What could have been done to reduce Case Fatality Rate to 15% in WW2 w/o ASB?

hiddenzone02

Case Fatality Rate (CFR)= 100 * (KIA + DOW) / (KIA + WIA)

KIA=Killed in Action; DOW=Died of Wounds; WIA=Wounded in Action.

The CFRs in WW2, Vietnam and Iraq were 19.1, 15.8 and 9.1. There is a great reduction in 60 years thanks to better protection, faster evacuation and better surgery technique.

What could have been done to reduce the death-wound ratio from 1:4 to 1:6 in WW2 without Alien Space Bats? For example, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) invented in 1960 requires no equipment that couldn't be produced in WW2, and Band-Aid invented in 1920 was totally feasible to be mass-utilized in WW1.

As a starting point, steel cuirass of .2"/5mm thickness (with gorget to protect the neck from splashing debris of lead core and brass jacket) should be able to stop a Fully Powered Cartridge at close range (if not, 1/4"/6.2mm should be enough at that time), preventing deadly wounds but increasing the possibility of limb damage. Such armor in SAPI cut should weigh 6 lbs/2.7kg a piece.

The Americans, the Brits and the Russians did equip less protective body armor, and the Russians tested SN-40A with 4.2/5.2mm 36SGNA steel which didn't enter service in the chaos of Operation Barbarossa.

Reference: https://learning-media.allogy.com/api/v1/pdf/59ca4340-e2f2-4a1d-92d9-ee0398092628/contents

Postscriptum:
Did G.I. of US use their entrenching shovel as back armor plate, spontaneously or required by any Field Manual? If so, has anyone been saved by it?
main-qimg-10b1f7e4ce1cf29e67a95382d1a854de-lq-jpg.837900

If M-1943 intrenching tool were made of 1.5mm 1/16" manganese Steel, it should be able to stop a .45 ACP round if not 9mm Parabellum and shrapnel.
 
Last edited:

Winged-One

Have the US government realize that they need a replacement for silk earlier than IOTL; then have them spend more money on finding a replacement... and poof, have someone discover Kevlar! Or something comparable that's easier to make.

Then have the government choose to standardize it.

...Also, have the US not do the combat box doctrine for strategic bombers and go with escorts from the beginning?
 

hiddenzone02

Winged-One said:
Have the US government realize that they need a replacement for silk earlier than IOTL; then have them spend more money on finding a replacement... and poof, have someone discover Kevlar! Or something comparable that's easier to make.

Then have the government choose to standardize it.

...Also, have the US not do the combat box doctrine for strategic bombers and go with escorts from the beginning?
Click to expand...
The US did use Aluminum and Nylon armor to protect from shrapnel in WW2, but not since the beginning of WW2.
1686533305940.png

1686533317497.png

Not since the beginning even in Korean War! (Marine=M51, Army Nylon=T52-1/2)
1686533526909.png
 

JasTysoe

I'll have to check the numbers, but a huge proportion of deaths at sea occurred after men had been able to leave the ship, but had inadequate lifesaving equipment. D K Brown says that the Brits had tested a better lifejacket but relied on the inadequate Mae West.

I'm not sure when the modern version of a survival suit could come along, or how practical it would be, but better life rafts, insulation and flotation don't seem to have been very hard to provide and would have saved many lives. Many years ago one researcher noted that even a tiny raft that could be blown up with lung power gave a dramatic increase in lifespan when in the water. While that may have depended on '70s materials, even in the 1800s there were inflatable one-man rafts that could be carried (they actually formed a waterproof coat) and which worked in Arctic conditions so it seems that much more could have been done.
 

Cryhavoc101

JasTysoe said:
I'll have to check the numbers, but a huge proportion of deaths at sea occurred after men had been able to leave the ship, but had inadequate lifesaving equipment. D K Brown says that the Brits had tested a better lifejacket but relied on the inadequate Mae West.

