This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Not sure what the debate is. There are lots of independent sources and a large portion are offline debating the casualty rate of the 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry. Here is an online source that discuss the casualty rate of modern American units -- Thats Just Great (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some interesting aditions have been made regarding US unit losses in recent conflicts. Most of them Regiments and Divisions, I was also thinking in adding the Battle of Saipan, banzai charge that left two two Batallions of the 105th Infantry Regiment heavily mauled. This event in military bibliography is widely metioned. I think a good criteria of inclusion sould be more than 50% of unit strength made casualties, or lesser casualties suffered in a few days, take into account that WW2 Divisions and Regiments had nearly 50% of the personel in auxiliary/support duties and the other half is front line infantrymen.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the units most hit by US-fought wars, the 1st Marine Division have more losses than any other Army or Marine unit during the Korean War. The 2nd Infantry Division have more killed in action but total casualties are less that those of the 1st Marines. The same happened in Vietnam war. Source here.Mr.User200 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editors: define your terms! Is there some accepted definition of "unit"? Seems to me fire-teams, squads, platoons, companies, battalions, regiments, divisions, armies are some of the most common "units" - but there are others. I am certain, although I can't point to a specific example, the small-units have been wiped out to the man. For instance, a bomber as a unit not uncommonly has 100% casualty rate...There's gotta be thousands of "units" with 100% casualty rates...and let's not ignore units with casualties in excess of their 'full' complement (10% casualties per month for more than 10 months, for instance. So, you gotta define the denominator also. Not to mention "conflict". Is the Cold War a conflict? Are WW I and WW II two separate "conflicts" or one? (Both have been argued).72.16.96.150 (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
