Killed to Wounded Ratio

[Philippeatbay]

I wonder if the ratio of killed to wounded in these battles reflects what was going on back then.

For anachronistic reasons I would expect something like one killed to four wounded, and I've seen results that looked like one killed to two wounded or even approaching one to one.

I realize that in the early days gunpowder wounds were ultimately more lethal because the medicine of the time was not that good at treating wounds that weren't inflicted by the arme blanche. Getting run through the arm with a sword, lance, or arrow was not as problematic as getting shot by a handgun. The first might conceivably result in a flesh wound, but the second could shatter bone and leave a very dirty wound that would probably kill you from the infection.

Can you get a rough idea of what the breakdown should be from period sources, and do the casualties reflect that ratio ?

[rbodleyscott]

The reported casualties include those who are unlikely to survive their wounds amongst the killed. In this period, that was a very high proportion of the wounded.

[Aryaman]

Yes, I understand casualties in the game as "permanent casualties" that is, those so badly wounded that will either die or be unfit for service and those MIAs that will never return to the colours. At least that was what I recall commenting back in the beta forum.
In battles of the period the ratio kill to wounded in actual battle was something like 1 to 7, whenever we have good reliable sources, but then although a victorious army could have even more killed than the defeated army, the agregated final caualties were very different, because the defeated army usually left behind wounded and prisoners and suffered a great attrition through desertion.

[Rakkasan101]

For me, these pearls of military history are by far the best thing about the forums. I like to imagine people were hanging onto this information for years, just waiting for someone to ask a relevant question.