- The Strategist - https://www.aspistrategist.org.au -
Reader response: weapon lethality and battlefield risk
Posted By Andrew Davies on September 5, 2012 @ 06:00
The reason for this trend isn’t hard to find. As the previous post shows, forces have become increasingly dispersed in response to increases in weapons effectiveness. So while the micro effect (the chance of being killed if hit) has increased sharply, the macro effect (the total number of combatants killed) has decreased. Simply put, forces have dispersed faster than weapon systems have been able to keep up. That’s true on average, although there have been individual battles in which casualty rates have bucked the trend. For example, British forces lost 20% of their initial strength on the first day of the Somme offensive in 1916. But while that’s twice the World War I average, it wouldn’t have been too unusual fifty years earlier. As well, lower daily casualty rates meant that battles often lasted longer. The 36 day Iwo Jima battle in World War II saw the victorious US forces cumulatively suffer over 30% casualties, with the Japanese losing essentially their entire force.Article printed from The Strategist: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au
URL to article: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/graph-of-the-week/
[1] post on the increasing lethality of weapon systems over time: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/another-graph-of-the-week-war-is-becoming-more-dangerous/
[2] The Evolution of Weapons and Warfare: http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Evolution_Of_Weapons_And_Warfare.html?id=_IK1oAivKegC&redir_esc=y
[3] Image: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Graph-average-daily-battle-casualty-rates.png
[4] Andrew Davies: http://www.aspi.org.au/sitefunction/cv.aspx?sid=3