From: Stephen Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 - 15:10:59 PST
Hi Glenn,
> For every combat infantryman it takes X number of rear area
> support personnel.
In WWII the US had between 3 and 4 non-combat capacity soldiers for
each division. The US military also had extremely large amounts of
manpower in non-divisional, non-combat elements. If they averaged
those guys in, the average days for each combat soldier at the front
would indeed be very low. I don't remember what the ratio was in
Vietnam, but it was likely closer to 2-3 support for every one combat.
Then of course, the notion of "combat" has changed significantly, and
is evolving even more as we speak due to the situation in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
WIA, KIA, non-combat "injuries" (like the large amounts during Winter
44/45 from illness) also lower that number greatly. Casualties in WWII
were very high, so the chances of surviving a day in combat was
statistically lower than other conflicts. Some combat units also spent
little time at the front because they were introduced only at the end
of the war. Only a fair number of units, but not as many as you think,
spent considerable uninterrupted time at the front. The US had the
luxury, more often than not, to rotate units out of the front (either
in part or in whole).
Of course if this was for the full war, averaged together, you're going
to get really skewed numbers because huge portions of the US' active
military force sat around waiting (either in the US, Great Britain, or
various staging areas in the PTO) for combat for extended lengths of
time.
Another thing to consider is that the largest amount of simultaneous
ops were conducted starting in the summer of 1944 and into the spring
of 1945. This counts as two calendar years, though in reality it was
about 10 months of elapsed time. This would mean 80 days out of 300,
which is actually a pretty large percentage considering this is an
average.
Anyway... I have no idea of that 40 days of combat per year figure is
accurate, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand without knowing more.
Which is why talking head statistics without any context like this one
are pretty much useless :-)
Steve
>
>
> Roger on that Everette on all you said. I feel most everyone, air,
> land,
> sea, and back in the rear areas, did everything they could where ever
> they
> were during that time period. An overwhelming time frame in human
> history.
> It should be better taught to kids today in school. Too bad they all
> can
> not hear for themselves from those who were there. They would be
> astounded.
>
> Glenn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Everette [mailto:194cbteng@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:36 AM
> To: G Shaw; 'Military Vehicles Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [MV] Korean war casualty count and related
>
>
>
> Glenn I agree with everything you said and I think with regard to
> what I
> saw on TV the devil is in the details, statement was "Army" and I do
> not
> think they included Navy, and as you know statistics can be twisted.
> As you
>
> said I think they factored in rear area support and men / women who
> served
> our country in thousands of ways to support the actual men in combat.
>
> For sure a fellow down in the belly of a hunk of steel floating
> thousands of
>
> miles from home while someone is trying to blow holes in what he is
> riding
> in would be considered by any right minded person as "in combat"..
>
> We all know men who waded ashore at Normandy and walked all the way to
> Berlin; not to mention men who were in uniform 12/1/41 were in combat
> later
> that month and still wearing OD and carrying weapons late in 1945.
>
> I have great respect for what is called the "greatest generation" and
> just
> as much for fellows that were in combat in all the wars and police
> actions
> or whatever the politicians call what puts our men / women in danger.
> And I
>
> do not slight the people who serve in the many jobs it takes to make a
> combat soldier able to do his job. Someone has to see to it that food,
> water, ammunition, medical care, vehicles and the thousands of things
> it
> takes to make a viable Army are available when needed.
>
> There is lots of truth said when we say "all gave some, some gave all".
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "G Shaw" <milspectruck@verizon.net>
> To: "'Everette'" <194cbteng@bellsouth.net>; "'Military Vehicles Mailing
> List'" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 8:40 PM
> Subject: RE: [MV] Korean war casualty count and related
>
>
> Hi Everette
> I don't know where they are getting all this stuff. It doesn't sound
> like
> the same war where my Uncle Bill was in the Pacific on Bouganville,
> Tarawa
> and some other toilets in the Pacific with the US Army, or the European
> campaign where my cousin Fritz was. Of course the fact that he was
> with the
> German Army may have had some impact on the stats, not to mention
> that he
> was on the Eastern front and was in active combat long before D-Day
> and all
> the way until the fall of Berlin as the lines moved back west. I do
> know
> from their first hand stories was that a lot of guys went through hell
> for a
> long time on both sides. Not 40 days. Both Bill and Fritz have said
> they
> really treasured any time they got on R&R.
>
> I think that they must include all the Rear Area support guys in the
> percentage. For every combat infantryman it takes X number of rear
> area
> support personnel. Yet these men and women are all part of the
> campaign.
> Accountants have a way of making figures tell whatever they want. Mark
> Twains comment comes to mind :) Front line units pretty much were in
> the
> shit most of the time as they fought and walked across Europe in the
> campaign. If you were front line infantry on either side you were in
> combat
> constantly except for the rare R&R. Both Bill and Fritz survived the
> war
> but I thinlk the "greatest generation" is very fitting when you think
> about
> what the world went through 1939-1945. They should not publish things
> that
> seem to diminish the extreme sacrifice these soldiers made, which is
> how I
> would take what the History Channel does with this. I wish todays
> media
> would stop trying to revise history.
>
> Glenn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Everette
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:04 PM
> To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
> Subject: [MV] Korean war casualty count and related
>
>
> I think perhaps I watch history channel too much... I was watching
> program
> on helicopters, and "talking head" said average GI in WWII spent less
> than
> 40 days a year in combat, compared to Vietnam's 240 days per year and
> "talking head" said that a lot of this could be attributed to
> helicopter.
>
> Helicopter was able to get troops from rear to front quicker, I
> disagree,
> in Vietnam there was no "front line" if you were "in country" you were
> "in
> combat", rear area was Guam or Japan or back home...
>
> Yes helio could move you from a somewhat secure place to one that was
> not
> secure at all, but no place was "safe".
>
> Everette
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> Visit the searchable archives at http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> Visit the searchable archives at http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 18 2006 - 21:32:13 PDT