British Forget how to do their Math, claim "Death Rates 4X Higher"

[MickDonalds]

Looks like somebody needs to do their math:

From The Guardian

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The rate at which British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan is almost four times that of their US counterparts, and double the rate which is officially classified as "major combat".

Analysis by the Medical Research Council's biostatistics unit at the University of Cambridge also found that the death rate of UK troops is twice that of 2006, when they were described as being involved in the fiercest fighting since their involvement in Korea 50 years ago.

The researchers said the "UK could expect at least as many military fatalities in 10 weeks in Afghanistan as in 20 weeks in 2006".

The official classification of "major combat" is a killing rate of six per 1,000 personnel years. For the 12 months up to May, the killing rate for British troops in Afghanistan stood at 13.

During February and May, the death rate of UK military personnel reached 9.9 per 1,000 personnel years compared with 2.7 for US forces in Afghanistan.

During the four previous months, the UK rate reached 12 compared with 3.9 for the US and between May and October last year it peaked at 17.3, twice the figure of 8.4 experienced by American forces during the period.

Of the 299 British soldiers killed during the Afghanistan campaign so far, 265 were killed in action, with the remainder victim to accidents, friendly fire or suicide. There has been a spike in the number of British soldiers killed by gunfire as opposed to roadside bombs, the asymmetric tactics utilised with deadly effect by the Taliban throughout last year. During 2009, fewer than one in five soldiers was killed by small-arms fire.

The average age of British casualties is 22. Two hundred soldiers have been killed in their twenties and 31 teenagers are among the death toll.

Twenty-six of the 299 British casualties are officer class and one female soldier has died. Geographically, they are from a fairly even spread throughout the UK.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////


Lolwut?

From icasualties.org

US KIA in A'Stan: 1124
UK KIA in A'stan: 299

Trying to sell papers because you have more casualties per less overall troops in the field? Shame on you. Here's a violin, because we don't feel sorry. More than 1 casualty any time is bad, but when we're (the US) losing over 35 troops a month versus 6 or 7, and have lost more than 1,000 overall, it's not time to start whining about contrived percentages.

[Corndog]

Looks like somebody needs to do their math:

From The Guardian

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The rate at which British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan is almost four times that of their US counterparts, and double the rate which is officially classified as "major combat".

Analysis by the Medical Research Council's biostatistics unit at the University of Cambridge also found that the death rate of UK troops is twice that of 2006, when they were described as being involved in the fiercest fighting since their involvement in Korea 50 years ago.

The researchers said the "UK could expect at least as many military fatalities in 10 weeks in Afghanistan as in 20 weeks in 2006".

The official classification of "major combat" is a killing rate of six per 1,000 personnel years. For the 12 months up to May, the killing rate for British troops in Afghanistan stood at 13.

During February and May, the death rate of UK military personnel reached 9.9 per 1,000 personnel years compared with 2.7 for US forces in Afghanistan.

During the four previous months, the UK rate reached 12 compared with 3.9 for the US and between May and October last year it peaked at 17.3, twice the figure of 8.4 experienced by American forces during the period.

Of the 299 British soldiers killed during the Afghanistan campaign so far, 265 were killed in action, with the remainder victim to accidents, friendly fire or suicide. There has been a spike in the number of British soldiers killed by gunfire as opposed to roadside bombs, the asymmetric tactics utilised with deadly effect by the Taliban throughout last year. During 2009, fewer than one in five soldiers was killed by small-arms fire.

The average age of British casualties is 22. Two hundred soldiers have been killed in their twenties and 31 teenagers are among the death toll.

Twenty-six of the 299 British casualties are officer class and one female soldier has died. Geographically, they are from a fairly even spread throughout the UK.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////


Lolwut?

From icasualties.org

US KIA in A'Stan: 1124
UK KIA in A'stan: 299

Trying to sell papers because you have more casualties per less overall troops in the field? Shame on you. Here's a violin, because we don't feel sorry. More than 1 casualty any time is bad, but when we're (the US) losing over 35 troops a month versus 6 or 7, and have lost more than 1,000 overall, it's not time to start whining about contrived percentages.

Am shocked at this report from the Guardian, they or no-one else should compare death rates with other forces. These guys in suits have no idea wats happening outside their world, they just spend most off there day on a tube train writing and reading such papers. ass wipes...

