Shock toll of British injured in Afghan war

#1
The human cost of the war in Afghanistan to British soldiers can be revealed today as figures show that almost half of frontline troops have required significant medical treatment during this summer's fighting.

In a graphic illustration of the intensity of the conflict in Helmand province, more than 700 battlefield soldiers have needed treatment since April - nearly half of the 1,500 on the front line. The figures, obtained from senior military sources, have never been released by the government, which has faced criticism that it has covered up the true extent of injuries sustained during the conflict.

The new figures relate to the number of soldiers patched up and sent back to the front line and who do not appear in official casualty reports.

Military sources said the willingness of soldiers to carry on fighting while suffering was indicative of the bravery being routinely displayed.

'The courage of the soldiers has been remarkable. Many are getting patched up and just want to get on with it. Most do not want to leave their comrades,' said the source in Helmand.

In terms of soldiering, the conflict has offered some of the most intense fighting for 50 years, with two million rounds of ammunition so far fired by British forces.

'You could be in the army for decades and you will never get anything like that again. Will it be bettered? I can't see it,' said one soldier. Commanders are understood to be concerned that the Helmand conflict could precipitate an exodus of combat troops who feel military life will never offer the same challenge again.
in full

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2151911,00.html

The Guardian/Observer is gunning for the MoD on this and are prepared to go to court to get the info they believe is being witheld.
 
#4
Methinks the meja is taking liberties with the English language again. 'Significant medical treatment' and 'patched up' to return to duty suggests a touch of terminological inconsistency.
 
#5
Maybe if the MOD was to implement the same requirements as industry for reporting casualties at work, hospital treatment or 3 days off work, we would get a better figure. Remember you get a Purple Heart for a cut caused by enemy action in the US so reporting of casualties is more rigorous.
 
#6
I've been wondering how long it would take them to wheel these statisitcs out. Dead squaddies just don't sell the papers they used to.
 
#7
'The courage of the soldiers has been remarkable. Many are getting patched up and just want to get on with it. Most do not want to leave their comrades,' said the source in Helmand.
Their is a few on here, who went back after getting wounded, i do hope they get the true figures out.
 
#9
RRFHASBEEN said:
there's another great article in the same paper today, another in the series about life with 1 Royal Anglian in Afghanistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2151842,00.html
Well! that does'nt look to good for the Guys does it? And Dannett has the ordasity to say the Forces are "Streached" but Winning the Tactical War. That should boost the Troops Moral....The're getting Shot Up every day, seeing more action in a month, than the average Soldier of of 20yrs ago saw in their entire Service.

Good Luck to the Servicemen out there, lets hope that Government start to look after you at last..because up to now you have been treated disgracefully
 
#10
Always been the same. Lies and bullsh1t flying in the face of the truth can only be sustained for a limited period of time. The recent pathetic and inept attempts of the MoD to silence those who know the truth is a clear sign of panic.

The only positive solution is to do something, not just keep talking about it and trying to spin the position. As ever, face up to it, review the position, adapt as required and put the funding & resources in. And STOP STUPID LIES.

Unless of course the only plan is to (i) pull the plug soon or (ii) play for time in the fervent hope it does not become a pre Election disaster.

Edited for just having read article linked above. Quite clear that if you now do not read on ARRSE it will be coming on via the press. They smell, quite rightly, the clear potential for a debacle thanks to stupid and cowardly Politicians
 
#11
Chaps. Whilst I don't advocate a British medal equivalent to the Purple Heart, might there be a place for a wound stripe? It's not without precedent and would gave a harder mechanism through which injuries can be recorded.

Any thoughts?
 
#12
I'm a dirty Guardian-reader and me and my like often get hammered on ARRSE as being somehow anti-forces. I'm not, but wonder how fellow ARRSErs feel that it is the Guardian that seems to be leading on these stories?

Are they still a bunch of pinkos?
 
#13
Invictus_88 said:
Chaps. Whilst I don't advocate a British medal equivalent to the Purple Heart, might there be a place for a wound stripe? It's not without precedent and would gave a harder mechanism through which injuries can be recorded.

Any thoughts?
Excellent idea. It signifies that someone has put themselves into harms way and received a wound inflicted by direct enemy action. We had them in WW1 (not so sure about WW2) so why not now? It would be cheap to implement and Joe Public would love it. The only downside for Team Defence (or whatever they are called) is that it would provide a visual counterpoint to their spin regarding the amount of personnel being wounded.




