soldier dangerous?

[BigFatKen]

I do not know how to express this:

Can it be determined if it is really dangerous to be a soldier?
One way might be to divide the KIAs by the veterans. If we pick a time when there is a war, clearly it will not look good for being a soldier. But if we look at a lifetime, would this not change? If a man attended West Point in 1970 and served 30 years, he might have seen a tiny bit of Vietnam. As the years go by he sees few deaths around him. A handfull die in Desert Storm. Likely, more died in accidents in the 21 years before.

If he serves from 1868 to 1898, little happens.

600 murders a year in Chicago.
Perhaps I am too close to the subject.
IM me if you think my amount of actions is revelant to this thread.
SSg Ken

 

[1 old 0311]

Hi Ken,

Yes, and no. It depends on what your MOS (does the Army also call your job description MOS?). Usually it is 10% of grunts, to 90% support. I was a Marine grunt in Vietnam, and yes we did have a bit of a turnover. My brother in law was with a Army hospital near Siagon and lived like a King. Overall it is very safe.

Kevin

 

[History Nut]

I do not know how to express this:

Can it be determined if it is really dangerous to be a soldier?


If he serves from 1868 to 1898, little happens.

600 muders a year in Chicago.
Perhaps I am too close to the subject.
IM me if you think my amount of actions is revelant to this thread.
SSg Ken

While I agree with your general point, I want to comment on the 1868 to 1898 period. The U.S. Cavalry was very active during that period along with a significant portion of the U.S. Infantry. Of course one has to consider that the entire U.S. Army of that period had an average authorized strength of 25,000 men. That total number covered the whole continental U.S.A.. One must also take into consideration that it was the period before modern medicine and nutrition. Many of the frontier posts suffered through winters on beans, salt pork, hardtack and coffee. There were often cases of scurvy that killed or debilitated the troops. It was a period where deaths related to health problems were higher than combat deaths. There were exceptions like the 5 companies of the 7th Cavalry under Custer. If one was in the Coast Artillery, life probably wasn't too bad. The Field Artillery sometimes got deployed to the West as Infantry and saw action. The Irony was that most posts had a few cannons and while the Artillery were on campaign as Infantry, some Infantry soldiers were often detailed to man the cannons!

There were thousands of engagements in the Post-Civil War West. Soldiers were used as laborers to build and improve posts which is why they sometimes entered combat with little training. For a long time the government alloted something like 100 rounds a year for rifle/carbine practice. It was a hard life and could be very dangerous.

Regarding your original point, I hazard to guess that a soldier in Iraq with body armor, personal weapon, fellow unit members and lots of support is safer than in his/her home neighborhood without armor or arms and alone with only '911' to call for help.

 

[BigFatKen]

MOS

Amry uses MOS too. 11B is infantry. 11B40 is infantry and 40 denotes NCO.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

If he serves from 1868 to 1898, little happens.

Unless you're at the Little Bighorn

And KQ has it exactly right. If your MOS (yes, the army uses that term) is a combat arm or engineer, risk goes up. If you're infantry in some "uber" area, like rangers, special operations, marines, you would likely be sent into the sh*t ahead of the regular combat arms.

Associated MOS's, like medic or corpsman are also high-value targets.

Any other high-risk categories?


Regards.

 

[BigFatKen]

thank you

That is interesting. We live in a Country with millions of veterans. It is hard to think of a time with so small of an Army.

 

[Glockster35]

I would have to say that increasingly it is becomming more dangerous to be an American Soldier (Mandatory to capitalize the S nowdays). BTW, I am not a Soldier (it's an Army term).

But if you look at our recent history, in the last say 15 years, we have been involved in no less that 3 major war efforts.

Desert Strom
Afganistan
Iraq
Surely Iran or Syria are next!

 

[1911 guy]

Are you looking at U.S. history or just recently?

I don't have exact numbers, just some generalizations to think about.

Beginning in the Civil War (birth of modern warfare), casualties were higher than any other war before. At war's end, nearly ten percent of the population was dead or wounded. Casualties amounted to WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam COMBINED.

The Spanish American war saw advances in both tactics and armament to meet those tactics. Wounds were probably not more common, but likely less surviveable.

World War One saw casualty on an unheard of scale.

World War Two, everybody knew somebody who went. What kind of fighting you saw depended on where you were, due to the vast nature of the front and importance of some areas over others.

Korea, compared to WWII, was easy on our military, but it saw the first use of many of the mechanical and tactical advances made in WWII. Might have been easy on the military as a whole, but tell that to the individual soldier who met one of those advances up close and personal.

Viet Nam was a protracted war, with the casualty count to match. If it had been an all out, head to head, it would have been over and we would have won, but the amount of deaths and casualties would have crippled this country.

Desert Storm was an anomaly, very technologically driven, against an enemy who didn't want to fight.

Afghanistan was a people who, for the majority, wanted liberated, and the taliban minority are being rooted out.

Iraq is the face of modern warfare. Political and idealogical boundaries are clashing rather than geographical, disparity of force requires one side to find cover in urban areas to mask movement, procure supplies and recruit. Casualties here are noticeably higher than fighting in the same area just fifteen years ago.

