GDG- Arty Anti-personnel Effectiveness

[Batrinque at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/30/06 3:38:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
ccj at infionline.net writes:

> I don't understand the statement about some kind of "set" in your first 
> sentence.  Further, I am not an expert on ballistic trauma, so I cannot 
> comment on your apparent assumption that (if I understand what you're 
> saying, and I'm not sure I do) somehow a significantly larger number 
> artillery casualties (vice small arms casualties) die before reaching 
> medical care.  But, this is your enquiry, so enjoy the research!
> 

Ultimately, there may be no practical objective way of distinguishing between 
which of two factors were in operation:  (1) there were relatively few 
"artillery" wounded because most such casualties died on the spot, or (2) CW 
"artillery" casualties were relatively few to begin with in the first place.  In 
support, perhaps, of this latter notion, I would point out that it is pretty 
generally agreed that the greatest number of artillery casualties were inflicted at 
close range by canister.  In the case of the PPT Charge, as an example of an 
assault against enemy artillery that failed, this meant that many/most of 
these canister casualties were left behind, unable to reach a friendly hospital to 
be recorded., regardless of their ultimate prognosis.


Bruce Trinque
Amston, CT