Berlin
 
#14
Berlin_104s said:
The only downside for Team Defence (or whatever they are called) is that it would provide a visual counterpoint to their spin regarding the amount of personnel being wounded.
Thinking rationally, that should be no inpediment at all to its implementation.

However taking into account some of the things I hear from served and serving friends, and here on arrse, not much would surprise me.
 
#15
From the Observer article.

One British army official said the 700 cases include a 'handful' of officers who suffered injuries and chose to carry on fighting. The injuries include shrapnel wounds, cuts, burns, acute heat stroke and diseases such as 'DnV' - diarrhoea and vomiting that can incapacitate a man for days. Of the 700 cases, 400 combat troops were described as being so ill they were forced to 'lay down their bayonets'.
My bold

So, of the teeth arm soldiers 400 have been bedded down or put on light duties. Perhaps one of our resident medics can give us the low down on how many men from 1500 (and in a single tour) could reasonably be expected to go down with heat stroke or D&V in such extreme conditions.

People should also concentrate on what hasn't been written as well as what has. Do You think that Townshend wouldn't have asked how many of the 700 casualties were from battlefield wounds - doesn't the fact that He didn't write that the spokeswoman refused to give an answer to the question suggest anything to You. I advert You to what the spokeswoman DID say

. . . . cases treated by frontline medics often related to minor ailments and complaints that were not considered life-threatening or serious.The spokeswoman went on to say that, in serious cases, troops were not given the option to carry on fighting.

This is just more journalism muddying the waters for their own ends - albeit better than the normal dross.
 
#16
Schleswig-Holstein said:
I'm a dirty Guardian-reader and me and my like often get hammered on ARRSE as being somehow anti-forces. I'm not, but wonder how fellow ARRSErs feel that it is the Guardian that seems to be leading on these stories?

Are they still a bunch of pinkos?
Self obsessed tw@t. This thread is about our wounded, not about you. Now fcuk off.
 
#17
Grrr, Team Defence? How very David Brent, and utterly appropriate, in the circumstances. In my experience, only organisations that aren't teams, feel the need to call themselves so. What next 'Team Grenadier', 'Team Air Assault'?? What a bunch of clowns.
 
#18
Schleswig-Holstein said:
I'm a dirty Guardian-reader and me and my like often get hammered on ARRSE as being somehow anti-forces. I'm not, but wonder how fellow ARRSErs feel that it is the Guardian that seems to be leading on these stories?

Are they still a bunch of pinkos?
Both the Guardian and the Independent are pro-forces, but critical of how they've been deployed by the politicians. Which is broadly similar what I read here, and is a perfectly respectable position. It’s papers such as The Telegraph, The Mail and The Sun which supported wholeheartedly the politicians deployment decisions which can now be shown to be anti-forces. Those papers encouraged the politicians to make the mistakes for which the forces are now paying the price.
 
#19
RFUK said:
Schleswig-Holstein said:
I'm a dirty Guardian-reader and me and my like often get hammered on ARRSE as being somehow anti-forces. I'm not, but wonder how fellow ARRSErs feel that it is the Guardian that seems to be leading on these stories?

Are they still a bunch of pinkos?
Self obsessed tw@t. This thread is about our wounded, not about you. Now fcuk off.
Mate, - I think you have got me wrong. My point was that those papers that say they support the forces (including the wounded) don't actually seem to...
e.g. the Scum, which loves nothing more than reporting 'scandalous' behaviour by those serving.
 
#20
Schleswig-Holstein said:
RFUK said:
Schleswig-Holstein said:
I'm a dirty Guardian-reader and me and my like often get hammered on ARRSE as being somehow anti-forces. I'm not, but wonder how fellow ARRSErs feel that it is the Guardian that seems to be leading on these stories?

Are they still a bunch of pinkos?
Self obsessed tw@t. This thread is about our wounded, not about you. Now fcuk off.
Mate, - I think you have got me wrong. My point was that those papers that say they support the forces (including the wounded) don't actually seem to...
e.g. the Scum, which loves nothing more than reporting 'scandalous' behaviour by those serving.
Apologies if my earlier comment was a little strong then. It seemed to me that you were turning the tread into an "I told you so".
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top