GDG- Arty Anti-personnel Effectiveness

[Batrinque at aol.com]

In a message dated 12/1/06 7:08:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
ccj at infionline.net writes:

> Setting aside for the moment that the thread has entered into a new area of 
> 
> inquiry, this is the first I've heard that the discussion has revolved 
> around the absence of data.  I have said from the beginning that there is a 
> mass of medico-military information available.  I can't recall that anyone 
> has said, "No, this isn't so."  Rather, what has happened, it seems to me, 
> is that the results of analyses of available data that I presented were 
> questioned on the bases of impressions or factoids.  There's no way I can 
> help people prove their impressions by providing data that doesn't exist.

You're avoiding the question. Where is this "basic data" supposedly so 
readily available to be found?  Yes, there is some information from medical sources 
available but, as has been expressed in several postings in this thread 
already, taking that information at face value is risky.  More than risky, in fact; 
downright naive.  Were killed-to-to wounded ratios from various forms of 
artillery fire all the same?  Were they the same as from small arms fire?  Why 
should we believe that this hospital information reflects the true distribution of 
battlefield casualties (including variations in killed versus wounded)?

> 
> In the present instance, the question has less to do with that information. 
> It has more to do (in my opinion) with doctrine and combat realities, and if 
> 
> I were inclined to investigate it, which I am not, I'd examine doctrine and 
> readily-available data on artillery ammunition expenditure in battle. 
> Without having looked at the data, I'd wager that the big killer in the 10% 
> of casualties attributed to artillery was spherical case.  In fact, I'd say 
> that that should be plain without an investigation.
> 

So, you have not bothered to actually do the dirty work of examining the 
data?  Well, that certainly saves effort ...  I would agree that spherical case 
probably was the primary cause of those 10% reported casualties from hospital 
data (not the "big killer" but the "big wounder"), but I would also argue that 
is because canister casualties were more frequently unreported due to combat 
circumstances (i.e., they occurred in close proximity to the enemy, so 
canister-wounded had less of a chance of making it to a friendly hospital to report the 
wound, whereas spherical case-wounded in most circumstances could be 
transported to a hospital).  

Bruce Trinque
Amston, CT