what percentage of u.s soldiers were killed by soviet made weapons?
814012
i'd say nealry 100 per cent, from ak 47's to r.p.g's, even the I.E.D 's are made from soviet made tank shells and anti tank mines.
829651
The local Library is filled with books on the subject. Many magazines as well. There were a wide varity of weapons used. But for some thing quick try these: http://www.nps.gov/gett \nhttp://www.civilwarhome.com/ & http://www.civilwarweapons.net
1003253
The foundation of your question is false.  The American soldiers are not killing anyone to achieve any degree of pleasure.  America targets those who are terrorists.  In so doing it is possible that civilians will be injured or killed.  Unlike other countries, if an American soldier does something outside of policy, they will be arrested and if convicted, they will be punished.\n\nThat having an armed people (vis a vis the United States) is bad totally is a misunderstanding.  In the areas with the highest per capita legal gun ownership, crime is very low.  Deaths by gun in the United States are primarily by criminals or accident.  Accidental death by gun drops relative to an increase of gun safety instruction.  Studies have demonstrated that annually  there are about 2,000,000 incidents where an armed citizen have saved lives.
722287
Pretty twisted. "Better dead than red" was a common saying. We got 50,000 boys killed in Vietnam for no logical reason at all.
57738
Currently, the Russian military has been considerably diminished from where it stood 15 years ago at the height of the cold war. Most of the strategic weapons (submarines, bombers, etc) have been mothballed due to cost cuts. By comparison, the US military is perhaps the world's most well equipped. \n\nYou mention nuclear weapons. Both nations have limited strategic nuclear weapons due to the various treaties designed to limit the proliferation of such weapons. The old Russian weapons systems are in many cases not in the best shape to be used, since many of their strategic weapons depended on complex and hard to maintain liquid fueled missiles. US missiles are all solid fueled, and much more stable and reliable.\n\nThat being said, if anyone ever attempted to invade Russia, history would not be on their side. The Russians may have old technology and equipment, but they have a toughness bred of long oppression and much suffering. They have been to the edge of hell as a nation many times, and lived to talk about it. We in the US get all bothered when gas goes up a nickel, or when our cellphones malfunction.
196837
That would be the the United States, the Russians equipment is junk and out-dated. Alot of it sat in port to long and rusted away, and they have salvaged most of it out. Our Navy could wipe out a whole country with-out ever setting foot on their land. We have submarines with missiles, and aircraft carriers. You don't have any idea of the firepower, one aircraft carrier would be all that would be needed. I served in the U.S. Navy for 15 years and am currently retired. spc 8, machinist, sp ops, I have 3 purple hearts, and a silver Navy cross from 1982. What is happening with our military right now, is unnecessary with the ground troops, it is ridiculous, and they are expendable to our government. It's all politics on both sides. Good luck to you.
141546
More American soldiers who fought in Afghanistan were killed in motorcycle accidents since returning home than were killed in fighting in Afghanistan. Not sure of the amount, somewhere near 300
291116
US dead: 58,226\nUS wounded: 153,303
238800
No.  The M-14 replaced it in Viet Nam. and the M-16 is what most troops are using now, although some are using the M-4 carbine-which I haven't heard any complaints about that.\n\nThe arguement can be made that the AK-47 is vastly superior because it rarely jams
633732
This is a link to a nice summary at LSU:\nhttp://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm\n\nOf course our population was smaller then, but the Revolution and War of 1812 had comparatively minor losses in actual numbers.  Despite the TV and movie drama, an estimated 2.2% were killed in action (KIA).\n\nThe Civil War had an atrocious 184 thousand dead, with just shy of 5% KIA on both sides.  The South's population was smaller, and their losses were greater.\n\nWWI had 53 thousand Americans KIA at a rate of just over 1%, more died from influenza and other diseases than from bullets and bombs.\n\nWWII had over 292 thousand Americans dead, just under 2% of troops KIA.  So while it was indeed devastating and horrible, the proportional body count was not always the way TV and movies depict, although there were indeed places where units were more than decimated.\n\nKorean war dead was at 33 thousand and Vietnam with some 47 thousand combat deaths, though the total body bag count was above 50 thousand.  For all the bad press, only about one-half of one percent of our troops died in Vietnam and the KIA percentage was only one-tenth a percent higher in Korea.\n\nAs for our Iraq War experience, remember in the current fight, by far the most of our troops were killed trying to keep the peace after the Iraqi army had surrendered or disbanded.  (After our Civil War, some of the Southerners did the same, it was not safe for a Union soldier to be alone in the south for several years)\n\nIn the Gulf War, however, the American deaths were only about 148, the KIA figure is essentially zero, the share was so small.  Meanwhile, Iraq suffer almost a quarter-million losses in their military.
768939
American soldiars are freedom fighters too. Isnt that why we're in Iraq? There are children being killed there by American bullets and rockets.
313443
There is 26 to 30 thousand people murdered in the US every year.I don`t know how many troops died last year in Iraq,but I`m sure It pails in comparison to the war on the streets of America.If I had to guess I would say less than 3% of the total.It seems terribly sad that we talk about these past souls as though they are change on the counter top.The world Is In a tragic state.Good Luck to you!
1132478
No, you got it mixed up. Stalin killed about as many if not more people than Hilter, Not Kruschev.
398746
About 27,000. About 13,000 of these are ready to use, the rest are in long-term storage.  Of the 27,000 total warheads, 26000 are in the US and Russia.
747709
Russia, they have 960,600 active duty and 20 million in reserve, they could roll on us with no problem if they werent afraid of nuclear retaliation. I'm a patriot and love the USA, but we seriously need to strengthen our forces in case they  decide to invade us one day. We may have better technology, but that doesnt make us invincible. If you would like to compare Russian and Chinese military forces, here are a couple links that show accurate information on their military forces.
695475
that has to be the soviet made katushya rocket launcher( means "little katie" in russian) or nicknamed "stalins organ" cos of the screaching noise it made when it launched the rockets.it was so deadly it could wipe out a whole german infantry unit if fired in barrages.it was so feared by the german troops that if they caught any soviet army officer who was in charge of the launcher they executed him on the spot.the best sight was when stalin amassed thousands of katushyas around berlin and gave the go ahead to storm berlin.it was the best every scene i have ever seen,just amazeing, the sky lit up ,and the noise was so intense even the rats ran away.music to my ears.;-)
772971
I can not speak for the Chechen war, but in Afghanistan approximately 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed.\n\nWhat is more interesting is the non-letal casulity numbers:\n\n469,000 wounded\n416,000  infected with some sickness such as hepatitus and typhoid.\n\nThese numbers come from the Frunze Soviet Military Academy.