View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's February 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-War's February 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-War home page.
1. David C. Homsher <firstname.lastname@example.org> 2. Chris Schultz <email@example.com> 3. Robert <firstname.lastname@example.org> 4. Wayne Thornton <email@example.com> -----Message from: David C. Homsher <firstname.lastname@example.org>----- Dear H-Warriors, Comparatively speaking, WWI was a stagnant war up until 1918 when open warfare began. Until 1918 millions of soldiers were confined to relatively small areas for months and years at a time during which the front lines moved very little. During their time on the front the soldiers were almost constantly subjected to artillery bombardment. In WWI artillery was king. WW2 was largely a war of movement and one in which artillery played a relatively smaller role. One can readily see here where there would have been many, many more disfigured faces during the First World War than in the Second World War. Most Respectfully, David C. Homsher Battleground Productions 85 Tilton Avenue, # 4 San Mateo, CA 94401 David C. Homsher <email@example.com> -----Message from: Chris Schultz <firstname.lastname@example.org>----- Carl Barna writes: "Why were there fewer facial casualties in WWII than in WWI? In WWII, explosives were much more powerful and the numbers of men involved surely much greater." There were more "men," yes, but they were mostly civilians. The Second World War does have that dubious distinction as being quite the inverse of the First World War, in that far more civilians died than soldiers--in fact casualties on the Allied side were significantly lower right across the board from First to Second World War (might not be true of the Americans, though). I have a feeling that types of injuries are only counted among combatants, whereas total casualties typically include those dead and injured civilians. That might result in some skewed data, when the actual percentages of facial injured might be just as high or even higher in the Second World War. There are factors beyond explosives, of course. Aviators in the First World War were highly prone to facial injuries because of the volatility of airplane fuel and the location of the gas tank (resulting in flames blowing right into their faces and nowhere else). I'm not sure how often aviators in the Second World War would've suffered facial injuries like that and lived. Chris Schultz MA, Carleton University Chris Schultz <email@example.com> -----Message from: Robert <firstname.lastname@example.org>----- In WWI the men were usually standing in trenches - the head was the most exposed part of the body. Just as in the Civil War, most wounds were on the left side of the body as the firing position the men were taught turned the left side of the body towards the enemy and the right side towards the rear of your own line. Robert A. Mosher The Military Philosopher.com Robert <email@example.com> -----Message from: Wayne Thornton <firstname.lastname@example.org>----- ...Because much of the war (especially on the Western front) was fought in trenches. Trenches protected the lower body, but not the head. Also, sniper fire and ordnance exploding over trenches had a greater tendency to cause head/facial wounds. (See the third paragraph in http://www.culture24.org.uk/history+%2526+heritage/war+%2526+conflict/art519 25 ) Also, "battlefield medicine" (a forerunner of today's "emergency medicine") was perfected in the First World War. So, compared to earlier wars where trenches were often prevalent (U.S. Civil War, Russo-Japanese War), men had a higher chance of surviving a serious head wound. Wayne A. Thornton Harvard University Wayne Thornton <email@example.com> ----- For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/ To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war -----