Afghan casualty rate 'at level of last war'-(WII ?)

telegraph ^ | 16/07/2007 | By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent and Graeme Wilson

[Flavius]

The rate at which British soldiers are being seriously injured or killed on the front line in Afghanistan is about to pass that suffered by our troops during the Second World War.

The casualty rate for British troops in Afghanistan is about to pass that suffered during the Second World War The casualty rate suffered by British troops in the most dangerous regions of Afghanistan is approaching 10pc

The casualty rate in the most dangerous regions of the country is approaching 10 per cent. Senior officers fear it will ultimately pass the 11 per cent experienced by British soldiers at the height of the conflict 60 years ago.

[Uncle Ike]

“Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure”

I don’t know what I find more unsettling — that the author expects me to accept this dreck uncritically....

Or that there is a substantial portion of my fellows that will.......

[padre35]

Why are all three sentenes in that headline the same?

[johnny7]

The media will stop at nothing to brainwash the masses into capitulation. I’ve never seen such twisted propaganda.

[Alas Babylon!]

Yup. Just more anti-war drivel by the Leftist driveby media.

First you take the casuality percentage of ALL British troops fighting in WWIII....

Then you find a unit or two (say 1,000 men tops) fighting in a particular area of Afghanistan and compare it to the millions of men who fought WWII.

Makes perfect sense to me (< /sarcasm>!

[Mobile Vulgus]

What Bull crap! The rate is only similar in a per capita sense. It is no where NEAR the “same” in total numbers. This “percentage” way of figuring it is so misleading as to be absurd!!

[Liberty Valance]

More than 11 million troops served in the British Commonwealth during the Second World War with 580,000 killed or missing and 475,000 wounded, giving a casualty rate of almost 11 per cent.

The official injury rate given by the Ministry of Defence among the 7,000 British troops in Afghanistan is about three per cent. But when the figures are applied to the three infantry battalions on the front line, it rises to almost 10 per cent ....

So 3 percent of 7000 is much worse than 580,000 deaths in WW2.

[caver]

The percentage of casualties may be approaching that but it’s some fuzzy math. Since the Brits have about 5500 troops there, if say 550 were injured that would be 10% casualty rate. But during WWII, the Brits probably had a million fighting. Percentages aren’t the same as pure numbers.

[LibLieSlayer]

The British lost more men before the Invasion at Normandy, in a training exercise in the English Channel called “Operation Tiger Shark", than in the entire WOT thus far. 17,000 US and British soldiers, sailors and marines died in one night... attacked by German U-Boats. Liars all!

Great job there (gordon) brownie!

LLS

[britemp]

‘But during WWII, the Brits probably had a million fighting. Percentages aren’t the same as pure numbers.’

Six million actually and the UK casualty rate was three times that of the US, but of course that figure is effected by the fact that the UK was heavily bombed and fought for 6 years versus 4 for the US.

[britemp]

‘Great job there (gordon) brownie!’

Much as I dislike Brown, you can hardly blame him for what is written in the Telegraph! :)

[Lucky Dog]

More than 11 million troops served in the British Commonwealth during the Second World War with 580,000 killed or missing and 475,000 wounded, giving a casualty rate of almost 11 per cent.

This statistic seems to be a comparison of all casualties suffered to all who served.

Out of a well-manned battalion of 650 men, the 1st Bn the Royal Anglians has in the first three months of its tour suffered 42 casualties, who were sent back to Britain.

The preceding statistic appears to compare casualties suffered among a small group only to those serving in a specific combat area.

To be a correct comparison, the statistic cited in the first instance should have cited, for example, the casualty rate of British incurred in North Africa only to those British serving in North Africa, or only those British casualties among those serving in Burma to those casualties incurred in Burma, etc. Additionally, the comparison is faulty in another instance as well.

The comparison of casualties incurred by British troops in Afghanistan is apparently the number of casualties only among those troops serving within a particular, limited time. In the article, the casualties cited among the British incurred during WWII apparently covers the time frame of the entire war. Consequently, the obvious question becomes what is the casualty rate among the British through out the entire involvement in Afghanistan.

In summary, this article appears to a extremely dishonest use of statistics within the confines of some clever rhetoric pushing a very biased perspective.

[fortheDeclaration]

‘Is there not a cause’ (1Sam.17:29)

[MARTIAL MONK]

Americans

Exercise Tiger

749

E-Boats

[blam]

"The casualty rate in the most dangerous regions of the country is approaching 10 per cent."

Here's how they stretch/lie to attain that 10% number. What is the average in Afghan, not the average of the 'hot spots.'

There were 'dangerous regions' in WW2 with a casualty rate of 100%

No wonder no-one trusts these SOB's any more. A survey done last week showed that 87% of participants don't trust the BBC.

[theDentist]

Afghan casualty rate 'at level of last war'-(WWII ?)

Wouldn't the "last" war be when Taliban took over? Or when they were fighting the Soviets?