I mean that’d definitely make the most sense since some estimates put their KIA around 50k +/- some tens of thousands giving us a wounded:killed ratio of around 4:1, but many sources quoting that figure specifically say it’s KIA and seems like that idea has stuck with some folks.
I think the problem is that people who haven’t been in the military or aren’t military history nerds might not understand what “casualty” means and assume it’s the same as “killed”, when it’s wounded/incapacitated + killed
I interpreted the troop figured as KIA and wounded combined. Just “here’s all the troops that are no longer capable of combat”
I mean that’d definitely make the most sense since some estimates put their KIA around 50k +/- some tens of thousands giving us a wounded:killed ratio of around 4:1, but many sources quoting that figure specifically say it’s KIA and seems like that idea has stuck with some folks.
I think the problem is that people who haven’t been in the military or aren’t military history nerds might not understand what “casualty” means and assume it’s the same as “killed”, when it’s wounded/incapacitated + killed
edit: more on that ~50k KIA figure here https://en.zona.media/article/2023/07/10/stats