Stan187

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Did you know that artillery isn't the biggest killer on the modern battlefield, its actually dry humor.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

Army5339

Most casualties now, IIRC, are from blast effects, which body armor does little to mitigate. IED's are a hard thing to mitigate because of the blast. Shrapnel is an added bonus because it reaches out more than the blast effect, but inside the blast radius, you are screwed. Also, body armor can only do so much against shrapnel from IEDs.

-{SpoonmaN}-

As I understand it for every American Soldier KIA in OIF there has been something like 7 WIA. Has there been any significant change in the rate at which soldiers are invalidated out of service by these injuries? As I understand it the great majority return to duty within 72 hours, correct?

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

Stan187

From what I've read about injuries as per body parts, body armor is definitely helping quite a bit. True, most casualties are from IED blasts. But does that necesarilly disprove body armor's effectiveness? We don't really hear a report every time a GI gets plinked in his SAPI, gets up and walks away. Perhaps the only way we'd be able to understand how much of a difference it makes if we just made guys go out in the field without it.

Army5339

We have several cadre who just came back from the gulf, two of them infantry/SF, and basically said that IEDs were the main threat, as the bad guys can't stand toe to toe and live. "Once the rounds start going their way, all you see are AK's and flipflops."

I will still wear body armor and utilize armor, but it really is only effective against certain things. Blast and directional IEDs can take out anything we have, and is going to be my biggest threat in two years. The training I have had in explosives and explosive effects tells me that body armor does very little against a pressure wave and shrapnel the size of a tire iron.

But back to the original point, today, if you suffered a major arterial wound in the leg, you have a pretty decent chance of living. In WW2, that same wound was probably a death sentence.

Stan187

Well, its not only the treatment that is different. We can also get the person medivac'd much quicker now. We're also engaged in COIN ops with clearly superior firepower and uncontested air supermacy.

I wonder how much your point would hold if we were involved in a conventional war with a decent adversary. I imagine it would to an extent, but I wonder how much of the proper care provided by medical personnel can happen because a quick extraction of the wounded took place. Even in Vietnam, there was a hell of a difference between WWII because of helicopters being able to get to the guy relatively quickly. If you've ever read Bob Dole's story of being wounded and then only extracted 9 hours later, the difference sounds apparent.

Army5339

Even from Vietnam a lot of battlefield trauma care has changed. Talking to combat medics, to look back at Vietnam is like medieval times. 1/10th of all deaths could have been prevented with the simple use of a tourniquet for example. Evaluation of possible battlefield tourniquet systems for the far-forward setting Military Medicine - Find Articles

Even in civilian emergency health care, looking back almost 50 years is shocking.

TopHatter

Starship Troopers is supposedly on various service "reading lists", at least at one time it was on the Commandant of the USMC's professional reading list.

It looks like it's been removed though, probably replaced by Blackhawk Down.

Nice to see Shaara's Killer Angels will probably always have a place on it.

Gun Grape

Starship Troopers was on the Commandants list when Chuck Krulac was CMC.
It was on the list for Pvts - LCpl (E-1 -E-3) A lot on Ooh Raa stuff at that level, not much on educating.

And No Blackhawk down isn't on the list, at any rank.

A few quick ones that pop to mind that everyone liked were "The Bridge at Donh Ha", "The Village" and "Fields of Fire". Good reads, good message and none of them will bog you down like wading through the first part of Falls "Hell in a very small place" (On of my favs BTW)

The current list can be viewed at:
Professional Development Division - Reading Program

Gun Grape

Stan,
I've killed for less. The God Of War is not to be joked about

Now drop to your knees and pray for St Barbara to show mercy and spare you from the steel rain of the RedLegs. Remember there is a Excaliber with the 8 digit grid of your bedroom in its fuse.

memorize this before bed and we might spare your life

TopHatter

I don't exactly know what kind of reading list this is, Commandant or what have you - and it appears to be at least 2 years old - but it's definitely on that one for junior enlisted.

ALMAR - MARINE CORPS PROFESSIONAL READING PROGRAM

Hmmm...H.R. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty is on the current list that GG posted. I think it's past time that I read it.

Stan187

Agreed, I always wish I knew more about Vietnam.

Stan187

Yikes, I shoulda ducked for cover from incoming when I said that!

Maxor

This and the carrier article on the navy section of the board and the f-22 /JSF articles on the airwarfare section all have alot in common based on force decisioning for the near future. The US is at a crossroads between deciding to try and have numerically large enough forces to face continuing worldwide conflicts and with having technologicaly superior on all fronts weaponry as it is not politically possible to support both without a clear-cut national enemy. While the islamic terrorist is a huge threat to the social welfare of the west it is not really a significant military threat. The powers that be in the US have appearently to my mind decided to go for smaller numbers and having the best equipment which in a small conflict will serve them well, however this strategy can leave force issues with larger scall or multiple conflicts at the same time, it can/could also cause problems with a ramp-up in times of serious global conflict. It is politicaly far easier for a congressman to sell to his constituants that he voted for the best possible equipment to go to their serving children. In many ways if the US is going to continue to try and support its current global footprint they/we would be better served by having numerically superior equipment that is good enough.


While a f-22 may be able to shoot down 6 fulcrums and only cost the same as 4, That F-22 can't be running a strike on a sam site, providing top cover for a helo troop delivery mission and be 400 miles away running a combat air patrol. The same is true of having a squad and their infantry fighting vechile. There is alot to be said for having superior troops and equipment however that smaller number of troops and equipment can't be everywhere at once.

Gun Grape

I should have said "Current List". The MCPRP is updated/every year.