[gazzthompson]

The maths are correct, tho "almost 4x" is more accurate than "4x higher" but still.

[MickDonalds]

The maths are correct, tho "almost 4x" is more accurate than "4x higher" but still.

So they're making themselves victims because they've lost more troops within the less overall troop population in A'stan?

I'm sorry, I don't feel sorry for that. The US is getting HAMMERED in Helmand and Paktia right now. The Brits are too, but to say "Oh we're losing sooooooo many more people!!" in the interest of creating a melodramatic headline in order to sell papers is downright wrong.
Again, put it in perspective:
US KIA = 1,124 TOTAL
UK KIA = 299 TOTAL
Somebody needs to pay attention to troop numbers actually on the ground right now. For that matter, I'm surprised the Lithuanians or one of those other coward nations that have 150 troops on the ground haven't tried this yet. "OMG WE'VE LOST 3 TROOPS IN ONE MONTH, AND BECAUSE WE HAVE 100 TROOPS ON THR GROUND WE'RE LOSING A MAJORITY OF OUR FORCES. POOR, POOR US!"

[gazzthompson]

why are you quoting overall troop deaths when the article is about ratios ? "coward nations" ......... really....

The fact is, the maths are correct. your just blowing it out of context.

[Corndog]

Sorry this thread needs moved or locked....

[MickDonalds]

why are you quoting overall troop deaths when the article is about ratios ? "coward nations" ......... really....

The fact is, the maths are correct. your just blowing it out of context.

Ratios don't mean shit, the sooner they realize that, the better. That's the point I'm trying to make.

And the UK isn't part of the "Coward coalition", so chill out.

Italy, France, Spain, Lithuania, etc are part of a half-ass attempt on behalf of those governments to try and please the international community by committing 50-200 measely troops to a safe zone inside A'stan. They'll take 20 or fewer casualties and then they'll run like cowards back to Europe, just like they did in Iraq. Just wait and see. It will happen.

[gazzthompson]

Ratios don't mean shit, the sooner they realize that, the better. That's the point I'm trying to make..

The article is about stats, and demographic data (age, sex, type of death) in which ratios do matter when talking about the subject, if the article was about overall deaths your post would of been relevant. your posting overall deaths is like comparing apples and pears, its out of context. And you also managed to insult a load of people whistle your at it.

And the maths where (near enough) correct.

[fallen-ink]

The article is about stats, and demographic data (age, sex, type of death) in which ratios do matter when talking about the subject, if the article was about overall deaths your post would of been relevant. your posting overall deaths is like comparing apples and pears, its out of context. And you also managed to insult a load of people whistle your at it.

And the maths where (near enough) correct.

Agree'd Thompson. It seems you care about our papers more then people who actually serve.
you dont know what my armed forces are like or our opinions.
but I dont call off calling your nation as a whole "moaners"
you do your job and we'll do ours! we've had a faster rate of casulties in a lower amount of time in other conflicts.
but not only have you offended certain people but u've also offended the dead.
politics and war are 2 different things, and at the end of the day every nation cares about their dead regardless of others
so you shouldnt attack other nations 4 caring. our death toll is now at 300. thanks!

[MickDonalds]

The article is about stats, and demographic data (age, sex, type of death) in which ratios do matter when talking about the subject, if the article was about overall deaths your post would of been relevant. your posting overall deaths is like comparing apples and pears, its out of context. And you also managed to insult a load of people whistle your at it.

And the maths where (near enough) correct.

Overall deaths do mean more than ratios which are being used to sell papers. Stating that you have more casualties in a shorter amount of time (merely because you have less troops on the ground) doesn't make you special, IMO.

And I couldn't care less if I insult cowardly Eurotrash that won't have the temerity to see the fight through to the end. The UK, Canada and Australia will always stand with the US, to the end. That's for sure. They always have, and I have alot of love for our "English Speaking Allies". Your neighbors in Spain, Denmark, Lithuania, etc WILL turn and RUN when things get difficult. It happened in Iraq, it will happen again.

[gazzthompson]

Overall deaths do mean more than ratios which are being used to sell papers. Stating that you have more casualties in a shorter amount of time (merely because you have less troops on the ground) doesn't make you special, IMO.

Your missing the point.

[Stark]

overall it does't matter at all - death rates are not to be bragged about and are not to be exaggerated or lessened.


Case closed and so it this thread