still hurts. And when that call comes families all over this country hurt.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Certainly it is dangerous to be overthere and the risk is great, but I find it a little innacurate for the news media to portray all the deaths as battle-related, or at least this is what I gather from the slant of the articles.

Again, not to lessen the sacrifice of those soldiers who died from accidents in Afghanistan, but to add them to a list of casualties inferring they died from enemy fire is innacurate, and what my concern is that groups opposed to Canadian Military operations will use those numbers to inflate their position that Canadian soldiers are dying in combat overseas. I think it would be more responsible to report that 11 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan, and 5 KIA and 6 through accidents and friendly fire, plus others who are Canadian citizens serving in the US military.

I hope I am not out of line, but does anyone else feel that the reporting of casualties should be more sensitive and accurate as to not fuel the anti-war sentiment?

Here is an Idea, how about you start to do a little research on the wars Canada have fought in.  Compile a list of all people that died due to accidents, while they served in the field of battle.  Then start a petition so that we do not honour them every November 11th....

Catch yourself on, that has got to be the most inconsiderate question I have heard, once again we must hear one of our ownquestion what is a Veteran.  Good thing that you have the good of us in mind, considering that those peaceniks may use that article as ammunition (pardon the pun)

Sometimes one has to shake off the, perceived, tough guy ideology and think before speaking/posting.

dileas

tess

 

[tomahawk6]

Death and injury are something we as military professionals live with every day. Training and team work minimizes the risk, but its still with us. In combat soldiers are working long days/nights with not enough rest.
That is how accidents happen. In Iraq we have had 555 soldiers die due to non-hostile causes or 21.9%.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

When you shoot the sh*t with a group of old soldiers (my family occasions), the funny stories come out.  A surprising number of these funny stories end with, "but he died in '44, (or 56, or 65 or 92)".  Some of these soldiers fell to enemy fire, some in traffic accidents, some lost to the sea, some in the kinds of accidents you get when working too long/hard without enough sleep.  Soldiers push it to the red line and beyond, that is the way to win.  There is a price to be payed for running at the redline for an extended period, soldiers die, or are crippled.  Do the soldiers distinguish between Frenchie who died when the tank slipped while they were trying to change tracks, or Dave who got torn up by machinegun fire the next week?  No, they served together, they fell in uniform serving their country, they payed the same price on the same field, and are remembered together.  Either the soldiers return home alive (and hopefully whole), or they are casualties of war.

 

[rick7475]

When you shoot the **** with a group of old soldiers (my family occasions), the funny stories come out.  A surprising number of these funny stories end with, "but he died in '44, (or 56, or 65 or 92)". 

Yep, the idea for this thread came as a result of shooting the **** with a group of vets (my family occasions), Korea and WW2, etc over the weekend reading the stories in the Toronto Star and Citizen. We all got in a discussion about the how the press handled things then and now.

Thank you for the correction in my numbers.

I won't comment any further as I had not the desire to come across as being insensitive to those who have sacrificed over there. For that I appologize.

Administrators, if you could lock it I would be grateful. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Locked, as normal if anyone has something important to add just PM a Mod with the request.
Be forewarned that this one is is skirting a fine line.
Thanks

 

[Long in the tooth]

I'd just like to note that according to US stats in WW2 a very small percentage (<3%) of casualties were a result of contact with the enemy.  Almost two thirds were from Artillery, mortars and air attacks.  Accidents and friendly fire were significant.  My father's friend was hit by MG fire from behind and I know of a case of a CSM who was killed during an unopposed beach landing during OP HUSKY.

I have known members killed conducting live fire attacks, veh accidents in Canada and during an unarmed combat display.  All deaths are tragic, and I would hate to see one class ('operational') be considered more worthy than others.  Recently the VA pension board changed the rules allowing pensions for injuries sustained in non operational areas.  An injury is still an injury.

Bruce, thanks for opening for this, felt I should add.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Accidents, have always and will always be a leading cause of injury and death amongst our soldiers overseas.

Must have been some really crap drivers in Korea, then, between 1951 and 1953.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I'd just like to note that according to US stats in WW2 a very small percentage (<3%) of casualties were a result of contact with the enemy.  Almost two thirds were from Artillery, mortars and air attacks. 

That's still contact with the enemy, WOG.  Artillery and mortars don't generally drop about at random; most of those men you say were killed from artillery and mortars were likely engaged in battle at the time (ie in contact).  Machine guns accounted for about 20% or so, your 3% applies to rifle fire and bayonets - not "contact" in general - unless you are directly quoting a source that say as much? 

