I know the answer to this question, i just wanna know how many people are gonna say what i think they're gonna say.
2006-12-27 16:48:10 · 6 answers · asked by huerito323 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
We can play the numbers game too. The army DOES have a MUCH bigger footprint in Iraq than the Marines do and that does account for the difference.
The other consideration which is important in your scenario is that, as much as the marines like to brag about their being placed in the center of the fight, the army has taken up the bulk of convoy and patrol duties... and those are the most dangerous tasks.
2006-12-28 03:13:34 · answer #1 · answered by promethius9594 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well the army has a larger force overall. So it is expected that they have move casualties as the math speaks for itself. The army and the marines have both suffered loses in all wars and should be commended for there efforts. If we would untie the hands of the Army & Marines and let them do there actual job this war would be over in a month.
2006-12-28 01:35:39 · answer #2 · answered by Thomas A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
actually....... there was a story on the news about how the marines having a small presence in iraq were taking the largest amount of casualties, Percentage wise the Marines are taking the most casualties, but number wise the army is taking the most casualty's.................
2006-12-28 01:17:11 · answer #3 · answered by ciskogonza 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the Army has a bigger presence than the Marines, so in terms of probability it is reasonable that more people from the Army will become causalities.
2006-12-28 00:50:54 · answer #4 · answered by 3rd parties for REAL CHANGE 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It lies in the numbers of troops on the ground. The army has more people on the ground than the marines do. Statistical Probablility.
2006-12-28 00:50:33 · answer #5 · answered by Seattle SeaBee 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
statistically the Marines lose less mens from their branch than the army
2006-12-28 00:54:18 · answer #6 · answered by 0300 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