that distinction between the skin being broken or not is interesting. Given the medical knowledge of the day, I wonder if the demarcation was as much whether gangrene was a risk or not.

It is also very interesting that the two categories are not very different in quantity. My first gut feeling on modern ground combat injuries is that penetrative injuries would be more common. However, I am also thinking of the other effects of air and artillery delivered weapons systems and that blast effects likely cause more damage than shrapnel. So my second thought is that the ratio on penetrative to non-penetrative wounds may be very similar today. As one example, we have now lost 100 soldiers in Afghanistan, and I think the majority due to roadside Improvised Explosive Devices.

David