#modern war

by viv-hollande

I have made two posts about the death rate in Gaza, and how I believe it is strong circumstantial evidence against the case for genocidal intent on the part of the Israeli government. This is a continuation of that in spirit.

I don't think people realize just how brutal urban warfare is and always has been.

In my first post, I calculated three death rates based on numbers provided by The Economist (unfortunately paywalled, go here at the end of 2023–present section). With a low of 77k, high of 109k, and middle of 93k, divided by the days between 8 October and the article, 578, gave us 133, 161, and 189 deaths per day.

I also want you to keep in mind that all figures for Gaza include both military and civilian deaths. The civilian death rate in Gaza is lower than any figure provided here.

As I later noted, however, the death toll in Gaza was not constant, as seen below.

This graph doesn't provide exact numbers, so we're just going to exclude the 24,000 casualties of the first 100 days.

( 77,000 – 24,000 ) / 478 = ~111 deaths per day (vs 133). ( 93,000 – 24,000 ) / 478 = ~144 deaths per day (vs 161). ( 77,000 – 24,000 ) / 478 = ~178 deaths per day (vs 189).

Even those death rates are obviously much higher than some seen on the graph. September 2024 looks to have a little less than 1000 deaths over 30 days, or ~33 deaths per day. Now, these are confirmed casualties, and thus lower than total estimates like from The Economist. But the wider point still stands.

Now, comparison time.

History's Biggest Urban Battles

First, the Siege of Leningrad. I'm choosing Leningrad as something of a counterexample because, unlike all of the other examples here, it was the mass starvation of a population by blockade, not an example of urban warfare.

Going by Wikipedia figures (because I have multiple actual essays to write), we have 1,042,000 Soviet civilian deaths and between 1,300,000 and 2,000,000 total deaths, military and civilian, on both sides. The Siege lasted 871 days, so:

1,042,000 / 871 = ~1196 civilian deaths per day. 1,300,000 / 871 = ~1493 total deaths per day (low estimate). 2,000,000 / 871 = ~2296 total deaths per day (high estimate).

Next, history's most infamous urban battle Stalingrad. Stalingrad saw between 1,100,000 and 3,000,000 total deaths over 200 days. The estimate for Soviet military killed or missing (termed irrevocable losses) is 674,990. The estimate for Soviet civilians killed is 235,232.

235,232 / 200 = ~1176 Soviet civilian deaths per day. 674,990 / 200 = ~3375 Soviet military "irrevocable losses" per day. 1176 + 3375 = 4551 total Soviet deaths per day.

And just for additional context:

1,100,000 / 200 = ~5500 total deaths per day. 3,000,000 / 200 = ~15,000. total. deaths. per. day.

Finally, the Battle of Berlin. Let's get this over with quickly. 9 days, 100,000 German soldiers killed, 125,000 German civilians killed, 81,116 Soviet soldiers "irrevocable losses".

Buckle up, because even I was surprised by these.

125,000 / 9 = ~13,889 German civilian deaths per day. ( 100,000 + 125,000 ) / 9 = ~25,000 total German deaths per day. ( 225,000 + 81,116 ) / 9 =

~34,013. Total. Deaths. Per. Day.

OK, these are big scary numbers, but obviously the deadliest urban battles and sieges in history will dwarf the numbers coming out of Gaza. So let's make some fairer comparisons.

Let's start with Iraq.

The Battle of Baghdad lasted 6 days and saw 34 coalition deaths and between 1700 and 2320 Iraqi military casualties.

1734 / 6 = ~289 total military deaths per day (low estimate). 2354 / 6 = ~392 total military deaths per day (high estimate).

Now let's look at civilian casualties from the early phase of the war. The Iraq Body Count dossier lists 6616 civilian deaths in from 20 March to 9 April 2003, or 21 days.

6616 / 21 = ~315 civilian deaths per day.

Finally, let's look at the 1994-95 Battle of Grozny in the First Chechen War. Wikipedia again lists > 25,000 civilians killed from 22 December 1994 to 6 March 1995, or 74 days.

25,000 / 74 = ~338+ civilian deaths per day.

Let's do some more graphing. Beware, this one is kind of messy, so I've arranged Gaza on the left, others on the right.

Every. Estimate.

for Gaza is surpassed by a number of other comparable urban battles in recent times. And, I remind you again, all figures from Gaza include military deaths. The civilian death rate in Gaza is even lower than depicted here.

Obviously, you can find urban battles with much lower death rates than Gaza e.g. Sarajevo. The point here is not "Gaza is less deadly than every other urban battle." It's "Gaza is not unique, and it is not unprecedented."

Urban warfare just f*cking sucks.

It always has, and it always will. Cover is abundant, civilians are everywhere, armor is difficult to maneuver and easy to outflank, snipers are f*cking everywhere, you're vulnerable to surprise attacks, suicide bombings, IEDs, MANPATS (not manpads, sorry), everything.

No one does urban warfare well. No one does urban warfare cleanly. No one does urban warfare without killing unconscionable numbers of civilians.

What was (and maybe still is?) happening in Gaza was tragic. It was bloody. It was traumatizing. It was murderous.

... and it was all of those things because it was an urban war, not because it was a genocide.

EDIT: in the interest of total fairness, I calculated the death rate for October 2023 based on the graph, estimating 8500 deaths from 8 to 31 October, or 24 days.

8500 / 24 = ~354 deaths per day.

A/N: this is based on them being off duty~~

Warnings: Slight NSFW in Prices, mentions of reader panicking.

Ghosty~

Normally: This man is up at 5am every morning, even off duty. Doesn't matter what time he slept the night before, 1am, 3am, 4am, he's still up. That being said, he won't wake you until later. Wake me up at 5am and I will fight. Unless you asked for him to wake you, he won't. But, if you did, he'd be gentle. Shaking you very lightly, and when your eyes open and focus on him, he's got a soft smile specially for you. He’s so whipped for you.

To be sweet: Simon can be very sweet~ especially once you've broken down his many, hard walls. At first, he would be unsure how to show you he loves you, so he makes you breakfast. I believe he would be a decent cook, and he would try his very best to make your favorite dishes. He would set the tray of food down on the nightstand, with tea of course, and gently start to kiss you awake. He will tickle if you refuse to wake up.

In a emergency: He's already thrown you over his shoulder and out the door before you even woken up- Doesn't matter what the emergency is, you are always his first priority.

To be a pain: Please tell me why I believe this man would just... *flip* the mattress over. Like, he'd place something on the floor so you don't get hurt, but test his patience and well.. you'll end up on the floor. He would make sure you're ok though, he's not that mean.

Not really. Aircraft carriers are still very useful for projecting air assets, and have the advantage of being able to move. Terrestrial airfields tend to get saturated with munitions as soon as a large war kicks off to deny the use of enemy air assets. Even right now, the current discussions isn't so much that "aircraft carriers are obsolete" but "is there a more cost-effective method" given asymmetric methods of conducting warfare. It's created more of a burden on CIWS systems to ensure that carriers aren't lost to missiles, but still, airpower is essential for strike capability and flexibility that the carrier is here to stay, amphibious assault ships like LHA/LHD's just don't have the capacity of modern carriers.

Thanks for the question, Cle-Guy.