Casualty Rates

[bulldogg]

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]

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/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm

UK: Around 8,500
Australia: Around 600
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

 

[Whispering Death]

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]

#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]

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]

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]

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 :cen: house once the insurgency started.



Mod Edit: Watch the language please.

 

[Missileer]

I'd say 3 and 4.

 

[Spartacus]

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

 

[tomtom22]

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

 

[LeEnfield]

Why thank you tomtom 22 if we ever meet i will by you a drink

 

[phoenix80]

my 2 cents:

the question is obscured!

 

[bulldogg]

What is the question obscured by Phoenix?

 

[LIPS]

I'll throw my hat in the ring and say that everyone that has a "beef" with the USA, Iraq has been their magnet to have a shot at the troops there. Why I dont know?? With all these foreign fighters coming in to have a crack or try and make a name for themselves for what? S :cen: t we even had one of my country men on the TV hooded up and all talking crap. So it goes to show it can take all types of fools. But the more troops on the ground then the more chances of someone getting hurt.

 

[phoenix80]

What is the question obscured by Phoenix?

Well, I guess it is obscured like it is showing coalition forces being incompetent and unable to prevent their own casualties.

 

[phoenix80]

I'll throw my hat in the ring and say that everyone that has a "beef" with the USA, Iraq has been their magnet to have a shot at the troops there. Why I dont know?? With all these foreign fighters coming in to have a crack or try and make a name for themselves for what? S :cen: t we even had one of my country men on the TV hooded up and all talking crap. So it goes to show it can take all types of fools. But the more troops on the ground then the more chances of someone getting hurt.

you might be correct somehow. Instead of civilians being killed in streets of Sydney, NYC, London and Toronto, forces of good are out there fighting them.

Fight them there so you don't have to fight them at home!

 

[FO Seaman]

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.

I know for a fact that Us and UK SF units arew working together, they so the caldestine, spook ops.

I think it's because the U.S. is a large fighting force, until 1997 we operated in much of the Cold War tactics and manners, just recently have we been beefing up on MOUT. The Marines at LaJune (sp?) used sewers for MOUT's.

I also think it's that the U.S. has more troops and the insurgents have more animosity toward the U.S.

I also agree with the thought the the UK has been at this game a lot longer than we have.

 

[LeEnfield]

The problems with this sort of warfare is that the insurgents can pick a time and place that they wish to attack, they will also wait until every thing is in their favour. They will be on the look out for patrols that seem to be slack they will wait until they have more men and in a place of their choosing, and once the attack has been carried out they will melt back into the back ground and hide among the general population. Now if you go in hard then you up set the rest of the population and still may not get the people involved. You can bet also there will be News Casters there that are looking to slate the Allied troops for being heavy handed as this makes news. It takes time and patience to win this sort of war and you can go on for years, in Malaya it took about 20 years to defeat the terrorist.

 

[bulldogg]

Phoenix, obscured means something cannot be seen because it is blocked by something else. Skewed means that something has been twisted to show things in a certain light. I really honestly do not see how you think the question is skewed... honest. There is nothing in the wording of the questions or the answers that implies directly or indirectly at any level of competence. Casualties happen in war, it cannot be avoided only lessened and there are certain things that can lower or increase your odds. I simply boiled down the options because I didn't believe it is a question of training or tactics when I worded the question.

The option about better training was just a humourous shot for the boys from down under to have a go. But after reading Le Enfield's post I have rethought things as I believe his reasoning about the experience of the Commonwealth forces holds merit. I think you're looking for something that ain't there or if English is a second language for you I can understand a bit of the trouble with some rhetoric and lines of questioning.

As for my own thoughts I give some credence to the fact that the more bodies you have in harms way the greater the number of wounded but the casualty rate for the Ukrainians does not follow this logic. They have suffered heavily for the numbers they have on the ground which made me think about particular duties or geographic locations within Iraq. The focused hatred is well, I don't think that needs any explanation for anyone with their head out of the sand eh?

 

[FULLMETALJACKET]

i agree that it's the placement.