Casualty ratios

[chuck]

During the weekend, US troops repelled an Afghan insurgency attempt to overrun a forward base. The US suffered 24 casaulties, the Afghans suffered 100 casualties. This casualty ratio, 4:1, is substantially worse for the US than what was seen in Somalia, Iraq, and Vietnam. This suggest the Afghan insurgency has improved its training and adapted its technique to a higher degree than what had been achieved by previous insurgencies encountered by the US forces, or the Iraqi insurgency it fights now.

Perhaps the surge should have gone to Afghanistan instead.

[Walt]

During the weekend, US troops repelled an Afghan insurgency attempt to overrun a forward base. The US suffered 24 casaulties, the Afghans suffered 100 casualties. This casualty ratio, 4:1, is substantially worse for the US than what was seen in Somalia, Iraq, and Vietnam. This suggest the Afghan insurgency has improved its training and adapted its technique to a higher degree than what had been achieved by previous insurgencies encountered by the US forces, or the Iraqi insurgency it fights now.

Perhaps the surge should have gone to Afghanistan instead.

You are refering to one action where surprise and "soft" targets were involved. This action in no way reflects on the overall combat loss ratios in the campaign in Afganistan. If you looked at the overall campaign I am certain the ratios are closer to 1000 to 1 since 2000.
I'll wager actions like these will become more commonplace now that our counter intellegence has it's hands tied, unlike the early days of that campaign in 2000 and 2001 when the campaign was basicly being run by SPECOPs and CIA people who handled the Taliban rather easily with little involvement in their operations by idiot politicians.
Unfortunitly for our troops there now, the idiot Pollys run that war and the Gomers know that and we are starting to see the results of that.

[chuck]

I am certain the ratios are closer to 1000 to 1 since 2000.

We've suffered 2792 casualties in Afghanistan since 2000. Does that means we've already inflicted 2.7 million casualties upon the Afghans?

[NukeMM]

2,792 killed or killed and wounded?

[Werner]

Considering the level of care off-battlefield for Taliban and Qaeda operatives, I doubt there is much difference between the "casualty" and "killed" count. Their war almost certainly resembles a 17th or 18th century combat operation.

[chuck]

2,792 killed or killed and wounded?

2792 killed and wounded. about 350 killed in Afghanistan.

[Gerarddm]

One must always take casualty figures, especially killed, with a grain of salt. IIRC if a solider is wounded and later dies under medical care from his/her wounds out country, say in Germany, the death is not listed as a theatre death.

The 1000 to 1 ratio just feels wrong, way too high. I could believe 100 to one, especially if you counted civilian casualities of conflict as well, not just combatants.

[Walt]

Of course the thousand to one ratio is an exageration. But knowing what we do know about the very high Taliban casualty rates especially in 2000 and 2001 when they were being waxed like ants we can assume that the ratios are very high. The figures the DOD has is for those KIA and injured that we know about.
The Taliban is not reporting how many were KIA or "Missing" were in the many caves and or forts and strongpoints that were blasted back to bibical times by Allied forces. And in many situations after an airstrike there were not many remains left in any condition for the allies to count.
Even if it's 25 to 1 it's nowhere near the worse combat lose ratio for US troops. They are well trained but they also have a bad habit being all too willing to die for their cause.. Bad for them good for us of course.
The US intelligance's inability to acquire info from captured gomers and local bad guys is hampering their ability to be proactive in their operations against the bad guys. We will see more of this type of news in future days.. The US has several outposts on the Paki Border that are subject to being hit by sizable Gomer forces,, Of course surprise is on their side, afterall it's pretty difficult when the Bad guys dress and behave like the local goat herders..
The increase in activity by the Taliban is actually good news. They are starting to feel the pressure of the Allied presence on the Afgan/Paki border.

[Ultimo Tiger]

I was always told that body count is a bad way to determine whether you are winning or not. Dunno if you agree or not. I'd say it depends on the scenario and such. Here, 100 Taliban on average for 1 US/UK soldier doesn't seem too bad although it would be nice if we could have a better ratio considering all the Taliban are are well armed mountain bandits who have a fanatical belief in blowing themselves up to kill us.

[MartinL]

saddly the uk has reasontly passed the 100 killed in action in afganistan now 110 with a futher 900 injured ????

[Ultimo Tiger]

100 killed in 6 years isn't too bad. I'd like it to be much less but for 6 years against these lunatics it isn't as bad as people make out.

[Werner]

The weapons are so different from WW.II that it is difficult to believe the formulas for estimating enemy and civilian deaths are even approximately close to accurate. I am sure the GPS has greatly reduced civilian and collateral damage from bombs and cannon. On the other hand, I imagine with every round on or nearly on target there would be fery few combat survivors.

[chuck]

In most cases, the greatest fraction of civilian casualties resulting from a war did not result from the munitions fired by the armies engaged, GPS or no GPS. Instead, most of the civilian deaths results either directly or indirectly from the policies pursued by the opposing forces in the territories they control. So whether weapons used by the US is particularly sparing of civilian casualties doesn't really matter very much in the grand scheme of how many civilians will eventually die, although we like to emphasize that delightful small part of the depressing big picture because it can be used to make us look good.