I'm not sure when the modern version of a survival suit could come along, or how practical it would be, but better life rafts, insulation and flotation don't seem to have been very hard to provide and would have saved many lives. Many years ago one researcher noted that even a tiny raft that could be blown up with lung power gave a dramatic increase in lifespan when in the water. While that may have depended on '70s materials, even in the 1800s there were inflatable one-man rafts that could be carried (they actually formed a waterproof coat) and which worked in Arctic conditions so it seems that much more could have been done.
Click to expand...
Yes secondary drowning was an issue in rough seas

I race sailing boats quite a bit and I make sure that my Life jacket is current, has an anti drowning hood and is self inflating (If I end up in the drink its likely that I've been hit by the boom and might not be capable of deploying it manually.)

There is also the issue of Hypothermia - it was understood but a lot of the WW2 knowledge was gained through Nazi experimentation on concentration camp victims so I don't think much could be done there.

Some efforts could be made to train men to 'get through the first minute' where thermal shock can kill - after that a man in swimming shorts can survive up to 30 minutes in very cold water but again this knowledge came from the same sort of 'experimentation'.

'One' of the reasons the Duke of Edinburgh scheme was launched in Britain in 1956 was it was noticed in WW2 that very young men with no life experience or families were the first to give up and die when they where in a ship wreck situation and older men with far more experience and/or families had a greater 'will to live'.

Now I hesitate to suggest a movement like the RAD battalions in Germany that indoctrinated their youth before they were of age to join the Nazi armed forces but something along those lines.
 
Gentian1707

Gentian1707

hiddenzone02 said:
Case Fatality Rate (CFR)= 100 * (KIA + DOW) / (KIA + WIA)

KIA=Killed in Action; DOW=Died of Wounds; WIA=Wounded in Action.

The CFRs in WW2, Vietnam and Iraq were 19.1, 15.8 and 9.1. There is a great reduction in 60 years thanks to better protection, faster evacuation and better surgery technique.

What could have been done to reduce the death-wound ratio from 1:4 to 1:6 in WW2 without Alien Space Bats? For example, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) invented in 1960 requires no equipment that couldn't be produced in WW2, and Band-Aid invented in 1920 was totally feasible to be mass-utilized in WW1.

As a starting point, steel cuirass of .2"/5mm thickness (with gorget to protect the neck from splashing debris of lead core and brass jacket) should be able to stop a Fully Powered Cartridge at close range (if not, 1/4"/6.2mm should be enough at that time), preventing deadly wounds but increasing the possibility of limb damage. Such armor in SAPI cut should weigh 6 lbs/2.7kg a piece.

The Americans, the Brits and the Russians did equip less protective body armor, and the Russians tested SN-40A with 4.2/5.2mm 36SGNA steel which didn't enter service in the chaos of Operation Barbarossa.

Reference: https://learning-media.allogy.com/api/v1/pdf/59ca4340-e2f2-4a1d-92d9-ee0398092628/contents
Click to expand...
A change in tactics. First and foremost, don't do full frontal attacks on fortified positions. Specially if it's an amphibious assault. Or use them gravity bombs (available during late WW2) to collapse the tunnels before doing that attacks.

Other than that, it is difficult to replicate the advancements of helicopters that led to wounded soldiers being evacuated on a timely manner from Vietnam onward in WW2. The scale of war, not a couple of thousand per battle but tens of thousands, limitations of available technology will always ensure WW2 figures looking worse than that of wars since.
 

Nicola

Gentian1707 said:
A change in tactics. First and foremost, don't do full frontal attacks on fortified positions. Specially if it's an amphibious assault. Or use them gravity bombs (available during late WW2) to collapse the tunnels before doing that attacks.

