# Why do we always kill more enemy than they kill of us? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 21, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475 "2004-01-21T16:59:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![R.P.McMurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@R.P.McMurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R.P.McMurphy)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/21 "2004-01-22T13:41:40Z")
Politics! The Vietnam War Memorial has about 55,000 names on it and no President wants to be seen as responsible for the contruction of something similar. Therefore, any engagement is undertaken with the risk of as few casualties as possible. All of the technology and firepower that has been developed is intended to allow the US to create massive destruction without taking casualties. That’s why the US has a military budget seven (yes, 7) times larger than the next largest military budget. To give an idea of the politics of military casulties just take a look at Somalia and Kosovo. In the firefight in Mogadishu the US lost 18 soldiers compared to hundreds of the enemy. This was pretty well documented, not just body count estimates. Yet, Clinton’s political opponents used the incident to attack him politically and contend that he was unfit to be Commander-in-Chief. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin lost his job over it. Lesson learned! In the Engagment in Kosovo there were NO combat casualties. Talk about picking your spots. It’s just no longer politically acceptable to take combat casualties and its going to be an issue in the next election. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/22 "2004-01-22T14:07:55Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > The U.S. military has maintained high casualty ratios even when they had inferior equipment and were outnumbered. For instance, the U.S. Fighter force in the Pacific maintained something like a 20-1 kill ratio against the Japanese, despite the fact that the Zero was considered a better fighter than the U.S. could put in the sky until something like 1942. In fact, I believe Chennault’s Flying Tigers maintained a high kill ratio despite flying markedly worse aircraft… The U.S. absolutely did NOT maintain such a kill ratio in 1942, (the first full year of the war) when the Zero outclassed U.S. fighters. The ridiculous kill ratios began after American planes began to outclass the Zero - especially with the widespread use of the F6F Hellcat and the F4 Corsair. Hellcats were not delivered in quantity until 1943 and immediately changed the balance of the air war. Although the Zero was still a more maneuvreable plane, the Hellcat was pretty close, and was blessed with far more speed and, especially, dive rate. ---
**Author:** ![Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/23 "2004-01-22T21:09:03Z")
> [@AndrewL](#): > > That buys better training and equipment. It also buys vastly better equipment and procedures for gathering intelligence about the enemy. When you go into a situation knowing everything about the enemy, and he doesn’t even know he’s going to get attacked, let alone by what, it puts the advantage securely on your side. That’s not necessarily true, as the Pentagon found out during the Millennium Challenge. Here’s one [article](http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030404-wargame01.htm), although it’s by no means exhaustive. Looked at another way, in 2001 19 Saudis and Egyptians killed nearly 3000 people on US soil. Which leads to the premise that you can’t fight Western troops _on our terms_ and come out ahead, but when it comes to more free-form fighting, the US et al are just as likely to get caught with our pants around our ankles. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/24 "2004-01-23T01:35:56Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Interestingly, in the Civil War the Union forces suffered almost twice as many battle deaths (and five times more total casualties) as the Confederates, despite the fact that they (1) were much better equipped and supplied, (2) were fighting in “another country,” (3) won. Well, it may be true that there were a lot more Union deaths. But there were a lot more Union soldiers involved, so they could ‘afford’ to lose them. I think that if you look at the deaths as a percentage of the total troops available, the Confederates were actually suffering worse losses. I understood that was one of the reasons the Confederates wanted prisoner exchanges, while the Union declined to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/25 "2004-01-23T01:52:49Z")
As a minor, possibly untrue additional note, I’ll just mention that some of my army buddies have claimed that when Canadians go up against Americans in basic infantry wargames, the yanks get clobbered because the Canadians are more imaginative and less predictable. ---
**Author:** ![Brandus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Brandus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brandus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/26 "2004-01-23T16:00:32Z")
There is a lot of interesting material on how the “western” way of war is superior. Some reasons given are that the troops are more prone to self-criticize themselves and eachother, can be more indepedant, and can make decisions quickly without trying to think of the correct protocol for every situation or waiting for an edict from the supreme commander. [link.](http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/700/736.html) > [@](#): > > If you want to be a philosopher or if you want to understand the nature between war and the self, happiness, psychology, I’d read Sun Tzu, if you want to take a city, I would read the west. That’s just one example, there’s a whole bunch of intrigueing material out there. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/27 "2004-01-23T16:50:14Z")
to paraphrase Sun Tzu, battles are won or lost before the first shot is ever fired. As many have said before, the training, logistical support, and technological superiority of the US millitary, makes it pretty much invincible short of all out invasion of another relatively advanced country like say China. Even then our intelligence gathering and recon abilities still would make life hell for them. ---
