• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anzac

Lutherf

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
49,542
Reaction score
55,177
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'd like to offer my thoughts and prayers to our Australian brothers and sisters on this solemn day.

 
With their small populations, Australia and New Zealand's casualty ratios were 65% and 58% respectively. Incredibly high for any nation to sustain.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
With their small populations, Australia and New Zealand's casualty ratios were 65% and 58% respectively. Incredibly high for any nation to sustain.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on your casualty ratios? How did you arrive at 65% and 58% respectively?
 
Rexedgar said:
Can you elaborate on your casualty ratios? How did you arrive at 65% and 58% respectively?
Click to expand...

A total of 100,444 New Zealander troops and nurses served during WW1, out of a total population of just over a million. Casualties for them were 16,697 killed and 41,317 wounded, or total of 58,014 casualties, which constituted 57.78% rate of casualties.

Australia mobilized 421,809 with 331,781 serving overseas, with the casualties broken down as these: 53,993 battle-related deaths; 7,727 non-battle related deaths; 137,013 wounded in action; 16,496 gassed; 3,647 prisoners of war and 109 prisoner of war deaths. Its is a total casualty rate of (roughly) 197,000 personnel. So for total casualties versus total mobilized it's 48%, but the ones who actually served in the war overseas, that's 65%.

In short, both Australia and New Zealand raised very large forces relative to their population, and suffered high losses during the war.

By comparison, the US mobilized and sent roughly 2,000,000 personnel to war. A 58% rate would've meant 1,160,000 casualties, and a 65% would've been 1,300,000 casualties.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
A total of 100,444 New Zealander troops and nurses served during WW1, out of a total population of just over a million. Casualties for them were 16,697 killed and 41,317 wounded, or total of 58,014 casualties, which constituted 57.78% rate of casualties.

Australia mobilized 421,809 with 331,781 serving overseas, with the casualties broken down as these: 53,993 battle-related deaths; 7,727 non-battle related deaths; 137,013 wounded in action; 16,496 gassed; 3,647 prisoners of war and 109 prisoner of war deaths. Its is a total casualty rate of (roughly) 197,000 personnel. So for total casualties versus total mobilized it's 48%, but the ones who actually served in the war overseas, that's 65%.

In short, both Australia and New Zealand raised very large forces relative to their population, and suffered high losses during the war.

By comparison, the US mobilized and sent roughly 2,000,000 personnel to war. A 58% rate would've meant 1,160,000 casualties, and a 65% would've been 1,300,000 casualties.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was aware that the military was a high proportion of the population as opposed to other nations in the conflict. I also wasn't sure if you were referencing both WW1 & WW2, or one or the other. Cheers!

Disregard part of the above, I see it's about Remembrance Day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom