Why?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Hello /k/ommandos, I have a serious question for you.
In Afghanistan some 143,750 unique personnel were deployed by the British Government (1). Of these men and women 454 (2) were killed with a further 7,436 wounded (3). This leads us to a fatality rate of 0.316% fatality rate, and a 5.173% wounded rate, for a combined casualty rate of 5.489%
~2,500,000 personnel were deployed by the United States (this figure is not unique) (4). 2,326 have been killed and 20,083 have been injured (5). This gives us a 0.093% fatality rate and 0.803% wounded rate for a combined casualty rate of 0.896%
Question: Why, when British troops are generally considered of a higher quality than their American counterparts (average infantryman, none of this 'my SF is better than your SF' bollocks) is the casualty rate so much higher for the Brits?
>>30196984
Because the brits actually get shit done and the burgers just sit in their base eating junk food all day.
Sauces:
(1) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498068/PUBLIC_1439893241.pdf
(2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan_since_2001
(3)
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/17/afghanistan-casualties-dead-wounded-british-data
(4)
www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/14/.../millions-went-to-war-in-iraq-afghanistan.html
(5)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan
>>30196984
Because they get attacked during tea break?
OP here
>>30196995
>Merican are fat meme checked off the list
It begins
>>30197031
I suspect that most of the Amerifags are asleep at the moment, that should delay the shitstorm for a while
The bongs provided a proportionally higher percentage of combat arms personel post invasion, as the US picked up the bulk of support and logistics handling.
Combine that with taking one of the worst regions in the country and I imagine that accounts for the figures observed.
>>30196984
no one actually thinks that outside of shitposters on /k/.
US and British infantry forces are essentially of the same exact capability.
>>30197059
SHITPOSTERS NEVER SLEEP!!!! MERICA CHECKING IN!!!!
>>30197060
This anon gets it.
>>30197085
Only difference is the level of "cowboy" as the Limeys put it.
>>30197098
People seem to think we American are bunch of door kickers. While there is a quiet a bit of that we mainly bomb the shit out the enemy because it is effective and safe(results may vary)
>>30197085
OP here
I think they do, Americans do 10 weeks mandatory basic training, Brits do 14...
>>30197109
You often end up destroying ANA Abdul's petunias too, which is not what you want when you are counting on him to guard the country when you leave.
>>30197119
Hey, to be fair last guys we left in charge after we left turned tail and ran.
>Why, when British troops are generally considered of a higher quality than their American counterparts
Brit strong propaganda.
>>30197109
No what I meant is that the Limeys are on record to having a preferred list of military groups they want to work with. The specific example I'm referring to is the SAS stating they don't like to work with seals because they are "too cowboy". Then again the seals are fucky as hell these days.
>>30197119
>Americans do 10 weeks mandatory basic training, Brits do 14...
Pointless comparison as no one goes from boot camp straight to afghanistan, you have to consider all training and the quality of training received.
>>30197119
Ah, 4 weeks of extra basic training, truly the hallmark of deadly warriors.
>>30196984
>Why, when British troops are generally considered of a higher quality
Who pretends this is a thing?
Besides British people I mean.
>>30197119
Basic training varies depending on what branch you do and what your job is. For the Bongs its the same so its irrelevent (17 weeks for Army Infantry and Marines btw).
Secondly the casualties are mainly from IEDs, making the quality of Soldiers totally irrelevent. What kept more Americans from getting hurt and killed was a fast adoption of Armored vehicles down to the lowest level possible. In the absense of factory made armor US forces began adding "hillbilly armor" by welding steel to their humvee's and/or lining them with sandbags.
The Brits, simply didnt do this, at least not on a large scale.
Finally it is laughable that you think the Bong Army is superior to the US military in anyway.
>>30197031
I didn't mean they're fat, ai meant they're less aggressive, but most of this is probably because the US spends so much money it doesn't have on their military
>>30197238
>less aggressive
wat?
1. A higher proportion of British troops were combat arms
2. Early on a lot of our kit was pretty bad when it came to IED protection. A lot of soldiers died because they were driving around in vehicles that were simply not designed to have any IED/mine protection.
>>30196984
Anyway to tell with just combat arms personnel?
>>30197238
I thought we were so aggressive, we friendly fired on the brits all the time?
The Americans were in peaceful areas too. I would say that has something to do with it
I don't know what were you thinking OP, but asking something like that (even with sources)
on mainly american populated board is just asking to be trolled.
>>30197059
Alas/k/a here. This time zone is very lonely.
