What Were a U.S. Soldier's Odds of Dying in Each War?

[Proctor]

Our perceptions of wars are pushed and pulled by myriad forces—their causes, their outcomes, their places in our national narrative, etc. But on the level of the individual, which was the deadliest? Nicholas Hobbes' Essential Militaria breaks down the stats for eleven historic conflicts:

• War of Independence: 2 percent (1 in 50)
• War of 1812: 0.8 percent (1 in 127)
• Indian Wars: 0.9 percent (1 in 106)
• Mexican War: 2.2 percent (1 in 45)
• Civil War: 6.7 percent (1 in 15)
• Spanish-American War: 0.1 percent (1 in 798)
• World War I: 1.1 percent (1 in 89)
• World War II: 1.8 percent (1 in 56)
• Korean War: 0.6 percent (1 in 171)
• Vietnam War: 0.5 percent (1 in 185)
• Persian Gulf War: 0.03 percent (1 in 3,162)

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5774387/what-were...g-in-every-war

I think we have it easy nowadays compared to the wars of the past. Civil war was probably the craziest one, a 1 in a 15 chance of dying? Jesus. Props to the people who served.

[zhaoyun]

The numbers are a lot lower than I expected Tbh.

[Proctor]

The numbers are a lot lower than I expected Tbh.

This is just for the US

If we were to look at ancient wars, I think the odds of dying would be much MUCH higher. Like when Hannibal invaded Rome and wiped out most of their military. I would hate to be in some of the battles back then that I've read about.

[Vladimir Putin]

War of Independence was won by the French soldier. World War II by the Russian soldier. Indian Wars do not count, it was genocide since the Indian blocks had no firearms.

[Proctor]

War of Independence was won by the French soldier. World War II by the Russian soldier. Indian Wars do not count, it was genocide since the Indian blocks had no firearms.

What a load of BS, the French came in towards the end, people overstate their influence in the revolution. Many Americans at the time believed the US didn't even need a standing army to beat the British, we could have beaten them with the militias alone. Also, the Brits didn't fight by themselves, they had 30 thousand Hessian mercenaries backing them up and I reckon they fought a fairly large amount of the skirmishes between British vs Patriot forces. Read up or don't comment please.

World war 2, the US fought Japan almost entirely alone and practically saved Australia from being invaded. We didn't do as much in the European theater (I don't think we should have gotten involved there) but you'd have to be kidding yourself if you think the Russians won world war 2 alone, you would have been toast without Britain.

Lastly, during world war 2 you guys only had power in numbers, look at how many times you were whipped by the Nazis despite them having a much smaller force and look at how Finland rekt your shit when you tried to invade them. Don't turn this thread into something it wasn't meant to be and when you want to make BS claims like you did please back them up with non-bias proof.

[Vladimir Putin]

What a load of BS, the French came in towards the end, people overstate their influence in the revolution. Many Americans at the time believed the US didn't even need a standing army to beat the British, we could have beaten them with the militias alone. Also, the Brits didn't fight by themselves, they had 30 thousand Hessian mercenaries backing them up and I reckon they fought a fairly large amount of the skirmishes between British vs Patriot forces. Read up or don't comment please.

The truth is, the 13 colonies would never have earned their freedom without French intervention , the whole battle for American independence was essentially a proxy war between Britain and France. To the French, America was nothing but another theater in their grand blood feud against Britain. They were all about making the Englishmen eat every last available dick, and since they noticed they could use the colonists' struggle for independence as a handy feeding pen, that's exactly what they did.The truth is, the 13 colonies would never have earned their freedom without French intervention, the whole battle for American independence was essentially a proxy war between Britain and France.

To the French, America was nothing but another theater in their grand blood feud against Britain. They were all about making the Englishmen eat every last available dick, and since they noticed they could use the colonists' struggle for independence as a handy feeding pen, that's exactly what they did.

France began providing arms and ammunition as early as 1776 (the war started in 1775). In early 1777, months before Saratoga, the French sent American colonists 25,000 uniforms and pairs of boots, hundreds of cannons, and thousands of muskets, all stuff that the colonists would've had a hard time surviving without, and all stuff they had no access to on their own. And that was just the tip of the iceberg: From supplies to advice to military reinforcements, France exercised all the fiscal restraint of a drunk businessman at a strip club when it came to funding the American war.

