Quote:
Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel
Well look at the length of involvement, Korea was 3 years, Vietnam was 9 (according to that link). Just rough number, if Korea lasted as long, multiply the deaths by three, it would have been 109,722, and Vietnam for 9 years was at 58,209, almost half. In the ten years between the two engagements technology improved the use of the helicopter immensely. Just look at the difference between the size and capacities of a Korean era Bell H and a Vietnam era Huey.
http://www.korean-war.com/KWAircraft.../bell_h13.html
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/...otary/uh1.html |
I'm just going to note that I'm editing this so I can take out the ETAs. I didn't change the overall point; I just added data.
I was just looking at the stat about the ratio of deaths to injuries for both conflicts. The ratio is very similar for the two conflicts in that it's 1:2.6 for Vietnam and 1:2.8 for Korea. For the sake of comparison and to see why I suggest they're similar, in WWII the ration was 1:1.7 and Iraqi Freedom is at a ratio of 1:7.4.
This ratio would probably stay the same if each conflict went on for the same length of time, unless there's some pattern to length of engagement and loss of life overtime, which I have no idea how to even speculate about. But again, we'd really have to know something about the type of injuries to make the comparison.
I wasn't second guessing the helicopter technology as much as wondering why the ratio was a low as it was for Korea compared to Vietnam, if helicopters had there first big success in Vietnam vs. Korea.
I do think that more soldiers are surviving with graver injuries in Iraq, maybe particularly brain injuries, which may both minimize my sense of how dangerous the war is compared to others AND make it much more expensive long term for their care, which is a factor that I think the VA is struggling with.