Other than that, it is difficult to replicate the advancements of helicopters that led to wounded soldiers being evacuated on a timely manner from Vietnam onward in WW2. The scale of war, not a couple of thousand per battle but tens of thousands, limitations of available technology will always ensure WW2 figures looking worse than that of wars since.
Click to expand...
the game changer in Afghanistan and the Second Iraq war was MERT , while PEDRO does an admirable job, MERT literally brought the Emergency Dept Trauma Bay to the patient and generates 'unexpected survivors' from major trauma

this presentation is a few years old now - Dr Kate is a Full Four Ring naval Captain now
 
Last edited:

Orcbuster

Nicola said:
the game changer in Afghanistan and the Second Iraq war was MERT , while PEDRO does an admirable job, MERT literally brought the Emergency Dept Trauma Bay to the patient and generates 'unexpected survivors' from major trauma

this presentation is a few years old now - Dr Kate is a Full Four Ring naval Captain now
Click to expand...
Ok so to poke a hole in this line of thought, what were the fatality rates of iraqis and afghanis in those conflicts....
 

Orcbuster

Nicola said:
and your point here is what ? please note this is NOT the current politics board
Click to expand...
Its more related to relevancy of using numbers from those conflicts and apply them to WWII. A conflict where one side did not loose a single engagement at company level or above is not going to be relevant for one where both sides lose entire divisions in the course of single battles.
 

hiddenzone02

Did G.I. of US use their entrenching shovel as back armor plate, spontaneously or required by any Field Manual? If so, has anyone been saved by it?
main-qimg-10b1f7e4ce1cf29e67a95382d1a854de-lq.jpg
If M-1943 intrenching tool were made of 1.5mm 1/16" manganese Steel, it should be able to stop a .45 ACP round if not 9mm Parabellum and shrapnel.
 

BlueTrousers

Alex Zetsu said:
Isn't Died of Wounds effectively being killed in action?
Click to expand...
I'm sure there's a precise definition of when one becomes the other, but it's effectively the difference between dying on the battlefield and dying in a field hospital.

I'd expect that different militaries also draw that line in different places, making direct comparisons difficult. Likewise 'wounded in action', which could have a multitude of definitions.
 

vizzer

One problem with increased protective equipment may be an apparent increase in those dying of wounds where previously they would have died before reaching aid.

See the increase in the number of head wounds reported following the issue of helmets in WW1. Where it took some time before people realised that this was due to troops surviving due to their helmets where previously they would have been killed.
 

hiddenzone02

Gentian1707 said:
A change in tactics. First and foremost, don't do full frontal attacks on fortified positions. Specially if it's an amphibious assault. Or use them gravity bombs (available during late WW2) to collapse the tunnels before doing that attacks.

Other than that, it is difficult to replicate the advancements of helicopters that led to wounded soldiers being evacuated on a timely manner from Vietnam onward in WW2. The scale of war, not a couple of thousand per battle but tens of thousands, limitations of available technology will always ensure WW2 figures looking worse than that of wars since.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't help reduce death-wound ratio; it should reduce both of them proportionally.
Moreover, effort to save lives tactically sometimes causes greater loss strategically.
 

hiddenzone02

Cryhavoc101 said:
Yes secondary drowning was an issue in rough seas

I race sailing boats quite a bit and I make sure that my Life jacket is current, has an anti drowning hood and is self inflating (If I end up in the drink its likely that I've been hit by the boom and might not be capable of deploying it manually.)

There is also the issue of Hypothermia - it was understood but a lot of the WW2 knowledge was gained through Nazi experimentation on concentration camp victims so I don't think much could be done there.

Some efforts could be made to train men to 'get through the first minute' where thermal shock can kill - after that a man in swimming shorts can survive up to 30 minutes in very cold water but again this knowledge came from the same sort of 'experimentation'.

'One' of the reasons the Duke of Edinburgh scheme was launched in Britain in 1956 was it was noticed in WW2 that very young men with no life experience or families were the first to give up and die when they where in a ship wreck situation and older men with far more experience and/or families had a greater 'will to live'.

Now I hesitate to suggest a movement like the RAD battalions in Germany that indoctrinated their youth before they were of age to join the Nazi armed forces but something along those lines.
Click to expand...
Any details of the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, please? Failed to find it on the web.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top