In most cases, the bulk of civilian casualties in a conflict results from unrepaired breakdowns in the existing social and administrative order of the occupied society, and the poor occupation control and occupation policies by the occupation forces. For example, In Afghanistan the policy to eradicate poppy cultivation in Afghanistan eventually led the loss of many times more civilian lives through its perpetuating effect on the ongoing Taliban insurgency than the precision of our weapons ever saved. In Iraq the disbanding of Iraqi army and Baathist civil administration had the same effect. But we don't like to hear that because it makes us, particularly those with influence on the occupation policy, look bad.

[Werner]

I think even the huge, deliberate starvation of German civilians in 1945-6 by the Allies does not approximate the number killed accidentally in combat or strategic bombing.

Richard Rhodes makes it clear that Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman were concerned that they might be accused of being mass murderers by a post-war tribunal.

[Ultimo Tiger]

Well as Arthur Harris said:

"They have sown the wind and now they shall reap the whirlwind"

[chuck]

I think even the huge, deliberate starvation of German civilians in 1945-6 by the Allies does not approximate the number killed accidentally in combat or strategic bombing.

Richard Rhodes makes it clear that Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman were concerned that they might be accused of being mass murderers by a post-war tribunal.

I understand Germany lost about 9 million people between 1939-1948, and only 6 million can be accounted for by what happened prior to May 1945. Of the 6 million killed prior to 1945 the vast majority were military casualties, the allied strategic bombing was responsible for only 15% of the German wartime deaths. The implication is occupation policies by the western allies and particularly the Soviet Union killed 3 million Germans, 3 times more than the bombings.

[Werner]

Well as Arthur Harris said:

"They have sown the wind and now they shall reap the whirlwind"

Yes, quite true, but there is a difference between 17th century and 20th Century war. The destruction of Germany was on a Biblical scale. Even the Romans had a more humane idea of warfare. If you don't believe it, look up the etymology of the word decimate.

When your victory is at such a cost to the enemy, you have an obligation as a member of the human race to provide basic needs like food and water.

[chuck]

Well as Arthur Harris said:

"They have sown the wind and now they shall reap the whirlwind"

Yes, quite true, but there is a difference between 17th century and 20th Century war. The destruction of Germany was on a Biblical scale. Even the Romans had a more humane idea of warfare. If you don't believe it, look up the etymology of the word decimate..

Uhem...... The Romans practiced decimation only on their own troops.

Onto their enemies even the Romans didn't always have words for what they sometimes do.

Caesar claims to have killed 1 million Gauls and sold another million into slavery in 10 years. The Romans claimed to have killed more Jews during the 2 Jewish revolts in first and second centuries AD than Hitler did in WWII, and if that was an exaggeration, it only shows that their heart was willing to kill more but their swords grew dull too quickly. Regarding biblical scale destruction, if the Romans didn't visit that upon Judea in 78 and 130 ADs, then it would be a fair bet that we would never even hear of the Bible itself today. When normalized against the population, the level of killing, destruction and dislocation that the Romans meted out to the Jews was on a different scale all together from what Germany suffered. It's probably closer to Pol Pot's killing of Cambodian peasantry than anything else that happened during the 20th century.

And the Romans were in fact somewhat more humane than would be the average for their era.

[JWintjes]

Onto their enemies even the Romans didn't always have words for what they sometimes do.

Not true. There is in fact a host of words for it, like the one Caesar often uses, pacare, which means pacify.

Of course there is also debellare, which essentially means killing everybody able to carry a weapon and selling the rest into slavery, like in Virgil's famous

parcere subjectis et debellare superbos

Roman policy already during the republic was always the same: they fight you until you lose. Depending on what you have done during the war you probably get some kind of treaty. When you then take up arms again against Rome the Romans will come and kill you, all your friends, all those acquainted with your friends, burn your village, the three villages around it and lay waste to the world region you come from. That's debellare. It's essentially sending a message - messing with us is bad for your health...

Caesar claims to have killed 1 million Gauls and sold another million into slavery in 10 years.

While the numbers may slightly off, Caesar certainly has a considerable, well, impact on the ethnographical map of Gaul...

It's probably closer to Pol Pot's killing of Cambodian peasantry than anything else that happened during the 20th century.

Strange analogy, and I doubt it's worth a lot.

Admittedly, something is decidedly off with the Romans and the Jews.

Under standard Roman policy there should be noone left after the 66 Jewish war to take up arms ever again. Yet already under Trajan there are massive disturbances in Alexandria, Cyprus and even in the Western part of the empire, and less than a generation later there is Bar Kochba, and one gets the impression of 66 all over again. For some reason unknown to us the Romans were very lenient towards the Jews.

The comparison with Pol Pot is way off because the Romans never killed someone out of an ideological concept of supremacy in some way or other. The Romans were supreme in any relevant sphere of life, but they readily allowed non-Romans to become part of it.

Jorit

[JWintjes]

The Romans were supreme in any relevant sphere of life

By the way - just the other day I was interviewed by a TV crew about Roman close combat tactics. The journalist heading the team had the idea of having a Roman centurion somehow transported into the 12th century where he would meet a knight; medieval stuff is all the rage these days in this country, and apparently she wanted me to describe how the poor Roman would feel like caveman among the wonders of the high medieval period.

I guess I slightly upturned her concept by repeating time and again that the Romans would have waxed any shabby, stinking mob a medieval 'general' would have called army in the morning before going to the bathroom in the afternoon...



Jorit