**Author:** ![vl\_mungo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc8723/32.png) [@vl\_mungo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vl_mungo)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/28 "2004-01-23T22:22:05Z")
_You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it._ Ho Chi Minh ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/29 "2004-01-24T20:24:19Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Paul in Saudi_ > 2. The Americans have added body armor to their troops in the last twenty or so years. They have a really remarkable medical service to boot. A wounded Iraqi, Afghani or Vietnamese usually dies. A wounded American usually survives. I read a magazine article a few months ago (in Time? or maybe Newsweek?) about this in the war in Iraq. The Americans forces have incredibly good medical services over there - including sophisticated diagnostic imaging machines and surgery suites in very close proximity to the front (during the invasion). And US soldiers are all equipped with very good body armor. So basically the upshot is that far fewer American soldiers are dying from their injuries (unless they have massive uncontrolled blood loss). But far more soldiers are being permenantly maimed (one or more amputation). The body armor is very good at protecting the torso, but limbs are less protected. The article also made the interesting point that American losses (deaths) are fairly well publicized (at least the total number of deaths, if not the details of the incidents), and number of injuries is not often released to the public/media. The article was published a while ago, but IIRC, the ratio of amputations to deaths in US soldiers so far in Iraq was something like 5:1. The medical care provided the soldiers also included excellent physiotherapy and rehabilitation services - and top of the line prosthetics. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/30 "2004-01-24T22:56:36Z")
**Rickjay** said: > [@](#): > > The U.S. absolutely did NOT maintain such a kill ratio in 1942, (the first full year of the war) when the Zero outclassed U.S. fighters. The ridiculous kill ratios began after American planes began to outclass the Zero - especially with the widespread use of the F6F Hellcat and the F4 Corsair. I didn’t say they did. I said that over the entire course of the war the U.S. maintained that kill ratio, despite having inferior equipment early on. That said, that number of 20:1 was too high, but not by much. The Hellcat, which made up the bulk of the U.S. Naval airforce in the Pacific, had a kill ratio of around 19:1. The Corsair was about 13:1. Interestingly, some people claim that the AVG group in China (The “Flying Tigers”) maintained a 40:1 kill ratio against the Japanese, flying outdated P-40 Warhawks. This may be due to small sample size, though. Plus, I think the Flying Tigers were generally very good pilots. The Corsair even maintained a positive kill ratio against the MiG-15 in Korea. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2004, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/31 "2004-01-24T23:34:35Z")
It has to be said that the US tends to export war, so that US casualties are almost exclusively military, however wherever the US exports its war to, those casualties may be made up of civilians. It is not politically expedient to admit to ‘collateral damage’ but the fact remains that a good many US inflicted casualties are just that. In Vietnam, most of the problem was trying to distiguish between military and civilian targets, and it could be argued that the killing of civilians actually ended up reinforcing the anti US forces. Many Vietnamese casualties were not during the battle, or even part of any miltiary objective, mines and unexploded ordnance still takes its toll along with chemical agents. What would one define as a war casualty ? Those starved due to lack of supplies ? Those who died due to lack of medication (a claim made many times about sanctions against Iraq - though the truth in this matter is hardly clear) Those killed long after hostilities but due to wartime activities ? Those who die due to destroyed water plants ? Those who die due to disease ? It might be widening the net to include the cold war, but the fact is that since the collapse of many services in the Soviet bloc, life expectancy has fallen in many areas. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/32 "2004-01-25T00:24:58Z")
Through a huge tech advantage we have the ability to attack, kill and break their things while the enemy can’t defend or counter attack. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/33 "2004-01-25T00:40:17Z")
I’ll give a slightly different answer. Since 1944, the United States has rarely fought a major engagement without air and naval _supremacy_–complete dominance of the three-dimensional battlefield. That says a lot right there. An enemy usually cannot confront the United States except at short range and on the ground. When they do, they expose themselves to counterattack from virtually every direction. The United States also places a premium on overwhelming firepower, applied with near surgical precision and carefully managed (for example, in Vietnam it was not uncommon for aircraft to deliver attacks on an enemy position by flying _underneath_ the trajectory of artillery shells which were already on the way to the same place). With air supremacy, nobody can reliably use counterbattery fire to keep American artillery distracted from the battlefield, nor can they use their own artillery in volume against American troops. Even naval gunfire can be incorporated into the American firepower system if an enemy is unwise enough to attack a coastal area. Further compounding the damage is the American tactical doctrine of flanking and enveloping an enemy once he is “fixed.” This leaves the enemy with few options for escape once they have the attention of American forces. In order to minimize their own casualties, American infantry (and Marines) generally try to contain an enemy in strength rather than confront him. Once contained, they’re pasted with high explosive and machine gun fire until they can no longer function as a cohesive unit. And finally, the United States’ battlefield medical system is first rate. A soldier can reasonably expect to survive most injuries thanks to the efficient system of medical evacuation and the large and excellent staff of medical professionals–many of whom are on the battlefield itself. As an extreme example, a twelve-man Special Forces A-Team includes two medics and at least two people cross-trained as medics, meaning that one out of three people on your team is skilled in saving lives. Once exposed, an enemy faces attack from above in the form of artillery and air power, while simultaneously the Americans are cutting off their venues of escape. Once fixed, the enemy is subjected to overwhelming firepower. The wounded are difficult to evacuate, and thus likely to sustain further injury. And American soldiers are, in ideal situations, standing off at extreme range, minimizing their own exposure on the battlefield while focusing enormous violence upon the enemy. That’s why they die so much more often than we. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2004, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475/34 "2004-01-25T02:18:54Z")
The biggest factor, which many others have already mentioned, is that the American military has always placed a premium on technology. Obviously better technology means better weapons (more enemy casualties) and support (fewer friendly casualties). It also means that American troops use weapons _instead of_ soldiers. If a nation cannot afford to maintain military strength by quality, it can susbstitute quantity. This can sometimes work, but fighting battles were your main tactic is to pour as many troops as possible into the field guarantees higher casualty rates. Some regimes have decided that it’s cheaper to draft a few hundred men and give them rifles rather than pay for a couple of artillery pieces that could do the same job. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-always-kill-more-enemy-than-they-kill-of-us/225475.md?page=1)