Artillery casualties in WWII

[mavraam]

The manual for KP claims that 80% of the casualties in WWII were artillery.

I am assuming the following qualifiers:

1) This refers only to military casualties. It does not take into account civilians
killed in bombing raids, etc.

2) It is only including casualties caused by enemy action. In other words, it does
not include military casualties caused by exposure, disease, dehydration, etc. (I
know a very large number of casualties in the Pacific Theater were caused by the brutal
environment in which the fighting took place).

Am I right in making these assumptions? Also, I was under the impression that
the machine gun was responsible for a huge pct of casualties. Is this a misconception?

If this number is correct (80%), how does it compare with WWI where there was more or
less a continous 2 way artillery barrage for 2+ years.

[barbarrossa]

ORIGINAL: mavraam

The manual for KP claims that 80% of the casualties in WWII were artillery.

I am assuming the following qualifiers:

1) This refers only to military casualties. It does not take into account civilians
killed in bombing raids, etc.

2) It is only including casualties caused by enemy action. In other words, it does
not include military casualties caused by exposure, disease, dehydration, etc. (I
know a very large number of casualties in the Pacific Theater were caused by the brutal
environment in which the fighting took place).

Am I right in making these assumptions? Also, I was under the impression that
the machine gun was responsible for a huge pct of casualties. Is this a misconception?

If this number is correct (80%), how does it compare with WWI where there was more or
less a continous 2 way artillery barrage for 2+ years.

I believe they are speaking of military casualties.

There's a reason artillery is called "King of Battle".[:)]

[mavraam]

I believe they are speaking of military casualties.

There's a reason artillery is called "King of Battle".

LOL!

I guess this is the kind of statistic I would have expected in WWI trench warfare
where machine gun fire kept people huddled in trenches while artillery bombed
them mercilessly.

I thought the tank had lessened the impact of artillery because of its ability
to cross hostile ground under fire.

What about modern combat, say Desert Storm? I know modern mobile artillery
like that employed by the US is devastatingly effective if used. (I'm a software
developer and I used to work with a guy who helped design some sort of multiple
truck mounted system that was incredibly sophisticated, quick and accurate).

But was it ever really needed or did the planes and tanks destroy all the targets
before it could be employed?

[Fred98]

I read a book and there was a whole chapter devoted to this.

IIRC, artillery produced most battle wounds in both wars. The bayonet the least number of battle wounds.
-

[BrubakerII]

ORIGINAL: mavraam

The manual for KP claims that 80% of the casualties in WWII were artillery.

Mavraam could you point me to the spot in the manual that says this please? I can'r find it.

[Rob Gjessing]

I think its in the AtD release notes.. or maybe it is in the manual near the end..

[mavraam]

I think its actually in the tutorial. I mispoke when I said manual, as I had never even looked at the manual at the time. (I've since printed it at Kinko's). I'll check tonight when I get home.

[mavraam]

ORIGINAL: BrubakerII

ORIGINAL: mavraam

The manual for KP claims that 80% of the casualties in WWII were artillery.

Mavraam could you point me to the spot in the manual that says this please? I can'r find it.

Tutorial. Page 15 (section 4.7 Engaging the enemy) paragraph 2

[BrubakerII]

Got it. Cool. Thanks Mavraam.

The reason I asked is because as you may have figured I had something to do with the manual production and couldn't remember ever writing that