In my last post I referenced two proposals I prepared for the CCCRP (Combat Casualty Care Research Program) on combat casualties. This was built off Chapter 15 “Casualties” in my book War by Numbers and some combat casualty modeling work I had done at the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab (MCWL). The working level of CCCRP was very supportive of this effort, but their proposal process went through a group of reviewers, and in each case, one reviewer saw no reason to do this work. As I think the reviewers were medical doctors, and the proposals were not directly related to casualty care, it is not surprising that a couple of them would feel that way. It obviously did not fit any of their immediate needs or concerns. So, this effort died in the fall of 2020.

The two proposals were:

1. Combat Analysis Proposal of three tasks:
   1. Ratios for operations: A brief exploration of existing sources to determine what the expected wounded-to-killed ratios are for different types of operations. This would include a projection for 1) modern (post-World War II) conventional combat scenarios, 2) modern counter-insurgencies, 3) modern training and assistance missions, and 4) special operations and other active assistance programs. The goal would be to assemble a set of figures that can then be applied to combat model outputs, planning, and other studies and analysis.
   2. Ratios by Posture: Conduct a detailed analysis of division-level conventional combat to determine the wounded-to-killed ratios dependent on outcome and posture. This will be a comparative analysis based upon the coded outcomes of the engagements in the database and whether the force is conducting an offensive, defensive or other type of mission. The goal is to determine if wounded-to-kill ratios vary in these conditions (which they certainly do) and to determine to what extent they do and what are those values.
   3. Lethality of IEDs: Develop a set of values for the lethality of modern IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices), booby traps, mines, claymores, truck bombs, suicide bombers, and other such devices. The lethality figures will have to be developed from a systematic review of a variety of combat and medical reports. Ideally, this data can be assembled from the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, but research will also examine various operations in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Vietnam and other post-WWII insurgencies. This would also include a review of the Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team (WDMET) data from the Vietnam War and the ongoing Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR).
2. Combat Modeling Proposal of three tasks:
   1. Lethality Rates: A brief exploration of existing sources to determine what the lethality rates are for various weapons. This effort will tap existing open sources and is an extension of the work outlined in Chapter 15, “Casualties” in the book War by Numbers.
   2. How Models Measure Casualties: Conduct a review of around a half-dozen active U.S. Army and DOD conventional combat models and determine how they measure casualties and how they determine wounded versus killed (and missing). This review will probably include meetings with the modelers, in additional to conducting an analysis for the differences between their various approaches.
   3. Medical Deployment Options for Conventional Operations: Conduct a comparative simulation of medical care, evacuation and return-to-duties over an extended conventional warfare exercise. This would be an examination of the optimal medical support structure of the sake of sustaining combat power over an extended conventional deployment.
      1. The three recommended scenarios are 1) Emergency deployment to the Baltic States, 2) intervention in collapsed state of North Korea, and 3) the validation scenario for Iraq in 2006. Other scenarios may be added time permitting, or as a possible future effort.

This was the last time I attempted to market DOD. It took some man-months of effort to assemble and submit these proposals along with all the required supporting documentation. There is a trade-off of whether my time is better spent looking for the next contract or writing my next book. I decided after this experience to focus on writing my next books, which is why I now have two completed books going through editing and am about to contract for two more books. It is difficult for a small company to work for the DOD. The number of hoops and time consumed in marketing efforts are the same whether it is Lockheed Martin or TDI. Anyhow, if CCCRP would not approve such an effort, then I do not know who in DOD would. As it is, I gave up trying to further market it and prioritized my time to other projects.