Was there an appreciable life expectancy difference between replacement soldiers in the US army during WWII and those that originally trained with a unit stateside?

by TheHistoryMoviePod

I'm rewatching the series Band of Brothers. Its alluded to from the episode "Replacements" on, but directly voiced by the character of Frank Perconte in the episode "Why we fight" that replacements both got Toccoa men and themselves killed quicker. A quick internet search showed that, for example, in Italy in 1943 only 34% of line infantry had been trained with their original unit in the states (the rest were replacement soldiers from "repple depples" or replacement depots). https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-u-s-world-war-ii-troop-replacement-policy/

The fact that the individual replacement system was abandoned in subsequent wars by the army supports the assertion that it was ineffective, but doesn't answer whether a replacement or "original" member of the unit had a longer life expectancy.

Thanks!

scarlet_sage

More can be written, but you might like to go through "Can it be statistically proved that the 'inexperienced reinforcement' units for example in WW2 or other large long conflicts suffered casualties at a quicker / bigger rate than the veterans?" by /u/the_howling_cow .

This is not to discourage discussion. More questions, data, and debate are welcome.