What is the acceptable casualty rate in a modern battle

[cambridgebloke]

If needed would/could the entire parachute regiment be deployed at one time, and what scenario would dictate the need for such a deployment. As above the thread title says, is there an acceptable amount of loss that is expected in seperate waves of a battle i.e. the journey/the jump/when you hit the ground. How quickly is a soldier ready when he hits the floor and how much ammunition etc do you carry?

Also would the paras and marines other regiments be under each others commands at any time during war?

Thanks Si

[USARMY_]

Victory and failure is not determined by body count. It is determined by objectives and whether they are met or not.

[Ploggers]

"Acceptable loss." It depends on who you ask, I'm sure there is a high level formula for working this out according to the Field Marshal Haig school of military strategy. The answer would be very different from the answer given by Oppo's and family members.

If needed would/could the entire parachute regiment be deployed at one time,

Of course it's possible. The reality depends on other committments.

As for whether Para's and RM's could be deployed under each others command; it has happened in recent history. 3 Para were deployed as part of 3 Cdo Brigage during the Falklands War. 2 Para followed and were also under the command of Julian Thompson.(Brigadier).

[harry hackedoff]

Victory and failure is not determined by body count. It is determined by objectives and whether they are met or not.

Fark me days, I wish I`d said that
Then I`d sound like a tosser, instead of you.

[df2inaus]

Victory and failure is not determined by body count. It is determined by objectives and whether they are met or not.

US_ARMY,

Objectives may be indeed met after heavy casualities but at what cost? One can argue the French won Verdun in 1916, but was France ever the same as a nation afterwards?

Marshall Petain was both the saviour and destroyer of France at the same time, as far as I'm concerned.

How about those who did not achieve objectives but pressed on anyway? Douglas Haig considered 400,000 casualties at the Somme acceptable. The Chinese considered losing 30,000 dead in a week in Vietnam acceptable.

Look up "Pyrrhic Victory" and learn its meaning quickly, or else should you become a combat leader, Guard or regular, no one will follow you.

[Tab]

Here, here, Harry.

Also the last time the whole of the Parachute Brigade was in action together was in 1956 on the Suez invasion, mind you we all had different objectives.

[Whitey]

Isn't this why we invented the "Bomb"? To deal unacceptable losses on the enemy keeping ours light?
I figure this as a believer in the Almighty, my birth,what I do and my end were determined long before I ever arrived, plus the world is full of people so thin the herd if we must.
You are right though about the toll of war on a nation, was France the same after WW1, no, was the UK after WW2? No and the US has and never be the same since Vietnam.

[anglo-saxon]

There is no such thing as "acceptable losses" and any government or commander who plan campaigns or operations in such a fashion is not worthy of their troops.

There is, however, a funadmental difference between the acceptance of risk and the acceptance of a certain casualty figure. Indeed, such mechanisms as automated casualty estimation matrixes exist into which data is entered to produce projected casualty figures for low, medium, and high intensity conflicts or phases thereof, based on the size and configuration of the unit concerned. This is necessary so that replacements in the form of troops (individual specialists/certain ranks/ or formed bodies), vehicles and equipment, and crewed equipment (such as arty and air defense assets) can be anticipated and brought forward in a more timely fashion.

While the acceptance of risk as part and parcel of a soldier's lot, planning for operations must include the careful consideration of minimizing losses. This is not only simply good business, purely from a "resource management" perspective, but it is the morally proper thing to do and it is perhaps one of the funadamental differences between the well-disciplied armies of the west and those of elsewhere.

[USARMY_]

The point I was trying to make was...

you can kill a million people while trying to capture a hill but unless you sit upon it, you haven't got it.

On the other side of the coin...

say high casualties are assumed, so high infact the mission never leaves the drawing board. The mission never happens and the enemy won without a shot being fired.

SO that's why I say body count's do not dicdate victory or defeat. If this were not so all those dead VC/NVA bodies counted in Vietnam would have landed us on the victor's podium and the Palastinian/Isreali conflict would be a distant memory.

[anglo-saxon]

The point I was trying to make was...

you can kill a million people while trying to capture a hill but unless you sit upon it, you haven't got it.

On the other side of the coin...

say high casualties are assumed, so high infact the mission never leaves the drawing board. The mission never happens and the enemy won without a shot being fired.

SO that's why I say body count's do not dicdate victory or defeat. If this were not so all those dead VC/NVA bodies counted in Vietnam would have landed us on the victor's podium and the Palastinian/Isreali conflict would be a distant memory.

This is precisely why maneuvre warfare is practiced these days and not attrition warfare. Attrition warfare is a a waste of resources and it's morally reprehensible to simply throw soldiers at an objective. Now, our level of technology and intelligence assets in the west, combined with a maneuvreist approach allows for smarter war fighting, with greater-than-ever returns on the investment.

[Whitey]

Naw this is why missile defense is important, if the future we make delivery systems ineffective and then radiate some worthless nation of terror hording pigs, make an example and then the rest of the world will fall into line. Manuever? Flesh searing heat is the future, unmanned aircraft, and military sex scandals are the future, moving tanks and massive amounts of troops is on the way out.
Radiation ain't that bad either, people in Japan and even the Ukraine seem to be doing okay. Imagine if we'd used a few old left over atom splitting fat mans and little boys on Osama Bin Ladden in the Shi kot? If the blast didn't get him the radiation would have, and the bad guys wouldn't be able to go back and set up camps later.
Acceptable loss? Look we have a crowded planet and a population according to the school of Rome who will not practice moral restraint. Human waves, poor manuever warfare, or blinding light on an enemy nation wouldn't be bad in some instances.
Sucks to say, but China using human waves along with N. Korea are doing themselves a favor and our troops get to really push the limits of those crew served weapons. Everyone wins in the end. We depopulate the world, conquer a nation, set up factories, get people working and eating Big Mac's and the world is good.

[Mr Grimsdale]

Radiation ain't that bad either, people in Japan and even the Ukraine seem to be doing okay. Imagine if we'd used a few old left over atom splitting fat mans and little boys on Osama Bin Ladden in the Shi kot? If the blast didn't get him the radiation would have, and the bad guys wouldn't be able to go back and set up camps later.

Doesn't this paragraph contain a slight contradiction.

[Whitey]

No. Radiation seems to be bad for a few years and then, well lokk at Cheranoyble(sp) people drive through the area they just don't touch anything. Japan, today they rebuilt ontop of the epicenter. Atleast toss them in a few caves, we do underground testing all the time.

[Ploggers]

I have a friend who lives 150 or so miles south-east of Minsk in a place called Homel. He tells terrible stories of misformed babies and huge cancer incidence. Although it's getting better it still a dangerous place to eat and drink.

After Chernobyl went pop, the prevailing winds carried the fall out North. Apart from the immediate area around the site in Northern Ukraine the greatest contamination was in Belarus.

I guess the point I'm getting at is; no matter what the reasons for the release of radiation whether it be accidental or purposeful, it's always going to be the innocent who live with the after effects.

[Ploggers]

Oh and by the way, whilst on the subject of Chernobyl, did you know that the place is still operational? There were 4 reactors in the plant; one of them blew up, the other three are still functioning.

The remnants of the destroyed reactor is encased in concrete thick enough to withstand earthquakes up to 6 on the richter scale. Unfortunately in that part of the world they have earthquakes exceeding that level about once a century. When the next one occurs, stand by for another radioactive cloud.