Iraq War hardly costing any casualties

[Drake Tungsten]

It won't have to last 71 years to provide a good fraction of the casualties suffered in Vietnam. It would only have to last about as long as the vietnam war did for that.

Let's say we were in Vietnam for ten years (generous to your argument). If current yearly casualty rates hold in Iraq, we will have had ~7,700 US dead in Iraq after ten years of war. That's only 13% of the US dead in Vietnam over the same length of time. I don't know what you consider a "good fraction" of the casualties suffered in Vietnam to be, but I sure hope 13% doesn't qualify...

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
30 years to result in same casualties as revolutionary war

25 years to result in same casualties as War of 1812

16 years to result in same casualties as Mexican War of 1846

765 years to result in same casualties as Civil war

142 years to result in same casualties as WW1

560 years to result in the same dead as WW2.

55 years to result in Korean War casualties

Better specify "deaths", dude. The number of wounded in Iraq hasn't dropped nearly as much from historical levels as the number of deaths. Or did you actually take the time to figure out for total casualties?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
30 years to result in same casualties as revolutionary war

25 years to result in same casualties as War of 1812

16 years to result in same casualties as Mexican War of 1846

765 years to result in same casualties as Civil war

142 years to result in same casualties as WW1

560 years to result in the same dead as WW2.

55 years to result in Korean War casualties

Yes. that relates to fact already established that the casualty rates are insignificant.

however, a look at the numbers from this site

<------------Casualties------------>
[-----Deaths---] <-----Percentages-----> Duration
Conflict Enrolled Combat Other Wounded Total Ratio KIA Dead Casualty Months KIA/Month
Revolutionary War 200.0 4,435 * 6,188 10,623 2.4 2.2% 2.2% 5.3% 80 55
War of 1812 286.0 2,260 * 4,505 6,765 3.0 0.8% 0.8% 2.4% 30 75
Mexican War 78.7 1,733 11,550 4,152 17,435 1.3 2.2% 16.9% 22.2% 20 87
Civil War: Union 2,803.3 110,070 249,458 275,175 634,703 1.8 3.9% 12.8% 22.6% 48 2,293
Confederate 1,064.2 74,524 124,000 137,000 + 335,524 1.7 7.0% 18.7% 31.5% 48 1,553
Combined 3,867.5 184,594 373,458 412,175 + 970,227 1.7 4.8% 14.4% 25.1% 48 3,846
Spanish-American War 306.8 385 2,061 1,662 4,108 1.7 0.1% 0.8% 1.3% 4 96 &
World War I 4,743.8 53,513 63,195 204,002 320,710 2.7 1.1% 2.5% 6.8% 19 2,816
World War II 16,353.7 292,131 115,185 670,846 1,078,162 2.6 1.8% 2.5% 6.6% 44 6,639
Korean War 5,764.1 33,651 * 103,284 136,935 4.1 0.6% 0.6% 2.4% 37 909
Vietnam War 8,744.0 47,369 10,799 153,303 211,471 3.6 0.5% 0.7% 2.4% 90 526
Gulf War 2,750.0 148 145 467 ^ 760 2.6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 148


suggests more than one of your time estimates for matching the casualties of those wars needs some serious tweaking.

[edit screw it I'm not going to try to format that chart, just click the link]

[Lorizael]

What was the casualty rate in Vietnam for the first four years?

What were troops levels like in Vietnam during the first four years?

Without this information, these comparisons are meaningless.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


How does one figure that? Casualty rates had dropped to almost nil as the US entered the Vietnamization phase. Isn't that the phase we are talking about now namely the hand over of security to Iraq?

I hope so, but I'm extremely skeptical that when it appears to an administration that pulling out will immediately birth a failed state terrorist haven they will still go through with it.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

It won't have to last 71 years to provide a good fraction of the casualties suffered in Vietnam. It would only have to last about as long as the vietnam war did for that.

Let's say we were in Vietnam for ten years (generous to your argument). If current yearly casualty rates hold in Iraq, we will have had ~7,700 US dead in Iraq after ten years of war. That's only 13% of the US dead in Vietnam over the same length of time. I don't know what you consider a "good fraction" of the casualties suffered in Vietnam to be, but I sure hope 13% doesn't qualify...

actually I did but barely. I would have drawn the line at about 10%.

Within an order of magnitude.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Lorizael
What was the casualty rate in Vietnam for the first four years?

What were troops levels like in Vietnam during the first four years?

Without this information, these comparisons are meaningless.

US deaths

1964 - 206
1965 - 1863
1966 - 6143
1967 - 11153

subtotal 1st 4 years = 19365


US Troops deployed
1964 - 16000
1965 - 180000
1966 - 350000
1967 - ~430000

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Better specify "deaths", dude. The number of wounded in Iraq hasn't dropped nearly as much from historical levels as the number of deaths. Or did you actually take the time to figure out for total casualties?

Sorry meant deaths not casualties in aforementioned figures.

[Guynemer]

I can not BELIEVE so many people bit on a friggen Wiglaf troll.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Geronimo

however, a look at the numbers from this site

suggests more than one of your time estimates for matching the casualties of those wars needs some serious tweaking.

[edit screw it I'm not going to try to format that chart, just click the link]

I simply used for death figures (but fleshed out Korean War including MIA) from wiki

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
30 years to result in same casualties as revolutionary war

25 years to result in same casualties as War of 1812

16 years to result in same casualties as Mexican War of 1846

765 years to result in same casualties as Civil war

142 years to result in same casualties as WW1

560 years to result in the same dead as WW2.

55 years to result in Korean War casualties

What a load of arse!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I can not BELIEVE so many people bit on a friggen Wiglaf troll.

Have a look at the threads available.

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

So far GWII is middle of the table of all US wars. I bet the average America would be dumbfounded if you told them that the US has suffered over 50% more casualties than the supposedly ‘epic’ Revolutionary War and War of 1812 put together!!!

You’re currently running at 12% of Vietnam War casualties in roughly a third of the time – and that was against a well organised army of millions with jungle cover…

Using http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

What a TOTAL. ****ING. UNMITIGATED. DISASTER!!!

And for what?

For handing Iraq to the Iranians on a plate and making an enemy that is actually dangerous – all the more powerful…

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
I bet the average America would be dumbfounded if you told them that the US has suffered over 50% more casualties than the supposedly ‘epic’ Revolutionary War and War of 1812 put together!!!

Do they teach you this in Britain so you don't feel bad about losing? I was never taught those wars were epic, but then again I went to an American public school, so *shrug* what do you expect...

[Arrian]

Heh. Comparing the revolutionary war to a 21st century war. Pretty silly.

And I don't really know anyone who thinks the war of 1812 was anything other than a sideshow.

-Arrian