France provided a whopping 90 percent of the rebels' gunpowder. Let that sink in for a second. Without France, the entire American Revolution would have devolved into a bunch of dudes swinging their muskets as clubs within weeks.

World war 2, the US fought Japan almost entirely alone and practically saved Australia from being invaded. We didn't do as much in the European theater (I don't think we should have gotten involved there) but you'd have to be kidding yourself if you think the Russians won world war 2 alone, you would have been toast without Britain.

However, given the historical data (85% of German soldiers killed in the war died on the Eastern Front), it speak out loud who won this war.

Lastly, during world war 2 you guys only had power in numbers, look at how many times you were whipped by the Nazis despite them having a much smaller force and look at how Finland rekt your shit when you tried to invade them. Don't turn this thread into something it wasn't meant to be and when you want to make BS claims like you did please back them up with non-bias proof.

Who, Netherlands? I'm Dutch

[Proctor]

France began providing arms and ammunition as early as 1776 (the war started in 1775). In early 1777, months before Saratoga, the French sent American colonists 25,000 uniforms and pairs of boots, hundreds of cannons, and thousands of muskets, all stuff that the colonists would've had a hard time surviving without, and all stuff they had no access to on their own. And that was just the tip of the iceberg: From supplies to advice to military reinforcements, France exercised all the fiscal restraint of a drunk businessman at a strip club when it came to funding the American war.

If not France then someone else, there were alternatives.

France provided a whopping 90 percent of the rebels' gunpowder. Let that sink in for a second. Without France, the entire American Revolution would have devolved into a bunch of dudes swinging their muskets as clubs within weeks.

If the French weren't allied with us Washington would have just ordered more gunpowder mills to be created and in fact he did to a certain extent. What the colonies lacked was saltpeter to help create gunpowder and we could have gotten that through trade with other countries. The 90% figure is mostly for the Saratoga campaign and the time preceding it, and a lot of it wasn't just given to us, we obtained much through trade and in some cases actually stealing it like the Bermuda powder raids. The war would have dragged on longer without the French but we wouldn't have lost. Saying that the French won our revolution is just false, it's like those Americans claim we won the European theater for the allies because we offered supplies and support, it's simply not true.

The British had an extra 30 thousand Hessians fighting for them, never mind the god awful tories which also numbered in the thousands while France lent us just 12 thousand troops on the ground at most during the war, most of which wasn't until later. The patriot troops were severely outnumbered and I say they did damn well with what they had available to them.

However, given the historical data (85% of German soldiers killed in the war died on the Eastern Front), it speak out loud who won this war.

Due to bad tactical decisions by Hitler, however the German military was still far superior to Russia's. There are also different forms of victory/winning, Russia fought back the Germans, but look at what it cost them, MILLIONS dead. I believe (not positive though) that Russia lost the most men out of any other country during the span of world war 2.

"the Soviet Union triumphed over Nazi Germany but lost more than 25 million people in the war, including 11 million troops killed compared to 4 million German and other Axis battle deaths."

Who, Netherlands? I'm Dutch

You caught me off guard, at first I assumed you were another nationalist Russian. You have a Russian flag on your profile, and since you mentioned that you're dutch do you happen to be dexter by any chance lmfao?

[Slavic Italian]

Our perceptions of wars are pushed and pulled by myriad forces—their causes, their outcomes, their places in our national narrative, etc. But on the level of the individual, which was the deadliest? Nicholas Hobbes' Essential Militaria breaks down the stats for eleven historic conflicts:

• War of Independence: 2 percent (1 in 50)
• War of 1812: 0.8 percent (1 in 127)
• Indian Wars: 0.9 percent (1 in 106)
• Mexican War: 2.2 percent (1 in 45)
• Civil War: 6.7 percent (1 in 15)
• Spanish-American War: 0.1 percent (1 in 798)
• World War I: 1.1 percent (1 in 89)
• World War II: 1.8 percent (1 in 56)
• Korean War: 0.6 percent (1 in 171)
• Vietnam War: 0.5 percent (1 in 185)
• Persian Gulf War: 0.03 percent (1 in 3,162)

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5774387/what-were...g-in-every-war

I think we have it easy nowadays compared to the wars of the past. Civil war was probably the craziest one, a 1 in a 15 chance of dying? Jesus. Props to the people who served.

Funny. They expected my Task Force to lose 80% of our manpower during the 1st Gulf War. That percentage does not reflect what they were expecting to happen. They told us they were expecting 20,000-30,000 casualties.