Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: steinly@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Defeat of Armies
Summary: 30% casualties imply defeat. True?
Keywords: Study on defeated armies
Message-ID: <1991Feb26.011946.5763@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 26 Feb 91 01:19:46 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 18
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: steinly@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
I hope this is an appropriate question for this group,
but recently (within the last two years) I read of a study
which claimed that it was a fairly universal rule of thumb
that _Armies_ were defeated when they had taken 30% casulaties
(+/- 5% or so), that it was rare for armies to collapse earlier
and very rare for them to last longer. 
Does anyone have a reference to this study, and could people
state their opinion of the validity of the research?


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I can take the killing, I can take the slaughter| 
|  Physics, Caltech		|But I don't talk to Sun reporters	 |
|  steinly@groucho.tapir.Caltech.EDU	|Billy Bragg 1984 -with apologies|


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com