Pilots rely on a skill, and it makes sense the better you are, the better your instincts, the more effective you will be, especially against an inexperienced opponent. The same would apply to a swordsman. But when you're huddled in a trench taking artillery fire, it doesn't matter how good you are: it's the luck of the draw. My thesis is that "battlefield skills" are less useful on the modern batllefield than, say, to a Greek Hoplite or a Roman Legionaire. Being a highly effective warrior is of great value to your unit, and because of that,indirectly of value to you, but it doesn't keep you from taking a round fired a mile away, or being hit by shrapnel from incoming artillery.

The infantry realized this in WWI, if they hadn't already figured out in the Civil War: Against massed rifle fire, or machineguns, or artillery, it doesn't matter how tough or mean or "good" you are. You haven't got a bloody chance.

My whole point is that this information would not be good for morale, soldiers are indoctrinated that if they are good at their jobs it will keep their unit alive, and that is certainly the truth, but casualties (all else being equal), are accumulated randomly. Any stats that revealed this would probably not be too widely publicized. 18 year olds like to think they're immortal and invincible, that they're tough and mean. They don't normally think of dying by accident.