I agree. Without some statistics, all we have are a series of posters' notions, without the sourced facts our readers come to see.We need some "Hard figures" with sources connected. Otherwise this topic will just keep stumbling along as it does.
The most dangerous job in WWII?
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
Christopher Perrien wrote:
Re: 'ow abut us blhistis?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ChristopherPerrien wrote:I think we need to eliminate any (Kamikaze missions, last stands- such as the British at Singapore, or the Americans at Wake or PI, or the Japanese of myriad islands, or Russian penal battalions,Dieppe landing force, etc.etc.) which all took almost or close to 100% casualties, and stick with strictly MOS's in general and how much they lost as a percentage, throughout the war.waldzee wrote:An' for all 'is dirty 'ide
'E was white, clear white, inside
When 'e went to tend the wounded under fire!
It was "Din! Din! Din!"
With the bullets kickin' dust-spots on the green.
When the cartridges ran out,
You could hear the front-files shout,
"Hi! ammunition-mules an' Gunga Din!"
Kipling- ( AKA medics/corpsmen)
Edit: 'Blhisti" was , according to a Mennonite friend , his fathe'rs fellow medics inturnal slang. As 'Conchies', they got scant respect- until after the Dieppe raid - when it was realised that they took heavier beach casualties than anyone else...
U-boat and US submarine crews rank in this respect, perhaps Soviet infantry and tank formations do too, as maybe do US day bombing crew also. There are so many others, generally I know of many that took 50-75% overall. We are looking for the best of these brave/unlucky/foolish blokes who just happened to end up in the wrong job for WWII.
Happens every war
We need some "Hard figures" with sources connected. Otherwise this topic will just keep stumbling along as it does.
Chris
(WOT?? My quoting Kipling's not good enouf fer yer?( Cor Blimey, wots the Empire comin' too,I say...)
I looked for a backing statistic on a dimly remembered tale that corpsmen in a first wavebeach assault took the highest rate of casuality,& can't find it... )
Carry on, then...
- BillHermann
- Member
- Posts: 742
- Joined: 04 Jan 2012, 16:35
- Location: Authie
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
There are hard figures with Recce / Recon
- Ironmachine
- Member
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
- Location: Spain
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
Then would you be so kind as to post them?
Regards.
PS: And just to clarify my position, I have no objection to reconnoissance being a dangerous task, with recon troops suffering high casualties. I just don't agree with your statement that "Their job is to get noticed and shot at and report if they survive". No; they may get noticed, and they may get shot at, indeed is probable in many situations that they would, but that's not their job. They are not, and should not be, target practice for the enemy.
Regards.
PS: And just to clarify my position, I have no objection to reconnoissance being a dangerous task, with recon troops suffering high casualties. I just don't agree with your statement that "Their job is to get noticed and shot at and report if they survive". No; they may get noticed, and they may get shot at, indeed is probable in many situations that they would, but that's not their job. They are not, and should not be, target practice for the enemy.
Maslow's premise
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Ironmachine wrote:Then would you be so kind as to post them?
Regards.
PS: And just to clarify my position, I have no objection to reconnoissance being a dangerous task, with recon troops suffering high casualties. I just don't agree with your statement that "Their job is to get noticed and shot at and report if they survive". No; they may get noticed, and they may get shot at, indeed is probable in many situations that they would, but that's not their job. They are not, and should not be, target practice for the enemy.
& I am sure we all appreciate your lack of an objection!
Mr. Herman's qualifier was based on his personal experience as a reconnisance soldier. it is perfectly ok to make an 'AS far as I can remember/know' statement .
Sourcing for 'on line proofs' of events seventy years plus ago can be at best, time consuming. May we ask, sir, what you intend to use this knowlege for before being send off on a pour gratis quest?
- Ironmachine
- Member
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
- Location: Spain
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
Well, as I was answering to Mr. Herman's previous posts (that said more or less that other posters did not know what recon was about, and that all our knowledge was based on Hollywood fiction), it really doesn't matter whether you appreciate it or not, but anyway thanks for your kind words.waldzee wrote:& I am sure we all appreciate your lack of an objection!
