Afghan Winter Offensive, Scores of British Casualties

#1
Winter offensive against the Taliban in Helmand leads to scores of British casualties

A major winter offensive against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan has led to scores of casualties among British troops.

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 10:02PM GMT 27 Dec 2008

A British soldier on patrol in Kabul on Christmas Day. Photo: AP
In eight weeks of fighting, 16 soldiers and marines have been killed and around 60 have been wounded in action fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda gunmen in central Helmand.
The vast majority of the casualties are being caused by the increased use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
The casualty surge is a result of Operation "Sond Chara", pashto for "Ginger Dagger", a multinational operation involving around 1000 British, Estonian and Danish troops, which is attempting to encircle a large Taliban force.
The last serviceman to die was 20-year-old Lance Corporal Benjamin Whatley of 42 Commando, who was killed by enemy fire on Christmas Eve, during a battle with insurgents. His death brings the number of troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001 to 136.
The increasing number of wounded in recent weeks has placed medical facilities in both the UK and Helmand under considerable strain, with one senior medical officer describing the injuries to troops as "bad as you can imagine".
Earlier in December, five Royal Marines lost limbs and four were killed in a series of IED and suicide attacks and since October more than 200 injured and sick troops have been airlifted out of Afghanistan.
More on the link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nd-leads-to-scores-of-British-casualties.html
 
#2
Where are the Helo's. Where are the bloody helicopters our people need?
 
#4
PTP - are you saying that our troops should travel more by SH to avoid IEDs on the ground or that the CASEVAC is inadequate because there is not enough SH and more troops are dying - serious question
 
#5
Most of our casualties are due to IEDS , therefore we need to place them out of reach of IEDS.

This subject has been comprehensively done on Arrse, with input from people who have been there and done that and know of what they speak.

We need more Helo's , we need them as soon as we can get them.
 
#7
PartTimePongo said:
Most of our casualties are due to IEDS , therefore we need to place them out of reach of IEDS.

This subject has been comprehensively done on Arrse, with input from people who have been there and done that and know of what they speak.

We need more Helo's , we need them as soon as we can get them.
it's good that the current procurement plan shows a dramatic reduction in the number of helos available over the next 10 years.

the helo situation is the classic example of the labour partys contempt for HM armed forces.
 
#8
PTP. Thank you for your prompt response. I must agree with you now it is clearer in my befuddled mind. I would also say that I too have been there, done it and perhaps have a little experience !
 
#9
Helicopters will indeed lift troops above and out of the reach of ieds. However at some point the helicopters will have to land and the lads will have to get out and start patrolling - at that point the ieds become a danger again.

Unless the suggestion is that we simply fly from one safe area to another and we never take the fight to the enemy then we will always suffer ied attacks.
 
#10
Shut up Sven. If I want someone to state the bleeding obvious, I'll ask my wife.
 
#11
PartTimePongo said:
Most of our casualties are due to IEDS , therefore we need to place them out of reach of IEDS.

This subject has been comprehensively done on Arrse, with input from people who have been there and done that and know of what they speak.

We need more Helo's , we need them as soon as we can get them.
It was done many years ago in NI in a certain part of the country vechicle moves where not aloud , every thing was done on foot or heli , think its time to try and start puting them tactics into effect in afghan as much as we possibly can in the urban enviroments and main transit routes
 
#12
Sven said:
Helicopters will indeed lift troops above and out of the reach of ieds. However at some point the helicopters will have to land and the lads will have to get out and start patrolling - at that point the ieds become a danger again.

Unless the suggestion is that we simply fly from one safe area to another and we never take the fight to the enemy then we will always suffer ied attacks.
We didn't have that problem in NI (S Armagh to be specific) when things could be be v directed. Your problems need not be problematic IF proper patrol records are kept up and controlled by competent (and I am sure there there are many) operators.

I am sure the selection of landing sites can be arranged to be safe. I know - I did it with a lot less real estate than (once upon a time) was available to me...
 
#13
in_the_cheapseats said:
Sven said:
Helicopters will indeed lift troops above and out of the reach of ieds. However at some point the helicopters will have to land and the lads will have to get out and start patrolling - at that point the ieds become a danger again.

Unless the suggestion is that we simply fly from one safe area to another and we never take the fight to the enemy then we will always suffer ied attacks.
We didn't have that problem in NI (S Armagh to be specific) when things could be be v directed. Your problems need not be problematic IF proper patrol records are kept up and controlled by competent (and I am sure there there are many) operators.

I am sure the selection of landing sites can be arranged to be safe. I know - I did it with a lot less real estate than (once upon a time) was available to me...
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my last post. I wasn't inferring that the a/c would be in danger. My point was that as soon as the soldiers were back on terra firma there would be a return to danger from ieds. Therefore an increase in helicopters would not neccesarily mean a reduction of casualties.
 
