The most dangerous job in WWII?

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23255
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by David Thompson » 22 Mar 2012 22:38

Christopher Perrien wrote:
We need some "Hard figures" with sources connected. Otherwise this topic will just keep stumbling along as it does.
I agree. Without some statistics, all we have are a series of posters' notions, without the sourced facts our readers come to see.

User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 03:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: 'ow abut us blhistis?

Post by waldzee » 22 Mar 2012 23:55

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
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- :milsmile: ( 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...
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.

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 :milsmile: :milsmile:

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... :oops: )
Carry on, then...

User avatar
BillHermann
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 15:35
Location: Authie

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by BillHermann » 23 Mar 2012 04:23

There are hard figures with Recce / Recon

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5321
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by Ironmachine » 23 Mar 2012 08:08

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.

User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 03:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Maslow's premise

Post by waldzee » 23 Mar 2012 10:53

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? :)

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5321
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by Ironmachine » 23 Mar 2012 12:03

waldzee wrote:& I am sure we all appreciate your lack of an objection!
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: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 .
Funny that Mr. Herman disqualified (without any knowledge about it) the personal experience that other posters may have.
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.
waldzee wrote:Sourcing for 'on line proofs' of events seventy years plus ago can be at best, time consuming.
Well, I supposed that, as he was so sure about what he was writting about, he had the proofs readily available.
waldzee wrote:May we ask, sir, what you intend to use this knowlege for before being send off on a pour gratis quest?
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).

Regards.

User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 03:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by waldzee » 23 Mar 2012 12:11

Ironmachine wrote:
waldzee wrote:& I am sure we all appreciate your lack of an objection!
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: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 .
Funny that Mr. Herman disqualified (without any knowledge about it) the personal experience that other posters may have.
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.
waldzee wrote:Sourcing for 'on line proofs' of events seventy years plus ago can be at best, time consuming.
Well, I supposed that, as he was so sure about what he was writting about, he had the proofs readily available.
waldzee wrote:May we ask, sir, what you intend to use this knowlege for before being send off on a pour gratis quest?
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).

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. :)

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by LWD » 23 Mar 2012 13:44

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.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5321
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by Ironmachine » 23 Mar 2012 14:15

waldzee wrote:I can appreciate - however, the original poster asked for Opinions,not statistics. Bill Herman answered the original request.
Well, this is just my opinion, but I suppose the original poster would like some "hard figures" to support those opinions...
On the other hand, I merely expressed my opinion about Mr. Herman's opinion... but he seemed to be not exactly pleased with that. :)
waldzee wrote:We can accept that Mr . Hermann has a degree of insight based on his experiences.
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:Its all too easy for these threads to 'dissolve' into subjective disputes.
Or into poetry contests. :wink:

Regards.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by LWD » 23 Mar 2012 15:31

Ironmachine wrote: ... even while I agree that recon is a "most dangerous role". ....
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.

User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 03:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by waldzee » 23 Mar 2012 15:41

Ironmachine wrote:
waldzee wrote:I can appreciate - however, the original poster asked for Opinions,not statistics. Bill Herman answered the original request.
Well, this is just my opinion, but I suppose the original poster would like some "hard figures" to support those opinions...
On the other hand, I merely expressed my opinion about Mr. Herman's opinion... but he seemed to be not exactly pleased with that. :)
waldzee wrote:We can accept that Mr . Hermann has a degree of insight based on his experiences.
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:Its all too easy for these threads to 'dissolve' into subjective disputes.
Or into poetry contests. :wink:

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 20:44, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5321
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by Ironmachine » 23 Mar 2012 19:36

waldzee wrote:but Ironmachine simply wants to pettiflog
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:I am not playing along with his nonsense again..
So you played with my nonsense before? Now that's a nonsense. :lol:
waldzee wrote:You appear to have WAY too much TIME ON YOUR hands
Said the man who introduced poetry into a "The most dangerous job in WWII?" thread.
waldzee wrote:& split nonsense hairs to kill time ?
Look who's talking.
waldzee wrote:You are wrecking this thread with your petty semantics.
And you are really improving it with poetry, by showing you appreciation, by including Spain among the major Axis powers of World War II... :roll:
waldzee wrote:I am, as they Say in Britian" Putting on my hat & going Home."
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:Now you can spend the next six of your psots bleating about THAT
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!).

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23255
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by David Thompson » 23 Mar 2012 21:56

Let's drop the banter, gentlemen, and move this discussion off the beach. Does anyone have any sourced, on-topic statistics?

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5321
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by Ironmachine » 24 Mar 2012 07:17

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.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5321
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: The most dangerous job in WWII?

Post by Ironmachine » 24 Mar 2012 07:28

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.

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”