Funny that Mr. Herman disqualified (without any knowledge about it) the personal experience that other posters may have.waldzee wrote:Mr. Herman's qualifier was based on his personal experience as a reconnisance soldier. it is perfectly ok to make an 'AS far as I can remember/know' statement .
But still, going to the point, he actually wrote: "This [recon] is one of the most dangerous roles statistically speaking." That is not personal experience. Another poster has asked him to show those statistics and he didn't, but still he added: "There are hard figures with Recce / Recon". Well, let's show them.
Well, I supposed that, as he was so sure about what he was writting about, he had the proofs readily available.waldzee wrote:Sourcing for 'on line proofs' of events seventy years plus ago can be at best, time consuming.
I intend to use it for nothing but the personal pleasure that I obtain from learning new things. As recon is something that greatly interests me, I would want to know those statistics. On the other hand, it really doesn't matter. Mr. Herman had made an statement, and now he has to provide the proofs (even if, I repeat, I fully agree with his idea of recon being a very dangerous job; my disagreement was more in terms of doctrine that in terms of results, so to say).waldzee wrote:May we ask, sir, what you intend to use this knowlege for before being send off on a pour gratis quest?
Regards.
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Ironmachine wrote:Well, as I was answering to Mr. Herman's previous posts (that said more or less that other posters did not know what recon was about, and that all our knowledge was based on Hollywood fiction), it really doesn't matter whether you appreciate it or not, but anyway thanks for your kind words.waldzee wrote:& I am sure we all appreciate your lack of an objection!
Funny that Mr. Herman disqualified (without any knowledge about it) the personal experience that other posters may have.waldzee wrote:Mr. Herman's qualifier was based on his personal experience as a reconnisance soldier. it is perfectly ok to make an 'AS far as I can remember/know' statement .
But still, going to the point, he actually wrote: "This [recon] is one of the most dangerous roles statistically speaking." That is not personal experience. Another poster has asked him to show those statistics and he didn't, but still he added: "There are hard figures with Recce / Recon". Well, let's show them.
Well, I supposed that, as he was so sure about what he was writting about, he had the proofs readily available.waldzee wrote:Sourcing for 'on line proofs' of events seventy years plus ago can be at best, time consuming.
I intend to use it for nothing but the personal pleasure that I obtain from learning new things. As recon is something that greatly interests me, I would want to know those statistics. On the other hand, it really doesn't matter. Mr. Herman had made an statement, and now he has to provide the proofs (even if, I repeat, I fully agree with his idea of recon being a very dangerous job; my disagreement was more in terms of doctrine that in terms of results, so to say).waldzee wrote:May we ask, sir, what you intend to use this knowlege for before being send off on a pour gratis quest?
Regards.
I can appreciate - however, the original poster asked for Opinions,not statistics.Bill Herman answered the original request.
We can accept that Mr . Hermann has a degree of insight based on his experiences.
Its all too easy for these threads to 'dissolve' into subjective disputes.
Any concern should be with the formatting of the thread.
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
waldzee wrote: ... I can appreciate - however, the original poster asked for Opinions,not statistics...
I think you will find however that opinion posts are discouraged on these forums (the lounge excepted) as the admin post above indicates. Opinions backed up by fact and logic are however desireable from my readings of the FAQ and postings of various admins.
- Ironmachine
- Member
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
- Location: Spain
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
Well, this is just my opinion, but I suppose the original poster would like some "hard figures" to support those opinions...waldzee wrote:I can appreciate - however, the original poster asked for Opinions,not statistics. Bill Herman answered the original request.
On the other hand, I merely expressed my opinion about Mr. Herman's opinion... but he seemed to be not exactly pleased with that.
Maybe. But that's not the point (not my point, in any case). However, he seems to have some numerical support for his opinion, based on his own words. I would like to see those statistics, even while I agree that recon is a "most dangerous role".waldzee wrote:We can accept that Mr . Hermann has a degree of insight based on his experiences.
