Miscellaneous desk
< April 23	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 24[edit]

Military campaigns[edit]

What is the highest loss exchange ratio ever achieved (or known to be achieved, at any rate) during a particular military campaign (including all combatants dead, wounded and/or captured, but excluding civilian losses)? How about during a particular war, or in a particular theater of war? (Note that I am not asking about the highest loss-exchange ratio during a particular engagement, or even battle -- it is possible for a single battle to result in an infinite loss-exchange ratio, and in fact I know at least one real-world example of that.) Also, I don't remember if I had asked this previously, but I had heard from a former US military officer that in the Great War on Terrorism, during the years 2017-2019 (so, during President Trump's term), our loss-exchange ratio against the terrorists (across all theaters of war) had reached as high as 60 to 1 -- does anyone know whether or not this is true? 2601:646:9882:46E0:C8A3:B9D9:B22B:97D8 (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Liechtenstein § Nineteenth century: The army of Liechtenstein returned from the Austro–Prussian War with one soldier more than it entered the conflict with. -- 47.155.41.201 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So that would be a negative ratio? Thincat (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

??? -- I was asking about countries which actually took part in the fighting (Liechtenstein didn't), so technically this wouldn't count -- and having looked up the Austro-Prussian war, I have actually calculated the loss-exchange ratio in that war as 3.3 to 1 in favor of Prussia (which is a decently high ratio, but not remarkable). 73.162.86.152 (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at the Battle of Omdurman, which is sometimes described as "a massacre rather than a battle". [1] The subsequent Battle of Umm Diwaykarat resulted in about a thousand Sudanese casualties for the loss of three British soldiers. No overall casualty figures are quoted in our Anglo-Egyptian conquest of Sudan article, but they must have been staggeringly one-sided. Alansplodge (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, 70 to 1 for Omdurman and as high as 154 to 1 for the other battle! So, even if it's true that we are getting a 60 to 1 ratio in the Great War on Terrorism, there is still a possibility for improvement! (Although the terrorists are smarter than the Sudanese in terms of tactics -- they use small units to blend in with civvies and launch surprise attacks using guerrilla tactics, and that makes it harder for us to fight them, so 154 to 1 would probably not be possible!) 2601:646:9882:46E0:E8A6:3F37:55CD:521C (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, not so fast -- I've just added up all the significant battles of the Anglo-Egyptian conquest of Sudan together, and (counting the 900 Egyptians who died from disease during the campaign) got a ratio of "only" 19.5 to 1 in favor of the Anglo-Egyptian forces (which is still incredibly high, but nowhere near the 70 to 1 ratio for the battle of Omdurman or even the 60 to 1 (unofficially claimed) ratio for the US campaign against Isis under President Trump, let alone the 154 to 1 ratio for Umm Diwaykarat). So, maybe it's not so easy to sustain such high ratios long-term! 73.162.86.152 (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Zanzibar War? Warofdreams talk 00:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that one might be it, with a loss-exchange ratio of up to 500 to 1 -- but because we'll never know how many of Zanzibar's casualties were combatants, we'll never know for sure (plus, because it was only 1 battle, it doesn't represent what's possible during a campaign, as noted above for Umm Diwaykarat and for the Son Tay raid). 73.162.86.152 (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]