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

Military campaigns

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]