Or into poetry contests.waldzee wrote:Its all too easy for these threads to 'dissolve' into subjective disputes.
Regards.
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
I suggest that this is still a very open question. It would help to have a clear definition of "most dangerous" but what ever it is there is likely to be only one role that fits it. I guess you could allow several defintions and thus have several "most dangerous" jobs but that seems like cheating to me. Now if the defintion of "most dangerous" is taken to be which job has the highest fatality rate given the rates of some of the other roles (submariners or bomber crew) it seems unlikely to me that recon will indeed be higher. If one starts seperating them by geography and or nationality or service. In any case lacking the statistics mention we won't really know.Ironmachine wrote: ... even while I agree that recon is a "most dangerous role". ....
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Ironmachine wrote:Well, this is just my opinion, but I suppose the original poster would like some "hard figures" to support those opinions...waldzee wrote:I can appreciate - however, the original poster asked for Opinions,not statistics. Bill Herman answered the original request.
On the other hand, I merely expressed my opinion about Mr. Herman's opinion... but he seemed to be not exactly pleased with that.
Maybe. But that's not the point (not my point, in any case). However, he seems to have some numerical support for his opinion, based on his own words. I would like to see those statistics, even while I agree that recon is a "most dangerous role".waldzee wrote:We can accept that Mr . Hermann has a degree of insight based on his experiences.
Or into poetry contests.waldzee wrote:Its all too easy for these threads to 'dissolve' into subjective disputes.
Regards.
RE Lwd- Thanks- but Ironmachine simply wants to pettiflog- I am not playing along with ..
I=M:
You appear to have WAY too much TIME ON YOUR hands, & aooear to split nonsense hairs (to kill time, perhaps) ?
Threads are wrecked by 'petty semantics.'
I am, as they Say in Britian" Putting on my hat & going Home."
Nothing personal , sir, - but if you are going to demand supporting research- give supporting research
Last edited by waldzee on 23 Mar 2012, 21:44, edited 2 times in total.
- Ironmachine
- Member
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
- Location: Spain
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
Actually, no. I simply want some information that another poster said that was available. However, IMHO, there is one poster here that does want to pettifog (and it's not me)...waldzee wrote:but Ironmachine simply wants to pettiflog
So you played with my nonsense before? Now that's a nonsense.waldzee wrote:I am not playing along with his nonsense again..
Said the man who introduced poetry into a "The most dangerous job in WWII?" thread.waldzee wrote:You appear to have WAY too much TIME ON YOUR hands
Look who's talking.waldzee wrote:& split nonsense hairs to kill time ?
And you are really improving it with poetry, by showing you appreciation, by including Spain among the major Axis powers of World War II...waldzee wrote:You are wrecking this thread with your petty semantics.
Well, as we say in Spain "Manolete, si no sabes torear pa' qué te metes". I simply asked Mr. Herman for some estatistics he said that were available, there was no need for you to intervene.waldzee wrote:I am, as they Say in Britian" Putting on my hat & going Home."
You can be sure that will not be the case. I'm actually quite serious with my participation, trying to post only when I have something useful to say, and saying things only once if possible. Seems to be different in your case, however (362 post in less than two months, 7.24 posts per day; that's something!).waldzee wrote:Now you can spend the next six of your psots bleating about THAT
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
Let's drop the banter, gentlemen, and move this discussion off the beach. Does anyone have any sourced, on-topic statistics?
- Ironmachine
- Member
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
- Location: Spain
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
Here is something: Battle casualties of the U.S. Army (including the Air Corps) by duty branch (and by grade for officers), 7 December 1941-31 December 1946:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref ... .html#duty
Regards.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref ... .html#duty
Regards.
- Ironmachine
- Member
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
- Location: Spain
Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?
And though its covering of World War II is not extensive, and they are not covering "jobs", there are some statistics here that someone may find interesting:
American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Regards.
American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Regards.