 

[Rpriestlyjr]

A soldier has a very dangerous job regardless of MOS. More casualties are caused bu accidents and the weather than bullets. I was an Airborne engineer, and the most dangerous thing I saw was the sheer laziness and ignorance of senior NCO's making a 18 year old kid take a tractor trailer with 40 tons on the back across country, at night, with little sleep. And I've seen NCO's send privates into a live mine field to recover live anti-tank mines. And yes, a couple did go off. The kids were SO lucky.
62N3P

62N=construction supervisor
3= staff sergeant
P= parachutist


In WWII, the Battle of the Bulge produced more casualties due to frostbite than bullets.

In Korea, the same thing in the Chosin (hence the 'Frozen Chosen')

I'm not going to even compare anything in Viet Nam.

Operations Desert Shield and Storm, most casualties were accidents in the motor pool

And today, we are also looking at alot of casualties in rear eschelon areas. Many with the NG&Res.

 

[BigFatKen]

thank you

One and all thank you. I was hoping someone could say something like: "for every CCW holder convicted of murder, there is 5.7 other citizens convicted".
I believe this was done in one of the CCW States.

Or "Since 600 out of (fill in number of people in Chicago) 600,000 are killed in Chicago, the murder rate is 1:1000 (or 1:2000 if there 1.2 million.

So, now there is a war with about 1000/year getting killed and the rate is falling.


Before the NFL paid so much, the best high school foolball players went to West Point or Annapolis.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

One and all thank you. I was hoping someone could say something like: "for every CCW holder convicted of murder, there is 5.7 other citizens convicted".
I believe this was done in one of the CCW States.

Or "Since 600 out of (fill in number of people in Chicago) 600,000 are killed in Chicago, the murder rate is 1:1000 (or 1:2000 if there 1.2 million.

So, now there is a war with about 1000/year getting killed and the rate is falling.


Before the NFL paid so much, the best high school foolball players went to West Point or Annapolis.

I just did a quick scan of google -- most statistics I found exclude soldiers. But this is a bit different:

Dangerous jobs - not for the faint hearted!
Thursday, 21 April 2005

Reporter: Samantha Leary


Is this dangerous enough for you?

Ever considered taking up window cleaning? Or maybe tree felling takes your fancy? Well take your time because these are two of the most dangerous jobs in the world...followed closely by being a soldier...So as Australian soldiers leve for Iraq what's going through their minds? What causes someone to choose a life threatening job?

Military service is a life threatening occupation, even peace keeping missions carry immense personal risk...following the Sea King tragedy, that killed nine of our military personnel.

But the military isn't the only dangerous occupation, mining is also notoriously dangerous, as is tree felling, explosive engineering, snake handling, shark feeding, deep sea fishermen, not to mentionconstruction workers and even farmers who put their lives on the line everyday...

The reason I post this is because the lineup of dangerous jobs virtually matches the US statistics that exclude the military.

 

[BigFatKen]

logger

When I was having some trees harvested, the Wisconsin Workmen's Compensation rate was 28%. If I paid a logger $100, I paid the State $28, among a few other fees. It followed a 5 year moving average.

 

[Thain]

A US Serviceman's Chances of Death in Battle:
War of Independence: 2%
War of 1812: 0.8%
Indian Wars: 0.9%
Mexican War: 2.2%
Civil War: 6.7% (Union)
Spanish-American War: 0.1%
World War I: 1.1%
World War II: 1.8%
Korean War: 0.6%
Vietnam War: 0.5%
Persian Gulf War: 0.03%

Average American's chances of death from other causes:
Suicide: 0.8%
Homicide: 0.5%
Narcotics: 0.2%
Fishing: 0.14%

 

[Vern Humphrey]

A US Serviceman's Chances of Death in Battle:
War of Independence: 2%
War of 1812: 0.8%
Indian Wars: 0.9%
Mexican War: 2.2%
Civil War: 6.7% (Union)
Spanish-American War: 0.1%
World War I: 1.1%
World War II: 1.8%
Korean War: 0.6%
Vietnam War: 0.5%
Persian Gulf War: 0.03%

Average American's chances of death from other causes:
Suicide: 0.8%
Homicide: 0.5%
Narcotics: 0.2%
Fishing: 0.14%

There are two things not factored in -- the chances of a soldier dying from non-battle causes (which are quite high) and the fact that the other statistics are lifetime, while most soldiers only serve a few years (and most wars only last a few years.)

 

[Tokugawa]

these numbers are not exact but I was recently looking a division in the ww2 european theater, about 14,000 men. 191 days in combat, about 16,000 combat casualtys, about 9,000 non combat casualtys, total casualtys about 25,000, turnover/replacement of 176%. As far as I can tell, about 10% of our armed forces take about 90% of the casualtys. Thats why the combat infantry badge is so highly regarded among the vets.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

these numbers are not exact but I was recently looking a division in the ww2 european theater, about 14,000 men. 191 days in combat, about 16,000 combat casualtys, about 9,000 non combat casualtys, total casualtys about 25,000, turnover/replacement of 176%. As far as I can tell, about 10% of our armed forces take about 90% of the casualtys. Thats why the combat infantry badge is so highly regarded among the vets.