>>30196984
They aren't really seen that way. If you take any basic infantryman from a functional NATO country (i.e France, UK, US, Poland, Canada) You'll have pretty much the same guy able to do pretty much the same thing. Nobody in NATO really has "the best" average bootslogger.
That being said, the UK deployed more combat troops per capita than the US, the US ran basically 100% of the logistics trains, bases, and FOBs.
>>30197119
This is meaningless. If you're basic infantry you'll do BCT and then AIT, which is like 18 weeks I think, I dunno, wrong branch.
If you're Artillery it's BCT and then your MOS school down in Ft. Sill, which is like, 12 weeks plus another 12 I think for artillery.
MP/SF Is 9 weeks BMT for USAF, 12 BCT for Army, and 8 weeks for MOS school.
Everything has it's own "training" and "schools" that take fucking forever and get backed up, so you have to wait in a pool just to get your fucking certs so you can get to the field. My Marine buddy was supposed to get home from Rocket Artillery school last month, it's been pushed back until at least September, which means he won't be back until just before Christmas at the earliest.
>>30197544
>the Americans were in peaceful areas
Nigger, have you been to the Korengal? I've been to the fucking Korengal and I'd like to have a word.
>>30197621
This.
The US was essentially responsible for running Afghanistan, so needed many more more non combat personnel.
Perhaps there might be doctrinal/equipment differences that might account for a slightly higher UK casualty rate e.g. American fondness/knowledge/availability of CAS, better armoured patrol vehicles, etc. But I don't think this will have made a massive difference.
>>30196984
So your statistics:
Brits: 143,750 personnel
Burgers: ~2,500,000 personnel
>Hurrr why are our rates higher?
I'll take Basic Understanding of Percentages for 400, Alex.
>>30196984
The more fighting personnel you have, the more support personnel you need, with the ratio of that support increasing with the total number of personnel.
>>30197673
I'll take Basic Understanding of What Rates Actually Mean for 1000, Alex.
>>30197060
this with a little bit of this
>>30197534
>I'll take Basic Understanding of Percentages for 400, Alex.
I wish you had.
>>30197701
Your move, retard.
>>30197669
You don't pick a fight with the biggest guy in the room, pretty simple really
>>30197181
>too cowboy
>less aggressive
>SAS
>seals
>average infantryman
A number of factors already mentioned by everyone in this thread but basically
- Higher percentage combat arms
- Driving around in vehicles so inadequate for the job that the families of many soldiers are now suing the MoD
- More combat arms in more dangerous places, however note that both armies were in very difficult places e.g Korengal but a larger amount of the total British forces were in higher risk areas like Helmand
>>30197713
You do if you're a Pashtun.
Because the RoE for britbongs says you can't shoot at brown people
>>30196984
bonk stronk
>>30197857
But that's why I joined the Army in the first place...
But yeah, a huge chunk of deployed US troops were in Bastion and Kandahar, not because they were lazy or anything but because they were part of the large and essential loggie train for a modern war.
If you could boil it down to just combat arms the figures would probably equal out.
so basic
>america is fat and lazy and does logistics and drops bombs on mud huts
>meanwhile good goyim britain do the more dangerous work
???
>>30197060
There we go
>>30197060
/thread
>>30196995
>calling getting shot or blown up actually getting shit done
Errrgh not good logic there limey.
>>30198188
Brits had their heaviest fighting since the Korean war when they moved into Helmand, they contributed more than any other ISAF member apart from obviously the US. That their casualty rates were so low after a decade of insurgency is impressive.
OP the unique and non unique figures you give skew those percentages massively. Lots of Brits did multiple tours and those numbers are not reflected in the stats while America's are.
>>30197238
>less aggressive
>built around violence of action
Okay
>>30197085
the idea is that because the UK military is so much smaller they are more selective with recruits.
whereas any fucking mong can get into the US military doing SOMETHING
probably average infantry soldier of each are the same, but the "average soldier in general" of the US gets dragged down by the noncom retards that wouldn't have a place in the brit military but get picked up by the americans to do whatever useless shit needs done.
>>30197229
bong line infantry do 14 weeks basic ("phase 1") and another 14 weeks inf ("phase 2"). Paras and guards regs do 18 weeks phase 2 I think?
Generally all brit soldiers do 14 weeks phase 1 (inf and armoured have a more physical phase 1, everybody else does a less demanding phase 1) and all soldiers do a phase 2 that is individual for the role. Can be 10 weeks minimum
Brits had little to no experience with dealing with people like the Taliban. 'Mericans had been there for a while or had previous experience with similar situations.
