- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Gen. Douglas MacArthur "dug out dug"
Posted on 6/16/15 at 2:40 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Posted on 6/16/15 at 2:40 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
If you consider having a higher casualty rate to be awesome, then I'll concede your point. During WWII the Marines suffered a 2.9% KIA rate while the Army suffered a 2.0% KIA rate. For non-lethal wounds the stats are even worse. The Marines suffered slightly over 10.0% casualty rate while the Army's was only slightly over 5.0%. If you do the same analysis you will find that Marines suffered higher casualty rates in Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm.
To quote Dick Vitale, "that's awesome baby."
To quote Dick Vitale, "that's awesome baby."
Posted on 6/16/15 at 3:15 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
If you consider having a higher casualty rate to be awesome, then I'll concede your point.
I think I can defend the marines on this point. The problem is one of perspective and combat philosophy. The U.S. Army, and it's offspring, USAF think in terms of achieving tactical and operational objectives, while minimizing casualties - whether it be traditional doctrine or the evolution of that (i.e. the Powell doctrine, Shock and Awe). The USN and USMC strive to minimize casualties, of course, but this is also tempered by the need for speed - capital ships make fat, juicy targets. USN doctrine seeks to achieve objectives, particularly amphibious assaults and island seizing operations, very quickly to minimize the risk to capital ships - it takes months or years to replace those ships, while replacement sailors and marines are generally flowing at a steady rate.
It's callous, but it is logical and makes a certain degree of sense. Marines are more aggressive, by design. More aggression almost always results in more casualties in the initial phases of any operation. If you face a stubborn opponent like the Japanese, this can yield significantly more casualties over time than a more cautious approach - particularly if you have intact supply lines, air and naval superiority over the stubborn foe.
This post was edited on 6/16/15 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 6/16/15 at 3:59 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
If you consider having a higher casualty rate to be awesome, then I'll concede your point. During WWII the Marines suffered a 2.9% KIA rate while the Army suffered a 2.0% KIA rate. For non-lethal wounds the stats are even worse. The Marines suffered slightly over 10.0% casualty rate while the Army's was only slightly over 5.0%.
If we're talking casualty rates then the US Army Air Force's 8th Air Force had the highest casualty rate of any US formation of the war.
LINK
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)