The company I commanded in Viet Nam (A-1/61 IN) had a total of 16 company commanders while in-country. Seven were killed, eight wounded. One of the wounded had an arm blown off -- the rest of us went back into action and all were wounded again. That's 22 Purple Hearts among 16 men, or a casualty rate of 137%. Since no non-combat casualties are included, that's actually higher than the WWII infantry division's 114% combat casualties.

 

[Thain]

There are two things not factored in -- the chances of a soldier dying from non-battle causes (which are quite high) and the fact that the other statistics are lifetime, while most soldiers only serve a few years (and most wars only last a few years.)

I can only post the figures that I have; and typically when one is looking for the "danger" in being a soldier then battle is the most dangerous part of service.

But honestly, does anyone actually think being a soldier is a safe job? I don't care if you are a Navy Toilet Scrubber (3rd class) stationed in Iowa... you put your life on the line when you join the service. Yes, a Green Beret invading Fallujah is taking a bigger risk, but none the less, the military is an unsafe job

 

[BigFatKen]

This is what I was looking for.

First, I should have said American Service personnel.

Thanks to Thain and others who had the stats on this. Everyone has to decide what to do or not do for his/her Country. Football player Pat Tillman was in top shape and wanted to serve in the Unit that only the few that are in his shape can do. Older men like Toby Keith wrote "American Soldier". Keith played this only at military bases for a while. An American General officer asked him to publish the song. The General was clear that if he had the power to draft Keith and order him to sing the song, he would do it. Upon this request, Keith published and sang for all of us the song that still brings tears to my eyes. When the Country Music Awards (or such) was having a listener vote for the number one song that year, I would tell whoever I was with that they meant "it is the vote for the number two song." Anyone who does not already know that "American Soldier" will win number one does not know Country people in general and Southern people in particular.

My Aunt included, there are many people who see 2000 dead as a terrible price to pay. After all, how many people does one old lady know? To her , the idea that fifty million people are now free is just beyond her comprehension. I can visit her and she will see my points. But a week of watching Katie Couric and my Aunt is all Liberal again.

 

[James T Thomas]

likelyhood

BigFatKen:

Your question involves another common topic of discussion here on the THR.

The use of statistics to make a determination of how much gun to carry, how long of a barrel should it be, how much ammo, whether or not to have a back up gun, etc.

You know; the average self defense gunfire is 2.8 rounds, the most common distance in an assault is from only x ft., the duration of an attack will last only a brief y minutes, etc.

And suprisingly, you will see many posts by the members who have made up their minds on tactics, tools and technology, based on this data. Like the data determines what they will encounter when they go out into the cold dark world.

Take all the statistical data with a grain of salt. Our lives and the risk we are at is in constant fluxuation; the dynamics of which are indeterminable, until after the fact. And even then, are very complex and resistant to accurate analyses.

Should you encounter a soldier in uniform with a pale blue rectangular badge that has a silver musket within, or a silver representation of a medic litter; combat medic's badge, acknowlege them with a salute.
They have been at risk.

Marines; please excuse my lack of knowledge, even though I owe the Marines for once Medevac -transporting me, what is the insignia for the combat vet of the Corps? Or the Navy or Air Force?

 

[KriegHund]

James T Thomas-

Is it appropriate for a non-service member or non-veteran to salute? (this isnt criticism, justa serious question)
I never did it becuase i didnt want to insult them.

Im surprised at how much of service members are in support. Is it mostly given to Ng and reserve troops, i suspect?

 

[Glockster35]

I agree, anyone (hopefully) that wears the CIB deserves a salute, it would not be out of the picture.

Although I know there are a lot of Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that for some reason are not getting the CIB's, and they are out there kicking butt like anyone else. Maybe because they are not in Infantry units, but they are getting combat experience.

Don't discount any Marine or Seaman. They are out there doing their part as well. Also many Airman are pulling duties not normally associated with being in the Air Force. For example, many AF Transportation guys are running gun trucks daily on convoys...with little or no Army or Marine Corp assistance at all. Many AF Security Forces do off base patrolling and convoys as well, I know,because I was there doing it.

I just don't think we can give cudo's to any one service, or limit our appreciation to one single identifying badge!

 

[Glockster35]

Well, that is in fact an odd question. I would guess that if one hasn't served, maybe it would be in-appropriate. But in the end, who would really know?

I know that when my father passed away, I wore my uniform to his funeral. I presented my mother with the folded U.S. flag. As I walked down the aisle both ways, many of the men in the church rose and saluted. It didn't matter to me if they had served or not, it was a showing of respect. Maybe it was for me, but I like to think it was for my fathers service to the United States in their time of need (Korean War Vet).

My mother did not know she would receive a flag, and it was the perfect way to let the old man go. It was the perfect way to remind everyone in my small town that service in the military is an important part of being free.