Anonymous OP 8w

I dunno, I think they’re making it deliberately difficult/impossible to understand the true death and injury count by like separating and grouping the numbers weirdly

1

Anonymous OP 8w

In military terminology, a casualty can be an injured person or a dead person. It really just means they had to leave the fight because of bodily harm

6

Anonymous #1 8w

Now, that does mean 600+ people at least had injuries sufficient to pull them from the front lines for medical attention. Many of them will be just fine, but that still isn’t a good look

3

Anonymous #1 8w

So is that just standard..? Like if you sprain an ankle and that means you can’t fight for a few days… you’re a casualty????

2

Anonymous OP 8w

To my understanding, yes. That’s the convention

1

Anonymous #1 8w

That’s insane that a sprained ankle means you’re a casualty but youre correct. This was not invented by the US military recently , it has meant people injured for quite a while .

6

Anonymous OP 8w

yes. that’s why casualty counts and death tolls are often both published. this has been the definition of casualty for decades.

6

Anonymous #2 8w

and I presume the reasoning is that when considering strategy, the number of soldiers who are no longer combat ready can be more important in the short term than the number of deceased.

5

Anonymous #2 8w

Apparently, illness accounted for something like twice as many casualties as bullets did during the Civil War

1

Anonymous OP 8w

and? you put a bunch of sweaty tired people who don’t know that germs exist in an overcrowded makeshift camp with little effective water purification or sanitation, and of course disease will run rampant.

1