I think your question is making a number of assumptions, and I question the validity of much of what you are saying. But let's try to give you some data points that will help you. I think they will mainly show you the problems with the calculation you are trying to make, but I present them anyway.

In World War 1 Germany had a population of about 65 million, which by your calculations gives it a "military service" population of about 9.75m. Total German casualties were around 2m military, 2.5m total, giving you a death rate of around 20% of the "military. They suffered about 4.2m wounded, (can't find out how many wounded were able to continue fighting)so the total "out of action" number may have been 40% to 60%. You could argue that Germany suffered a "collapse in strategic cohesion", but it was probably more about their inability to support the army logistically. Germany was certainly using front line troops outside the age range you are talking about.

By contrast Britain has a 45m population (military service of 6.75m) and suffered 0.89m military deaths and 1.6m military wounded, giving 13% death rate and between 25% and 37% "out of action". Britain suffered hugely but in no way suffered a "collapse in strategic cohesion".

My other data point would be the USSR in WW2. Population 189m (military service 28m), military deaths around 10m and military wounded around 15m. This gives a death rate of 35% and an 'out of action" rate of 60-90%!!!! USSR definitely did not restrict its combat troops to the ages and genders you are talking about. Note that their casualty rate is higher than the German WW1 figure.

For completeness let's do the same calculation for Germany in WW2 - 69m population, 5m military deaths, 7.3m military wounded. This gives us a 48% death rate and between 84% and 120% out of action. German also recruited soldiers from outside the age ranges you mention.

So to sum up the USSR won World War II with a 60-90% casualty rate in its "military manpower" population, as defined by your calculations. This is obviously not a sensible conclusion and I hope it will cause you to rethink your approach.

I think your question is making a number of assumptions, and I question the validity of much of what you are saying. But let's try to give you some data points that will help you. I think they will mainly show you the problems with the calculation you are trying to make, but I present them anyway.

In World War 1 Germany had a population of about 65 million, which by your calculations gives it a "military service" population of about 9.75m. Total German casualties were around 2m military, 2.5m total, giving you a death rate of around 20% of the "military. They suffered about 4.2m wounded, (can't find out how many wounded were able to continue fighting)so the total "out of action" number may have been 40% to 60%. You could argue that Germany suffered a "collapse in strategic cohesion", but it was probably more about their inability to support the army logistically. Germany was certainly using front line troops outside the age range you are talking about.

By contrast Britain has a 45m population (military service of 6.75m) and suffered 0.89m military deaths and 1.6m military wounded, giving 13% death rate and between 25% and 37% "out of action". Britain suffered hugely but in no way suffered a "collapse in strategic cohesion".

My other data point would be the USSR in WW2. Population 189m (military service 28m), military deaths around 10m and military wounded around 15m. This gives a death rate of 35% and an 'out of action" rate of 60-90%!!!! USSR definitely did not restrict its combat troops to the ages and genders you are talking about. Note that their casualty rate is higher than the German WW1 figure.

For completeness let's do the same calculation for Germany in WW2 - 69m population, 5m military deaths, 7.3m military wounded. This gives us a 48% death rate and between 84% and 120% out of action. German also recruited soldiers from outside the age ranges you mention.

So to sum up the USSR won World War II with a 60-90% casualty rate in its "military manpower" population, as defined by your calculations. This is obviously not a sensible conclusion and I hope it will cause you to rethink your approach.

References: WW1 WW2

I think your question is making a number of assumptions, and I question the validity of much of what you are saying. But let's try to give you some data points that will help you. I think they will mainly show you the problems with the calculation you are trying to make, but I present them anyway.

In World War 1 Germany had a population of about 65 million, which by your calculations gives it a "military service" population of about 9.75m. Total German casualties were around 2m military, 2.5m total, giving you a death rate of around 20% of the "military. They suffered about 4.2m wounded, (can't find out how many wounded were able to continue fighting)so the total "out of action" number may have been 40% to 60%. You could argue that Germany suffered a "collapse in strategic cohesion", but it was probably more about their inability to support the army logistically. Germany was certainly using front line troops outside the age range you are talking about.

By contrast Britain has a 45m population (military service of 6.75m) and suffered 0.89m military deaths and 1.6m military wounded, giving 13% death rate and between 25% and 37% "out of action". Britain suffered hugely but in no way suffered a "collapse in strategic cohesion".

My other data point would be the USSR in WW2. Population 189m (military service 28m), military deaths around 10m and military wounded around 15m. This gives a death rate of 35% and an 'out of action" rate of 60-90%!!!! USSR definitely did not restrict its combat troops to the ages and genders you are talking about.

So to sum up the USSR won World War II with a 60-90% casualty rate in its "military manpower" population, as defined by your calculations. This is obviously not a sensible conclusion and I hope it will cause you to rethink your approach.

I think your question is making a number of assumptions, and I question the validity of much of what you are saying. But let's try to give you some data points that will help you. I think they will mainly show you the problems with the calculation you are trying to make, but I present them anyway.

In World War 1 Germany had a population of about 65 million, which by your calculations gives it a "military service" population of about 9.75m. Total German casualties were around 2m military, 2.5m total, giving you a death rate of around 20% of the "military. They suffered about 4.2m wounded, (can't find out how many wounded were able to continue fighting)so the total "out of action" number may have been 40% to 60%. You could argue that Germany suffered a "collapse in strategic cohesion", but it was probably more about their inability to support the army logistically. Germany was certainly using front line troops outside the age range you are talking about.

By contrast Britain has a 45m population (military service of 6.75m) and suffered 0.89m military deaths and 1.6m military wounded, giving 13% death rate and between 25% and 37% "out of action". Britain suffered hugely but in no way suffered a "collapse in strategic cohesion".

My other data point would be the USSR in WW2. Population 189m (military service 28m), military deaths around 10m and military wounded around 15m. This gives a death rate of 35% and an 'out of action" rate of 60-90%!!!! USSR definitely did not restrict its combat troops to the ages and genders you are talking about. Note that their casualty rate is higher than the German WW1 figure.

For completeness let's do the same calculation for Germany in WW2 - 69m population, 5m military deaths, 7.3m military wounded. This gives us a 48% death rate and between 84% and 120% out of action. German also recruited soldiers from outside the age ranges you mention.

So to sum up the USSR won World War II with a 60-90% casualty rate in its "military manpower" population, as defined by your calculations. This is obviously not a sensible conclusion and I hope it will cause you to rethink your approach.