Death vs. injury rate in combat (particulary currently)

Factual Questions
1

We are all told of the number of soldiers who died during one particular war or another (though my thinking is spurred by current events). But, what is the corresponding injury rate?

Mostly I’d like to be able to say “Well, if there were x number of deaths, then there must be around x number of life-changing injuries.”

By life-changing I mean loss of limb, loss or serious degradation of one of the senses, etc. Anything that changes the person’s physicality permanently.

I’m not including the psycological injury rate (though it is certainly very real), and we could all split hairs about what “life-changing” means, but I think you get the general gist of it.

I just keep seeing the death number rising, and wonder about all of the living soldiers who have suffered, too. What are we talking here? 1:3, 1:10? Knowing this will help put a bit more perspective on our military’s actions.
Thanks.

Jimmy

2

Currently, 378 US troops have died from hostile fire in Iraq, and 2,704 have been wounded by hostile fire. I’m afraid I have no visibility on how those wounded numbers break down, as in scratch vs. loss of limb.

During World War II, about 292,000 US troops were killed, and 671,000 troops were wounded. Again, I’m afraid I have no numbers on the severity of wounds.

The change in the ratio of wounds to deaths is remarkable, though: 7:1 now vs. 2.3:1 then. Speaks wonders about body armor and battlefield medicine.

3

There was an article on this last year in the Washington Post.

In the past we figured on three wounded for each soldier killed. Nowadays we look about six wounded for each.

The difference? Body armor, much better medical service and improved tactics.