Which Weapon Caused the Biggest Casualties in the War?

all i know is the Pentagon study of small arms during the 20th century, stating small arms accounted for only 5% of total casualties. so what was the chief cause for the remaining 95%? was is heavy bombers (include civilians since they constitute collateral damage)? exclude gas chambers (purposeful murder of civilians.) nukes probably dont even make the top-4.

numbers? ideas?

 

How are you defining weapon? Looks to me like your are talking broad classes and in some cases delivery systems rather than the weapons themselves.

 

Were they Civilian and military deaths or just military. It important to know because 5% small arms casualties seems awefully low for straight military casualties. IMO.

 

Carpet bombing should be in there, Famin the cold anything could be there, Do you have a link or similar to the report as it's far too broard!

 

To my knowledge, artillery and mortar fire accounted for more casualties than small arms during WW2. I would not be surprised if this is still the case today.

 

That has been my understanding as well, as for today perhaps mines/IED's are primary weapon for casualties?

 

Simply, hunger! Look at the soldiers numbers which died by starvation in the POW Camps and at the frontlines in the case of the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad and other places

 

You are likely correct, but I suspect that the Pentagon report cited in the OP is limited to "Battlefield" combat casualties.

 

here're my best qualifications:

1. a weapon or even a fully-integrated weapons system (say a carrier task force). exclude famine, disease, exposure, etc. these aren't weapons definitely, though military activity undoubtedly caused them. biological "weapons" must be included though.

2. in terms of casualty, i would prefer only warring parties (ok, soldiers!) but civilian casualties must be considered in things like bombing and artillery bombardment.

3. purposeful murder of civilians (all acts of atrocity) must be excluded.

regarding that 5%, it was part of the research made by the army/DOD while it was developing the m-4 carbine. a statistical analysis of all the wars from 1900 up to desert storm was made and the study yielded two curious facts:

1.0 small arms accounted for only 5% of war casualties.
2.0 95% of small arms engagements occurred at a distance less than 200 meters.

ergo, out with the 10-pound battle rifle costing more than $3,000 and capable of killing the enemy at 600 meters. in with a carbine weighing only 4 1/2 pound bare, capable of killing to 300 meters, and costing only 1,500 bare.

 

Artillery followed by mortars.


A thread that adds some information:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forum...al-casualties-in-different-military-conflicts

 

Are we talking about infantry weapons? bombs? murder trucks/ gas trucks? mines? there is so many things, you need to be a little more specific.

 

I totally agree it's too broard a subject

 

HI; It may not be a weapon in that it attacks either side equally, but one of the most lethal weapons of World War II and every conflict for the last 5000 years for that matter is insects especially the mosquito ( the bug not the plane ) ... For every casualty caused by enemy action i believe an equal number if not more got sick with such diseases as malaria and continue to do so .With all of our technology and the power to destroy we are still defeated time and time again by the humble mosquito .. It's kind of an H .G Wells- War of the worlds thing

 

Machine Guns if you decide to send troops over open ground like the Japanese and Russians did in Banzai and human wave attacks, but I also agree with the other guys, all weapons can have the ability to kill troops in scores in the right enviroment.

 

All armies of WW2 at one point or another sent their soldiers over open ground into enemy held positions.... GB, Germany and the U.S. are of no exceptions. Sometimes you simply have no choice and others out of desperation.

All had one thing in common, large casualties with artillery/mortar fire being the main culprate

 

I think a quick study of the Battle of Long Tan should illuminate...

 

Perhaps I can provide some clarification.
1.) The study is on military combat casualties, this excludes civilians, and non-combat casualties (disease, accidents,etc.)
2.) I've quoted the study in several threads, the 70-75% casualties are from fragmentation producing weapons, this includes bombs, artillery, hand grenades, mortars, etc. and was gathered from casualty data. The doctors or graves registration personnel didn't concern themselves with what weapon actually caused the fragmentation. Just like a gunshot wound is a gunshot wound, they don't generally know if it came from an infantryman's rifle, a sniper or a machinegun. It could be/was further refined by after action reports, if the battle included artillery and mortars but no aircraft then you know bombs weren't a factor. It is impossible to tell from the data that the 2mm fragment that penetrated a soldiers brain housing group was from an artillery round or a mortar round. When the term casualties is used it includes killed and wounded, not just deaths.