US Wounded in Iraq Down

That implies the opposition have become better at deploying more lethal ordanance. Or their snipers and shooters have stopped "wounding to prove we can"

How "roughly" the same are deaths T6, and has the method of reporting injuries changed since last year?
PTP, I suspect it represents the focus of the insurgency on the IP and IA rather than on US troops.
US troops lost 844 in 2005 and 845 in 2004. There has been no change in how casualties are reported.
T6 - Why should the switching of focus of the insurgents from Coalition to IP/IA affect the ratio of deaths to wounded for coalition troops? I think PTP is right in saying that this demonstrates increased lethality of insurgent attacks - possibly related to them developing better IED making techniques. I'm pretty sure a British General recently confirmed this 'decrease in number of attacks but increase in lethality' has occurred - but I can't find the link now.

Also - How do the Americans define wounded? I know police forces in the UK have a relatively low definition of wounded due to Health & Safety legislation - with many wounded returning to duty within a few hours or not even being removed from duty. According to this site ( ) the ratio of deaths to wounded for Americans is about 1:8. Would I be correct in assuming the defintion of wounded is quite high? As in loss of limbs, sight, permanent pain or other crippling injuries?

This thread ( ) discusses the 4,000 troops flown home from Iraq for medical treatment. The MOD claims few of these injuries of crippling. Yet assuming British forces suffer the same 1:8 ratio of deaths:wounded then that would mean roughly 800 servicemen/women have suffered crippling injuries. Shocking figure on the real cost of the war. I don't think most people are aware of this - would make a good story for a journalist (hint hint nudge nudge).

I am not denying that enemy attacks have become fewer but more lethal, but accidents still account for a large number of deaths. The drop in wounded/injured soldiers is a good thing. As for the IP and IA doing more of the combat operations, well thats the plan so that we can withdraw from Iraq.
Manchester_Rogue said:
I would think the reason why wounded people have gone down is because the yanks are getting the Iraqi army to do most of the shite jobs.

I'll back you on this one manc, the us forces have handed over large AOR's to the Iraqi forces so less of their men are in harm's way, just a drive to the airport confirms this where previously it was patrolled purely by US forces it's now patrolled by the iraqi army
Add to that the fact that there have been a number of elections etc. where even the terrorists have in effect stood down. Also apart from the decrease in US troops on the ground the AIF are starting to become more methodical in there attacks and therefore as everyone is stating above more lethal. Ambushes are well planned with intelligence gathered before hand. Convoys and PSD's are probed to check their reactions and tactics adapted to counter this. SAF tends to be disorganised and a local effort, anything over and above tends be the start of a sh!t storm.
tricam said:
Fair enough T6 - Incidently, how high is the definition of wounded? As in loss of limbs, sight, permanent pain or other crippling injuries?

Yes all of the above. About half of the injured are able to return to duty and about half receive medical discharge with disablity pay.
I believe the definition of 'wounded' in these releases is 'injured sufficiently to require the attention of a doctor'. i.e. if you nick your hand and the Medic bandages you up and you still get a Purple Heart, the incident doesn't count.