GDG- Arty Anti-personnel Effectiveness

[ccj at infionline.net]

Bruce,

First, I disagree with your characterizations of the thread.  Second, your 
statements and questions have become esoteric and tendentious, and in one 
instance below, insulting.  Frankly, I can't answer some of them, because I 
doubt they can be answered, and even if they could, I doubt they could be 
answered to your satisfaction.  You can continue your investigation in the 
following works:

Beebe, Gilbert W., and Michael E. De Bakey.  Battle Casualties: Incidence, 
Mortality, and Logistic Considerations.  Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. 
Thomas, c1952.



Dupuy, Trevor N.  Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment 
Losses in Modern War.  Falls Church, Va.: NOVA Pubs., 1995.



Great Britain.  Army.  Army Operational Research Group.  Memorandum No. F.6. 
Trends in Warfare.  April 1955.



Longmore, Sir Thomas.  Gunshot Injuries.  London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 
1877.



Curt Johnson



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Batrinque at aol.com>
To: <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: GDG- Arty Anti-personnel Effectiveness


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
> 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