3 ms·

It's noteworthy that in order to win vs Germany we had to kill the vast majority of their army. This appears to be untrue. I found lots of figures; here's one

It's noteworthy that in order to win vs Germany we had to kill the vast majority of their army. This appears to be untrue. I found lots of figures; here's one set: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Military_casualties_by_branch_of_service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Militar... I can't think of any modern decisive conflicts that resulted in political change that didn't also require destroying the majority of the opposing army except Vietnam. In WWI, the majority of the army of the defeated was alive after the war. Likewise WWII. Spanish Civil War. Falklands War. On and on and on and on, decisive conflict after decisive conflict in which the majority of the defeated army is not dead.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
Those statistics say that there were 11,568,000 German casualties out of 18,200,000 total. And while blowing off a leg isn't quite the same thing as killing them, it has the same effect for the purposes of war. The stats show about 1 in 3 Germans killed and 1 in 4 Japanese killed vs 1 in 50 Americans killed and 1 in 25 British killed. The focus of modern war is causing physical harm to the enemy troops, not merely destroying their capability for making war.
- lotharbot 13y ago
  "Wounded" does not necessarily mean "out of action permanently". My grandfather was wounded November 19, 1943 and was back in action before the new year. The focus of modern warfare is destroying capability for making war -- which usually includes wounding or killing enemy troops, but also destroying equipment, engaging in misdirection to get enemy troops to commit to the wrong place, etc. It's much more sophisticated than you make it sound.
- EliRivers 13y ago
  The focus of modern war is causing physical harm to the enemy troops That's just so untrue. The focus of modern war is removing the enemy's will and ability to fight. One way, amongst many, to do that is to cause physical harm to people; it's an inefficient and difficult way that is massively dwarfed by far more competent and effective ways to wage a modern war. The focus of modern war is causing physical harm to the enemy troops, not merely destroying their capability for making war. You've got that the wrong way round. The focus of modern war is destroying their capability (and will) to fight.

sillysaurus2 13y ago

Those statistics say that there were 11,568,000 German casualties out of 18,200,000 total. And while blowing off a leg isn't quite the same thing as killing them, it has the same effect for the purposes of war. The stats show about 1 in 3 Germans killed and 1 in 4 Japanese killed vs 1 in 50 Americans killed and 1 in 25 British killed. The focus of modern war is causing physical harm to the enemy troops, not merely destroying their capability for making war.

lotharbot 13y ago
"Wounded" does not necessarily mean "out of action permanently". My grandfather was wounded November 19, 1943 and was back in action before the new year. The focus of modern warfare is destroying capability for making war -- which usually includes wounding or killing enemy troops, but also destroying equipment, engaging in misdirection to get enemy troops to commit to the wrong place, etc. It's much more sophisticated than you make it sound.
EliRivers 13y ago
The focus of modern war is causing physical harm to the enemy troops That's just so untrue. The focus of modern war is removing the enemy's will and ability to fight. One way, amongst many, to do that is to cause physical harm to people; it's an inefficient and difficult way that is massively dwarfed by far more competent and effective ways to wage a modern war. The focus of modern war is causing physical harm to the enemy troops, not merely destroying their capability for making war. You've got that the wrong way round. The focus of modern war is destroying their capability (and will) to fight.