Casulaties higher than WW2?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Danny_Dravot, Sep 8, 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. Referring to a thread in the RLC formum about the Stan and the recent coverage to 23 Pnr and the Mercian Regt, the sky reporter states that casualties are higher than ww2.

    I've also heard this on the beeb and other reports...what exactly does this mean and how have they generated the stats?

    edited to ad sky quote

     
  2. Even though there are fewer casualties than in WWII they have worked it out as a force percentage for casualties and deaths in TH!! Heard that on SKY news last week
     
  3. We were at war for roughly 2100 days and Great Britain lost roughly 350.000 killed. These statistics are a little higher then Afghanistan
     
  4. The more troops you have on the ground the greater the number of kills etc you can have for your percentage
     
  5. I think our casualty figures at the moment are sustainable. Somehow i can't see the Taliban winning on attrition.
     
  6. But what about falklands?

    At war for 70 or so days, 260 KIA?
     
  7. As British units in WW2 were suffering far higher casualties (3 Div suffered 16,241 casualties from D-Day to VE Day for instance) than any of our units that have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, surely even though we now have fewer men in the field, we're still not suffering anything like the casualty rates suffered back then?
     
  8. Precisely. Why people are going on about casualty rates i've no idea. It's a good job they weren't around in both world wars as they'd have had a heart attack!
     
  9. Probably because it's good spin in politics for the opposition Fally.
     
  10. IMO casualty rates are pretty low considering the intensity of fighting out there. I can put that down to most of the taliban being sh1te shots though. Spray and hope!
     
  11. Lies, damn lies and statistics. The figures they are using for WW2 is every man jack in the forces against casualties and for Afghan it's only the infantry battalions, hence it seems higher.
     
  12. But according to most members on ARRSE, support troops are just as much at risk as the infantry anyway! :)
     
  13. I think its all down to piss poor journalism to be honest,on the TV and in the papers.
    All the media are after now is sensationalism and "eye catching" headlines.Comparing the casualty rates of Afghanistan with the second world war,and probably even with Korea and Malaya is ridiculous and is based on someone somewhere with nothing better to do shoving a load of Stats into a computer and feeding it to some journalist who's been to University and thinks they know the world better than anyone else.

    Certainly,the lack of decent journalism was highlighted to me in the Mail the other day when one article commenting on Camerons plan for voluntary National service looked back on the real period of National Service from 1945 to 1960 and claimed tens and thousands of National servicemen were killed!!!,from 1945 to 1960!,i don't think so!!
     
  14. There was a thread on this a while back, but I can't remember the title. I think the paper concerned was a broadsheet, not a redtop. I could be wrong, going from memory, but the figures were comparing infantry casualties like for like, WW2 and Afghanistan. After Govt denials of similar infantry casualty rates to WW2, expressed in percentage terms, a professional statistician was of the opinion that the rates were comparable. I think she used the term "a fair comparison" or words to that effect.

    As I said, I can't remember the title of the thread, but it, and the links to the reports are here somewhere if someone cares to look. A bit of an eye opener, if it's true.