Canadian and Brits in Afghanistan - a simple question.

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by MSSC, Jul 9, 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. With the sad news the other day of a 6 more Canadians (+ 1 x local interpreter) getting blown up in AFG I am forced to ask a question...

    Why are the Canadians losing so many troops compared to the Brits?

    Ruling out loses from FF, ND's accidents (Nimrod, RTA's etc) Canada has lost 54 to direct en action vs. Britains 24. In IED's alone they've lost 28 vs the UK's 2. So whats up with the Canucks?. I broke down the numbers* a little further and got this:

    28 IED
    12 Suicide bombing
    10 Firefight
    4 RPG

    2 IED
    3 Suicide Bombing
    16 Firefight
    3 RPG

    So it looks like their IED and suicide bombing magnets compared to the Brits. Is there any reason why this is the case, is our patrolling purely but foot and are the Canucks IFV's made of thin flamable IKEA cardboard? Or do the Canucks just have lousy skills and like driving down tracks that locals fear to tread? I've seen Canadian TV and the footage of their boys seems to be very professional and so I can't understand it why they’re losing so many lads.

    I suppose it could of course be the number of troops deployed but I beleve its covered by OpSec.

    Anyone seen first hand what they might be doing wrong? I understand we're all in the similar areas so there shouldn't be too great a difference. Is the role slightly different or just the approach?

    * Numbers consolidated from the www and don't match other published numbers of 66 vs 36 etc that are available but unsubstantiated from open sources.
  2. I'm not sure it's something to be discussed in a public forum
  3. Also, I think you need to change the name of the Thread.

    Givin the subject matter, talk of Canucks vs Brits is in rather poor taste.
  4. The source info came from the public forum, whether it was compared by anyone before I don't know.

    Whats your fears? Britfor skills for avoiding IED's getting posted, or the actual subject itself?
  5. Done, changed "vs" to "and"
  6. The Canadians are in a much more heavily populated part of southern Afghanistan.
    Kandahar really is one of the main built up areas in that country. Its surrounding districts panjwayi and arghandab have large farming populations, irrigation systems and plantations enclosed with high mud walls. All of this means there are more people for the insurgents to move among, more cover, and more opportunities to set IEDs and ambushes. From what I understand, having not been to Helmand, more of that province is desert, with a lower population desnity, even if there are some places that are fiercely contested by the insurgents.
  7. You are discussing one group of allied deaths versus another?

    What? We have fewer deaths than you therefore we're better?

    I really hope that you are not a serving soldier to have posted with such crass insensitivity

    Get a grip and delete it
  8. Fair one.
  9. As I said in the original post. but to expand:

    The numbers came from different sources and are listed differently, (e.g. Brit says hostile or hostile landmine or hostile small arms) so I bodged them together as best I could from the individual sources, the 36+4 UK figure doesn't correspond with the 24 I know. Similarly the Cad 54 doesn't match the 66 listed elsewhere. There's some interpretation involved and I've done the best I can. The IED figure of course is the one that seems to stick out the most as a big diff and given the large losses there (2 occasions they've lost 6 guys listed in an "LAV" and "RG-31").
  10. Are you a journalist?
  11. Could you expand on that just a bit further (I'm obviously a bit thick today)?

    Are you saying that the MoD itself has mis-classified 16 deaths? What source is more reliable than the MOD?
  12. Get a grip of yourself 240, statistics are just numbers. If I'd quoted the number of insufficiently armoured L/R deaths in Iraq in an open letter to the government you wouldn't have an issue...

    The Canucks have lost a shed load of guys to IED and suicide bombings - roughly 40 compared to 5 British and so there is probably a reason for it. Statistics highlight a problem but don't solve it. I was wondering if there is a reason beyond the quoted statistics which explain it.
  13. Have you considered that the Canadian AO is the part of the country which experiences the highest rate of suicide attacks? More attacks, more casualties. At least, that was the case when I was in that theatre last year.

    I struggle to see what you think you'll gain from this thread.
  14. MOD doesn't do the Canadian statistics the same way as the Candian's DND don't do the MOD numbers. So I've read between the lines a bit. There is as I've said 3 times some interpretation and due to the vagueries of the www some things are left out, but it should be about equal.