Afghan casualty rate at WW2 level

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Jul 16, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. a war agaings terrorism

    0 vote(s)
  2. a war that stimulates terrorism

    0 vote(s)
  3. simply a stupid needless war

    0 vote(s)
  4. just one of many American wars in the ME and central Asia

    0 vote(s)
  5. a noble struggle for democracy and better future of the Afghans

    0 vote(s)

  2. Without denegrating the efforts and casualties we are experiencing, " there are lies, damned lies and statistics". I would suggest this is a bit of cloak trailing in an attempt to assess UK public opinion and, if there is sufficient groundswell, to harness it. Given the general apathy of the civilian population of the UK to anything it's military does, I will not be holding my breath.
  3. Not really, this is extremely serious. You can bet that MoD planners did not factor in this casualty rate into their manpower projections. Before long the rate of injuries being sustained will have a detrimentalt effect on UK Forces to fulfill commitments. Yet another stretch in an overstretched organisation. If CDS will empty his head of spin, he might wake up to the reality and stupidity of agreeing to fight a war on 2 fronts.

    Inge is briefing the legislators about the danger of failure in Afg. Pity the Chiefs of Staff didn't recognise the dangers of this over-commitment of UK Armed Forces earlier.

    Take a broom and sweep them out of their positions, they are discredited with their red rosette wearing attitudes to Govt policy.
  4. With due respect to our fighting soldiers in Afghanistan, these figures are be been massaged to prove a point. You have heard of Statistician and professional liars well this is a prime example's this person quotes the figures from WW2 11 million British and Commonwealth Soldiers in the Army with a death of 580.000 killed and 475.000 wounded giving a casualty rate of 11%. Now this total of 11 million covers every one in the Army from clerks, training staff, warehouse men drivers, engineers, doctors, nurses uncle tom cobbley and all. Yet for Iraq and Afghanistan he seem just to be quoting the number of front line soldiers and ignoring the rest. He also suggesting that a number of wounds are not being report well I doubt if scratch and nick is ever reported. there are many times when you can pick up a minor injury on a battlefield that has nothing to do with the conflict and soldiers just pass them off as one of of those silly things that happen and could happen at any time, stick a plaster on it and keep going.
  5. If you think about it for a second, the fact that he is quoting front line figures only, then 10% of the frontline has been taken injured 15 months into a minimum 36 month campaign, (more like 25 years), in which the then Defence Secretary hoped a shot would not need to be fired.

    Forget the stats, think about the long list of casualties, queuing up in NHS waiting lists with no military hospital to turn to.

    A complete and utter fcuk up.

    Predicted by half the people here on arrse.
  6. Regardless of the statistical comparisons with WW2, a 10% casualty rate for front line troops is quite high surely? What of the assertion that:


    IMHO, Afghanistan is the war we should be focussing on, the true focus of 'The War Against Terror', we should have sorted it out before we even considered invading Iraq.
  7. British Empire and Soviet one tried to sort out Afghanistan. British Empire had crumbled and Soviet one crumbled as well. Now American Empire (NATO) tried to sort Afghanistan out. Rather NATO will be crumbled I bet.
  8. If it's true, it's very serious. The MOD might call it "nonsense". The Romans called it "decimation".
  9. Sergey, I have just finished reading a book about Afg. It touched on the Russian occupation and the generally positive effect it had on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Afghan women who had previously been denied an education and a role in society. When the Russian army went home, Afghan women were sent back to their homes. Modern day Afg is turning its back on a modern role for its women folk. I suspect, the challenge taken on by NATO, if it is to succeed will take 25 years minimum, and will involve re-educating an entire population. Have to say, I understand your doubts entirely.
  10. Agreed, but without commitment to Iraq and with the backing of NATO we should have the quantity of troops and the expertise to stay in Afg for years and improve the lot of the Afghan people.
  11. Losing best part of a rifle company worth of bayonets from a battalion over a six month tour is a big deal. Comparing to WW2 or Korea not too helpful and agree there is some spin at work here. To compare 1 Royal Anglians loses over 3 months to 1 Suffolks casualty rate in the first 3 months in Normandy and its a totally different picture. Compare it to the average rate from D-Day to VE day then you might get closer to parity. But this is all playing with stats.

    But as said, comparisons aside, and as Col (retd) Barry points out in the article the rate of casualties, thankfully more wounded than KIA (RIP to the 3 unlucky lads) definately has the potential to start to affect morale. From what I have read and heard from the guys I know then morale is still pretty good all things considered, all the more credit to the guys. But if we are looking at WW2 history then several months on from D-Day then infantry numbers did start to become a problem. More and more replacements were drawn from non-infantry sources with detramental effects on morale and unit effectiveness.

    History doesnt repeat itself but sometimes it does rhyme.
  12. When I was in Kabul in 2004-2005, I (perhaps naively) felt we had truly "liberated" the place. Women were free to choose whether they wore the veil or not, young men were studying at universities with high hopes of making something of themselves in Western countries, and we were offered bread by families everywhere we went.

    It saddens and sickens me that this freedom we gave them may be turning around and their freedom is something I would gladly fight for... If only the government would give us the support and backing to do it properly.
  13. so have we budgeted for 25 years of maintining a force in conflict operations, investing (AID) in both infastructure and educating too western democratice standards the bulk of a tribal and divided country......Hummmm, while i dispise the Taliban with a vengance if the bulk of the population is happy too live in a basic society, is it realy going to stop the war on terror !

    while morale is still high on ops and they are getting the job done .... MOD budget permiting.

    The casualty figures are something to be worried about, outside of the anger i feel for the fact we are there? It is important to be detached and impassionate when you address the problems of recruiting and retention!
  14. All we talk about is when we're going to be able to pull out. Afghans know this, and they also know that when that day comes the Taleban will return and will retake control. They're never going to take a long term view unless we do, and do so openly. This includes our own opposition parties and anti-war movements, Afghans understand democracy and aren't going to put all their eggs in our basket if they think that an election in the west could see them back in the hands of the Taleban.

    As has been pointed out, if we want to sort out Afghanistan it will take a generation, maybe two, to do so. Unless we take this long term view we're just p!ssing into the wind. I don't see us taking this long term view, and I'm not sure if or why we should.
  15. We should take the long term view, if only because we've royally fcuked up their country and destroyed their infrastructure. However, we should do it properly, with the amount of force and backing required of such an operation.