Iraq injuries VS Viet Nam deaths - a question ......

[Stinky The Clown]

Some time ago, there was a (speculative?) study showing that the nature of care and the nature of body armor and the essential nature of the type of fighting made the death rate in Iraq **apparantly** lower than in Viet Nam. The study concluded that if protection and care of the troop in Iraq were the same as in Viet Nam, the death rates would be quite similar.

Has anyone seen any recent serious study about this?

[Monkeyman]

1. No But VVA said that the injuries they are getting in Iraq would kill us

[TomInTib]

2. There are so many factors, but the difference is astounding.

The speed that they get casualties out of the field and the body armor is saving (and at the same time, ruining the future of) many troops.

Hell, I know guys who died of gangrene poisoning in Vietnam. Well, OK, they were really in Laos and we couldn't get them out in time.

But it is definitley a two-sided sword. I certainly would not want to live with what some of these unfortunate casualties (and their families, communities, etc., ) are going have to deal with for the rest of their lives.

[Hekate]

5. The brain injuries alone are amazing, due to the concussive force of the IEDs and other such weapons

Those are invisible injuries, but very real just the same.

As for the rest, what you are saying accords with what I've read -- so many of the maimed-for-life from this war would not have survived to go home from Vietnam.

Hekate

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Tom, there's no doubt that your point is correct .... in many cases, death would be kinder.

[Traveling_Home]

3. deleted by author

[sinkingfeeling]

4. I read that study, but don't have it at my fingertips. If I remember right, I think it said

if everything was the same as during Nam, the current death toll would be something like 9,000.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. That squares with my recollection, too ..... but I can't find the study anymore and .....

.... I can't say if it was speculative or scientific. More importantly, I think it is now pretty much out of date .... if it is the one I saw a while ago.

[blm]

8. I posted about that over a year ago, Husb. Can't recall the exact study name

now, but it was definitely true that what has made the difference in the FATALITY rate is the advancement in trauma care since that time.

The overall casualty figures are running about the same.

[RamboLiberal]

9. This from ABC Jan 06 when Bob Woodruff was wounded

Compared to the Vietnam War, when about 12 percent of all wounded soldiers sustained a brain injury, in Iraq, 22 percent of the wounded have serious head wounds.

But the wounded in Iraq also have a much greater chance of surviving. In World War II, 30 percent of all injured troops died; 24 percent died in Vietnam. In Iraq, just 9 percent of the injured lose their lives. Improved body armor and advances in battlefield medicine have saved countless lives.

So far, more than 16,500 U.S. soldiers and Marines have been injured in Iraq.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1556540

[sutz12]

10. You have to look at the ratio of KIA to WIA

It has been steadily rising since around WWI. I don't know the exact numbers, but the ratio of KIA/WIA used to be down around 1/3. Now, in Iraq, the ratio is closer to 1 killed to 7 or 8 wounded. All due to the things mentioned above, the better care in general, quicker evacuation to trauma centers and hospitals, use of body armor, etc.

This is one reason they were so unprepared, IMO. They thought they could minimize the kills, and they did, but the wounded still mounted up. They used to list total casualties in prior wars. Now they just report the dead, and fail to mention that for every dead serviceperson, there are 7 or 8 wounded. We have over 3,000 dead, which sounds better than saying we have nearly 30,000 casualties.

Of course they don't count PTSD cases very well. Most of them seem to get the Patton treatment. You, know, a slap on the head and a shout out to suck it up and get back on the firing line.

[onenote]

12. depending on whether or not you include "non-hostile action" fatalities

the ration of KIA/WIA during Vietnam was between around 1/6 -- still lower than the 1/8 ratio currently in Iraq, but not quite as dramatic a difference.

[onenote]

11. I think the statistics will show that kia and wia levels were both much higher in Vietnam

Comparisons between the two situations are necessarily inexact. But in 1968, US troop levels in Vietnam hit 536,000 -- around four times the level of US military in Iraq. In 1968, around 16,000 US military personnel died in Vietnam and nearly 88,000 were wounded. The average number of fatalities and wounded in Iraq has been around 1000/yr and 6000/year -- a much lower rate than in Vietnam. While some of the difference in fatalities undoubtedly is due to improved body armor and medical care, the levels of wounded in action is not that easily explained away.