Also, the Brits (from the videos I saw. So by no means does it mean much.) seemed to employ the "hunker down and wait it out" tactic compared to the Americans who were a bit more proactive.
>* British base getting mortared*
>"HIDE UNDA THE TANK LADS!"
>*American base gets mortared*
>"RAMIREZ, DISABLE THE MORTAR TEAM AT ALL COSTS."
It wasn't always THAT flamboyant. But you get the idea. Even though the Brits did literally hide under their tanks a bunch of times. Which does save lives, but does get more people injured.
>>30198794
>I watched some videos on the internet so I understand the complexities of a theatre of war
>>30198794
Given the Brits didn't have any tanks in Afghanistan I'd say you're talking a complete load of shit.
>>30198794
>'Mericans had been there for a while
Are you fucking retarded. I mean, first you seem to somehow know nothing about the Iraq war and secondly you're basing tactics off a video that you haven't even understood to begin with!
>>30198794
>I don't know anything about Afghanistan
>I watched two videos
>I don't know anything about what was happening so I made up the rest to fill in
Jesus Wept. I hope you're embarrassed for making this post and allowing other people to see it.
>>30197024
>Thumbnail
>>30198794
>dumb shit
>you
The British army basically wrote the handbook for modern COIN after The Troubles in Northern Ireland.
Because the Brit army isn't as good as the American army. I'm not being cocky, it's just the truth. Americans have a better military.
>>30197060
This. It's the same with Canada isn't it? Americans pulled out most of their combat personnel and left allies like the bongs and syrup enthusiasts to get killed in Kandahar and other shitty regions.
>>30198794
>Also, the Brits (from the videos I saw. So by no means does it mean much.) seemed to employ the "hunker down and wait it out" tactic compared to the Americans who were a bit more proactive.
>I saw a single patrol taking cover behind their Warrior from mortar fire
>This means the entire British Army tactic is to take cover and they don't even know what counter-battery fire is
>>30197031
fuck off you namefaggot
The real question is why do Americans have such a superiority complex?
Britons provided higher percentage of personnel engaging in active combat.
Britons had less combined arms support, er go when engaged in a firefight were less likely of having the option of pulling back and utilizing CAS or other alternative option, they had to slug it out via small arms more frequently.
>>30199255
MFW phone autocorrected "Britbongs" to "Britons" phone is more repeat full than I am...
>>30198931
And we had (and contine to have) the most experienced and deployed bomb disposal technicians. The operators we deployed had almost all dealt with ied's in NI, uxb's across the UK And mines on British beaches and seas world wide. With plenty of African land mines. Other nations had pretty much no practical experience outside of training.
Another factor that makes the British army considered better in regards to training is their very high proportion of career soldiers, they are in it for the long run and not for a few years to win some education. This allows skills to be retained for far longer and allows more time for these skills to be evaluated and taught.
We also shouldn't forget that as well as having Sandhurst arguably leading the world in officer training, the British army has access to some excellent facilities that are almost always in use. Batus is the only place in the world where you can practice battlegroup level live fire maneuvers with armour and mechanised infantry. We have jungle training in Belize, desert training in Kenya, Arctic warfare taught to us by the excellent Norwegians in Norway.
>>30197060
also throw in that even with rotation the british army had less people to rotate so each of those 'unique personnel' probably spent more time in theater as a average
>>30198794
>the British have no experience with insurgents/terrorists/rebel fighters
Please tell me you're not that stupid....
>>30199283
Fuck me.
I'm a squaddie and you made me cringe super hard. Pretty much everything you said is untrue or at best ill-informed.
Like, I'm pretty sure the US Army can perform BG sized combined arms exercises. Fuck, a multinational one is going on right now in Europe.
>>30198946
Nigger you obviously didn't hear/know/care about American infantry presence in Kandahar Province.
>>30198794
That's some high quality baiting boy
>>30197639
Thank you for your service
>>30196984
shit flag m8, use one the one with colonies
>>30199165
something something pax americana something something
>>30198751
Brit inf do 26 weeks in one go. Para's and guards do a little more. They do more training when they get to their regiment. Generally it's thought someone needs to be in a year and a half before they are thought of as useful. Training never stops though. If you are not at war you are training for it.
Other arms do the 14 weeks you describe before their phase two training.
Brit inf may have an edge as they are more selective, have bigger unit identity (you join a specific regiment that you choose), more experianced nco's. This edge may be slight.
