Topic: Casualty Rates

bulldogg · September 21st, 2005

Why is it that the US has suffered almost 2000 KIA, the UK less than 100 and the Aussie military 0? Is it targetting by the insurgents according to where the troops are from, ie they hate Americans more, then the UK and Aussie blokes are alright?? Is it from the geographical placement of the units within Iraq and their duties? Or is it owing to the numbers of troops present so that he with the most is suffering the most?

Redleg · September 21st, 2005

I think it can be a combination of #1 and #3, but I think that the main reason is that the US has (by far) the most troops in the country..

US Forces: around 130,000 to 140,000(?)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...iraq_orbat.htm

UK: Around 8,500
Australia: Around 600
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._coalition.htm

Whispering Death · September 21st, 2005

I think it's more #2 and #4. I don't think there is a question that post major-combat America has given the Brits and Ausies the lighter duties because of the much stronger anti-war sentiment in those countries. Better to use them in lighter areas then have them leave due to political preassure after being placed in Mosul.

mmarsh · September 21st, 2005

#2 and #4

Obviously the country with the highest number of troops will take the most causilties and also because US Forces are stationed in most of the hotspots while our UK allies are in the southern Basra area where things are quieter.

#1 to a degree as well. There is no doubt that the fact that US troops are in Iraq has brought increased tensions in and of itself. Would they be resisting as fiercely if they were other foreign troops or even UN peacekeepers. Who knows?

LeEnfield · September 21st, 2005

One..... if you have far more troops in a combat area then you are likely to suffer far more casualties.
Two.... you must remember that Britain and Oz have been fighting this sort of conflict none stop since the end of WW2, and our approach is totally different. We fought this sort of thing in Palestine, Malaya, Radfan, Cyprus, Aden, and even Northern Ireland and countless other places, this sort of thing is standard training for the British Infantry.

ozmilman · September 21st, 2005

I think you'll find that the anti-war sentiment is a lot stronger in America than it is in Australia. I think the poll is a combination of 2,3,and 4. I don't know about that "lighter duties" thing either. We wouldn't send our SAS over there and have them on "light duties" - i'm betting there's a lot of stuff going on that nobody knows about.

Rich.

Wallabies · September 21st, 2005

Quote:

this sort of thing is standard training for the British Infantry.

The US is the only super power in the world, why the hell havn't they been training in fighting smaller armies? Once again they annihilated the enemy in the open field but everything moved to the

house once the insurgency started.

Mod Edit: Watch the language please.

Missileer · September 21st, 2005

I'd say 3 and 4.

Spartacus · September 21st, 2005

I think it probably has the most to do with total number of troops present.

tomtom22 · September 21st, 2005

In my humble opinion , I think it's a combination of 3 & 4. I also agree with the comments made by LeEnfield.

View Poll Results :Why is there disparity in the casualties of coalition forces?
Focused hatred.	3	15.00%
Geographic placement of troops.	3	15.00%
Total amount of troops present.	10	50.00%
Country assigned duties.	2	10.00%
Superior training of Aussie forces.	1	5.00%
Other (please specify)	1	5.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

September 21st, 2005	Post 1
bulldogg Milforum's Bouncer Gear	Post; Casualty Rates Why is it that the US has suffered almost 2000 KIA, the UK less than 100 and the Aussie military 0? Is it targetting by the insurgents according to where the troops are from, ie they hate Americans more, then the UK and Aussie blokes are alright?? Is it from the geographical placement of the units within Iraq and their duties? Or is it owing to the numbers of troops present so that he with the most is suffering the most? __________________ "The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck

September 21st, 2005	Post 5
LeEnfield Tribuni Angusticlavii Gear	One..... if you have far more troops in a combat area then you are likely to suffer far more casualties. Two.... you must remember that Britain and Oz have been fighting this sort of conflict none stop since the end of WW2, and our approach is totally different. We fought this sort of thing in Palestine, Malaya, Radfan, Cyprus, Aden, and even Northern Ireland and countless other places, this sort of thing is standard training for the British Infantry. __________________ LeEnfield Rides again

September 21st, 2005	Post 6
ozmilman Optio	I think you'll find that the anti-war sentiment is a lot stronger in America than it is in Australia. I think the poll is a combination of 2,3,and 4. I don't know about that "lighter duties" thing either. We wouldn't send our SAS over there and have them on "light duties" - i'm betting there's a lot of stuff going on that nobody knows about. Rich. __________________ \"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.\" - Nietsche \"Just punch \'em, they\'ll understand.\" - Rich

September 21st, 2005	Post 8
Missileer Nuclear Duck Hunter Gear	I'd say 3 and 4. __________________ “War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.” —John Stuart Mill

September 21st, 2005	Post 2
Redleg The fire is everything... Gear	I think it can be a combination of #1 and #3, but I think that the main reason is that the US has (by far) the most troops in the country.. US Forces: around 130,000 to 140,000(?) http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...iraq_orbat.htm UK: Around 8,500 Australia: Around 600 http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._coalition.htm

September 21st, 2005	Post 3
Whispering Death Tribuni Angusticlavii Gear	I think it's more #2 and #4. I don't think there is a question that post major-combat America has given the Brits and Ausies the lighter duties because of the much stronger anti-war sentiment in those countries. Better to use them in lighter areas then have them leave due to political preassure after being placed in Mosul.

September 21st, 2005	Post 4
mmarsh Tribunus Laticlavius Gear	#2 and #4 Obviously the country with the highest number of troops will take the most causilties and also because US Forces are stationed in most of the hotspots while our UK allies are in the southern Basra area where things are quieter. #1 to a degree as well. There is no doubt that the fact that US troops are in Iraq has brought increased tensions in and of itself. Would they be resisting as fiercely if they were other foreign troops or even UN peacekeepers. Who knows?

September 21st, 2005	Post 9
Spartacus Primus Pilus Gear	I think it probably has the most to do with total number of troops present. __________________ Qui tacet consentire. Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Nec Aspera Terrent. Vir sapit qui pauca loquitur.

September 21st, 2005	Post 10
tomtom22 Chief Engineer Gear	In my humble opinion , I think it's a combination of 3 & 4. I also agree with the comments made by LeEnfield. __________________ "It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle." - Norman Schwarskopf, Commander of Desert Storm Operations

Topic: Casualty Rates

Post; Casualty Rates