 

[Long in the tooth]

Granted, should have said DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE ENEMY,

MGs are included, believe it or not in the direct contact numbers.  These are from the 1944/45 Int reports the US Army studied.  This is a primary source and would probably cost you about $60 today, as it's a reproduction of the US Int from that period.  It even gives German Army/Cord/Div Pers from then.

MGs never, ever counted for 20% and are included in the 3%.

My father said Mortars were evil due to the short notice and lack of direction.  IMHO this may be a reason why Germans Battialions were effective.

"No German Division was defeated while its Artillery was firing".

Gunners Chime In.

 

[warrickdll]

I've seen a few statistics regarding this topic that have large variances.

Extracted from http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/korea/reister/:

BATTLE CASUALTIES AND MEDICAL STATISTICS
U.S. Army Experience in the Korea War
By FRANK A. REISTER
THE SURGEON GENERAL
Department of the Army Washington, D.C.

Chapter THREE - Lethality of Weapons and Location of Wounds
Table 40.- Percent distribution of battle casualties by causative agents,1 U.S. Army, World War II and Korean War

Small arms (bullets) WW2 KIA - 31.9% Korea KIA - 33.0%

1Excluded are cases where the specific causative agent was not recorded or was unknown.

Note: The excluded Unknown can be a large proportion of the casualties.



Regarding the earlier topic of what, for the purpose of statistics, constitutes death by accident or death by action; I guess I would use the qualifications of the Wound Stripe as the basis.

Extracted from http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/instructions/engraph/0303_admhrmil_e.asp:

ADM (HR-MIL) INSTRUCTION 03/03
AWARDING AND RECORDING OF WOUND STRIPES
.
.
.
10. Qualification for Wound Stripes: Wounds or injuries requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid (i.e., treatment at a medical facility of more than 5 days duration, not necessarily consecutive) that are due to hostile actions and would be a qualification for a wound stripe include, but are not limited to:
.
.
.
g. Wounds or injuries inflicted by our own, allied or coalition forces' projectiles (or parts of them) when these have been fired at real or perceived hostile forces;
.
.
.
12. Injuries due to accidents arising out of employment in an operational area, but not directly due to hostile action, e.g. due to collisions between ships at sea, vehicle accidents, flying accidents, handling of lethal weapons, gun explosions, etc, do not qualify for the wound stripe.
.
.
.

I take from this that the friendly fire incident would not be considered an accident due to part 10-g, while the taxi collision would be considered an accident due to part 12.

It is important to state, even when dryly discussing statistics, that either way, the sacrifice has been made.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I've seen a few statistics regarding this topic that have large variances.

Extracted from http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/korea/reister/:Note: The excluded Unknown can be a large proportion of the casualties.

Yes, exactly; 3% is much lower than stats I've seen.  If you don't like someone's statistics, just use someone else's. 

As for mortar fire and artillery - the stats don't tell you if they were shelled by interdiction fire off of a map, or by artillery firing direct in defence of a position during an assault - so there's no way to know if the injured were in "direct contact" or not.

 

[Long in the tooth]

I'll take the US Army's numbers as pretty authoritative.  330,000 dead is a pretty broad base.  If you choose to use Russian, British, German, Canadian or Italian numbers go for it.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

I'll take the US Army's numbers as pretty authoritative.  330,000 dead is a pretty broad base.  If you choose to use Russian, British, German, Canadian or Italian numbers go for it.

    Can't use the Russian numbers for machine gun dead.  Most of their machine guns were with the NKVD security detachments, and were mostly used on their own troops (pour l'encourage des autres).  Would that qualify as friendly fire do you think?  The other reason you can't trust the Soviet stats is that they felt no compulsion to tell the truth, and often try to conceal or obscure things for no discernable reason.  The US numbers are pretty accurate, so their stats should be close to the mark.

 

[GAP]

I thought I would add this to this thread, rather than starting a new one. Received this this morning, remember in the US, it's NOT a holiday, so they're busy putting stuff out.

DoD Identifies Army Casualty
            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier
who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.



            Pfc. Justin R. Davis, 19, of Gaithersburg, Md., died in Korengal
Outpost, Afghanistan (near Kunar Province), on June 25, when he came in
contact with indirect fire while on patrol during combat operations.  Davis
was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat
Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y.



            The circumstances of the soldier's death are under investigation
as a possible friendly-fire incident.



            Media with questions about this soldier can call the Army Public
Affairs Office at 703-692-2000.




[Web Version: http://defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060701-13376.html]

-- News Releases: http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/
-- DoD News: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html
-- Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html#e-mail
-- Today in DoD: http://www.defenselink.mil/today/

-- U.S. Department of Defense Official Website - http://www.defenselink.mil
-- U.S. Department of Defense News About the War on Terrorism -
http://www.defendamerica.mil