Про санитарные потери

george_rooke — 12.12.2018 Уже как-то спор был на эту тему.
Даже процитирую тезу одну на одном известном ресурсе: "При Николае I формальный срок службы составлял 25 лет, по факту через 10 лет солдат умирал, списывался в инвалидные команды или дезертировал".
Ну во-первых Керсновский пишет о 4% среднегодовой смертности в николаевское время. Свечин дает и того меньше - 3,5% за период 1838-1858 г.г. Далее - при Николае солдат реально активно служил 15 лет, и 4% смертности, умноженная на 15 лет, дает нам 60% смертности,да и то - подозреваю, что статистика там должна быть сильно нелинейная, это известное упрощение. А 3,5% смертности дают нам вообще 52.5% смертности за 15 лет.
Но я говорю - опять-таки, рассуждать о сферическом коне в вакууме нет смысла. Попалась тут в руки статья довольно интересная - "The Development of Military Sanitary Statistics", и вот из нее выдержка. Про британскую армию времен Крымской. Ее смертность, которая колебалась от 2 до 2.2% во время мира, уже на начальном этапе войны (до высадки в Крыму) возросла до 3.7% (1 из 27), то есть сразу же достигла русской отметки автоматом.
Ну и далее - прекрасное:


The most striking feature of the report was the official promulgation of had prepared months before, showing that time of peace the mortality of the army was the men of the same ages in the civil population. Soldiers were recruited at about nineteen years came mainly from the ranks of agricultural laborers wage earners, were carefully inspected, and the rejected.
So they should have been especially the death rate of non-commissioned officers and mean strength was 33.0, while the death rate same ages in the general population was 9.2 and districts was 7.7. Thus the death rate of soldiers in time of peace was three and one half times that of the male population of like age. This comparison was open to criticism because a large portion of the army was serving in unhealthy tropical districts. To meet the objection, the returns from soldiers abroad were excluded. It then appeared that the death rate of the army at home in time of peace was 17.5 and that of the male population at army ags was 9.2 for England and 12.4 for Manchester, one of the unhealthiest cities in the realm. In other words, the death rate of soldiers in England in time of peace was 90 per cent, above that of the male population of like ages. But to make such comparisons fair, as the Report pointed out, the army death rate should be raised to allow both for those who did not apply or applied and were rejected because of feeble health and also for those who had served in the army, had been discharged in impaired health due to their service and afterwards died but whose deaths did not appear on the army record. The fairest comparison was thought to be that between the death rate of soldiers and the death rate of agricultural laborers of like ages, who were members of friendly societies and so received help in illness like that the soldier received from the government. A comparison with various occupational groups led to the conclusion that army life in England in time of peace was almost the unhealthiest occupation an Englishman could follow. After clearly establishing this fact, the next step was to study the causes of the high mortality.

Читать далее - здесь
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2964805.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ab4d16467accd98ff7d464dd3b312a5ab

Еще раз - нет смысла проецировать более поздние годы на то, что было до Крымской. Британская армия, "клуб для белых мужчин, любителей пострелять", расположенный на Острове, нес в мирное время потери, в два раза бОльшие, чем обычное население Британии. Просто так. Безо всяких войн.
Сравните период 1825-1854 г.г. в России по насыщенности военными действиями.

Оставить комментарий

Популярные посты:

• Ранее
• Архив