1. How's the non-hostile fatality percentage of GFOs on aircraft compare to non-hostile fatality percentage in general?

  2. Still, the non-hostile fatality percentage of GFOs on aircraft still look too inordinate. Why? Was aircraft upkeep unsatisfactory? I'm assuming that the US military would have provided the best aircraft, pilot, maintenance crew, etc for flying its GFOs?

Some examples are MG George Casey Sr, Maj Gen Wiliam Crumm, MajGen Bruno Hochmuth, RADM Rembrandt C. Robinson. Let me know if there are more.

  • 3
    It'd probably something to do with the fact that, in travelling from A to B, a GFO is more likely to travel by plane or helicopter (because they use the quickest mode of transport available) than other ranks. The more time you spend in the air the greater the chance of having an accident of some form. Also, three of the four examples are helicopter crashes at a time when helicopters were still a relatively new form of transport. – KillingTime Feb 7 at 21:10
  • 3
    Percentages relative to what? General officers have little reasons to face direct enemy fire in modern warfare, especially in a war like Vietnam so it stands to reason they would die in accidents more than anything else. – Relaxed Feb 7 at 22:06
  • War in Vietnam was mostly guerilla war, and enemy there (Vietkong and NVA) were not even close to strength of US armed forces. Most of the action there was small level action (battalion sized) and there were few GFO officers in direct danger of enemy fire. In comparison, forces in WW2 were more evenly matched, and US generals and admirals often came under enemy fire. Subsequently, some of them were killed. – rs.29 Feb 9 at 17:53

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.