Alliedassault - View Single Post

Blase · 05-14-2005, 08:45 PM

[quote="Sgt. Duffy":090f0]You ever noticed as the more dangerous the weapons become, the less casualties there are? I mean, christ, look at all the Medieval wars...thousands die within an hour. Then there goes the Civil War...millions die, and the rifles are weak as guck...modern combat, and we got the most souped-up weapons ever, and somehow the casualties are only in the thousands (Not that thats not high, just compared to past history..)[/quote:090f0]

It's not because the guns are bigger and better that for some reason people aren't dying as often,

It's because of advancements in medicine, more specifically antibioitics (Most wounded soldiers would die from infection of their wounds, not the wound itself), and field surgery that was keeping people alive more often then not.

Napoleon was able to keep most of his wounded after a battle alive because of a french surgeon who noticed that all his paitents would get infections and die after he closed the wound, so he would leave the wound open and a lot more troops were living with just a deformed leg or arm.

Then they stopped doing this after Napoleon, and troop mortality rates would keep skyrocketing because no one realized that by closing the wounds they were promoting infection, that was until some surgeon put a plaster cast over a mans wound because of a lack of suture and after a month he noticed that the plaster cast was absorbing all the infection. He started using this on all his incoming wounded and the chance of survivng their wounds went from 25% to around 95%.

So you see, the coincidence of better and better guns has abosolutly nothing to do whatsoever with the increased survival rate.

	(#35)
Blase is Offline Senior Member Posts: 1,583 Join Date: Jun 2004	05-14-2005, 08:45 PM [quote="Sgt. Duffy":090f0]You ever noticed as the more dangerous the weapons become, the less casualties there are? I mean, christ, look at all the Medieval wars...thousands die within an hour. Then there goes the Civil War...millions die, and the rifles are weak as guck...modern combat, and we got the most souped-up weapons ever, and somehow the casualties are only in the thousands (Not that thats not high, just compared to past history..)[/quote:090f0] It's not because the guns are bigger and better that for some reason people aren't dying as often, It's because of advancements in medicine, more specifically antibioitics (Most wounded soldiers would die from infection of their wounds, not the wound itself), and field surgery that was keeping people alive more often then not. Napoleon was able to keep most of his wounded after a battle alive because of a french surgeon who noticed that all his paitents would get infections and die after he closed the wound, so he would leave the wound open and a lot more troops were living with just a deformed leg or arm. Then they stopped doing this after Napoleon, and troop mortality rates would keep skyrocketing because no one realized that by closing the wounds they were promoting infection, that was until some surgeon put a plaster cast over a mans wound because of a lack of suture and after a month he noticed that the plaster cast was absorbing all the infection. He started using this on all his incoming wounded and the chance of survivng their wounds went from 25% to around 95%. So you see, the coincidence of better and better guns has abosolutly nothing to do whatsoever with the increased survival rate.