#14
Sven said:
in_the_cheapseats said:
Sven said:
Helicopters will indeed lift troops above and out of the reach of ieds. However at some point the helicopters will have to land and the lads will have to get out and start patrolling - at that point the ieds become a danger again.

Unless the suggestion is that we simply fly from one safe area to another and we never take the fight to the enemy then we will always suffer ied attacks.
We didn't have that problem in NI (S Armagh to be specific) when things could be be v directed. Your problems need not be problematic IF proper patrol records are kept up and controlled by competent (and I am sure there there are many) operators.

I am sure the selection of landing sites can be arranged to be safe. I know - I did it with a lot less real estate than (once upon a time) was available to me...
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my last post. I wasn't inferring that the a/c would be in danger. My point was that as soon as the soldiers were back on terra firma there would be a return to danger from ieds. Therefore an increase in helicopters would not neccesarily mean a reduction of casualties.
Of course there would.

A decrease in vehicle movement will present a decrease in IED explosions. If infact, people like you would like to get on the ground and test this theory it might give the average squaddie more confidence in people like you. (that are actually in work)
 
#15
heidtheba said:
Sven said:
in_the_cheapseats said:
Sven said:
Helicopters will indeed lift troops above and out of the reach of ieds. However at some point the helicopters will have to land and the lads will have to get out and start patrolling - at that point the ieds become a danger again.

Unless the suggestion is that we simply fly from one safe area to another and we never take the fight to the enemy then we will always suffer ied attacks.
We didn't have that problem in NI (S Armagh to be specific) when things could be be v directed. Your problems need not be problematic IF proper patrol records are kept up and controlled by competent (and I am sure there there are many) operators.

I am sure the selection of landing sites can be arranged to be safe. I know - I did it with a lot less real estate than (once upon a time) was available to me...
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my last post. I wasn't inferring that the a/c would be in danger. My point was that as soon as the soldiers were back on terra firma there would be a return to danger from ieds. Therefore an increase in helicopters would not neccesarily mean a reduction of casualties.
Of course there would.

A decrease in vehicle movement will present a decrease in IED explosions. If infact, people like you would like to get on the ground and test this theory it might give the average squaddie more confidence in people like you. (that are actually in work)
Do you mean I haven't?

You make it seem that harms way is a new thing. Nothing against the boys and girls who are doing it now and with a great deal more danger, but we had our moments in the eighties.
 
#16
Sven said:
in_the_cheapseats said:
Sven said:
Helicopters will indeed lift troops above and out of the reach of ieds. However at some point the helicopters will have to land and the lads will have to get out and start patrolling - at that point the ieds become a danger again.

Unless the suggestion is that we simply fly from one safe area to another and we never take the fight to the enemy then we will always suffer ied attacks.
We didn't have that problem in NI (S Armagh to be specific) when things could be be v directed. Your problems need not be problematic IF proper patrol records are kept up and controlled by competent (and I am sure there there are many) operators.

I am sure the selection of landing sites can be arranged to be safe. I know - I did it with a lot less real estate than (once upon a time) was available to me...
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my last post. I wasn't inferring that the a/c would be in danger. My point was that as soon as the soldiers were back on terra firma there would be a return to danger from ieds. Therefore an increase in helicopters would not neccesarily mean a reduction of casualties.
Sven *obviously* it is impractical or impossible to eliminate the IED completely. But at least with helos, you reduce the threat of en-route IED threats.

Is this a wah?
 
#19
Sven said:
heidtheba said:
Sven said:
in_the_cheapseats said:
Sven said:
Helicopters will indeed lift troops above and out of the reach of ieds. However at some point the helicopters will have to land and the lads will have to get out and start patrolling - at that point the ieds become a danger again.

Unless the suggestion is that we simply fly from one safe area to another and we never take the fight to the enemy then we will always suffer ied attacks.
We didn't have that problem in NI (S Armagh to be specific) when things could be be v directed. Your problems need not be problematic IF proper patrol records are kept up and controlled by competent (and I am sure there there are many) operators.

I am sure the selection of landing sites can be arranged to be safe. I know - I did it with a lot less real estate than (once upon a time) was available to me...
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my last post. I wasn't inferring that the a/c would be in danger. My point was that as soon as the soldiers were back on terra firma there would be a return to danger from ieds. Therefore an increase in helicopters would not neccesarily mean a reduction of casualties.
Of course there would.

A decrease in vehicle movement will present a decrease in IED explosions. If infact, people like you would like to get on the ground and test this theory it might give the average squaddie more confidence in people like you. (that are actually in work)
Do you mean I haven't?
Did I say that? Maybe I did.

If you got off your political high horse and thought about the reality of troops on the ground you might get a better response around here.

Have you been on the ground? PM me if if you dont feel comfortable speaking about it here.
 
#20
Sven is over-wrought. I don't think it's a WAH. Nor do I recall Sven ever talking about being on the ground.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads