# CF Stats, 2010, WIA/KIA



## The Bread Guy (12 Jan 2011)

This from the CF:


> The following table is a summary of the Canadian Forces’ Non-Battle Injuries, Wounded in Action, Deaths and Killed in Action (KIA) statistics sustained in Afghanistan from the beginning of the mission in April 2002 to 31 December 2010 _(CHART ATTACHED BELOW)_
> 
> Wounded in Action statistics include injuries of military personnel directly attributable to combat action that required medical/dental intervention.  It includes:
> 
> ...


----------



## Container (12 Jan 2011)

Can someone in the know provide an informed opinion on how the missions undertaken by year may have influenced those numbers?

Like (for example) 2006 was a heavy combat ROTO so the numbers reflect that.....Im just curious as to why the numbers fell in 2010?

(not that I mind less wounded etc) just curious.....


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Jan 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> Can someone in the know provide an informed opinion on how the missions undertaken by year may have influenced those numbers?
> 
> Like (for example) 2006 was a heavy combat ROTO so the numbers reflect that.....Im just curious as to why the numbers fell in 2010?
> 
> (not that I mind less wounded etc) just curious.....


Good question; however, there are probably many many reasons.  It's hard to say why the numbers dropped so much in 2010.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Jan 2011)

Matthew Fisher: A Year in Afghanistan 

http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?videoid?746480670001

In the above interview Matthew Fisher, who has spent a lot of time in theatre, opines about the drop in casualties. Note - the interview is 15 minutes long, but worth taking the time to watch. He also notes that the US casualty rate has recently dropped sharply despite the large increase in troop strength.


----------



## Navalsnpr (12 Jan 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Good question; however, there are probably many many reasons.  It's hard to say why the numbers dropped so much in 2010.



I would believe that not one reason would cause the reduction. But I would anticipate that the CF's Pre-Deployment Training, Personnel who currently are on tour with previous JTFA tour experience and the recent expansion of ISAF personnel numbers in the areas that Canada operates in theatre all contribute to the reduction.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Jan 2011)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> I would believe that not one reason would cause the reduction. But I would anticipate that the CF's Pre-Deployment Training, Personnel who currently are on tour with previous JTFA tour experience and the recent expansion of ISAF personnel numbers in the areas that Canada operates in theatre all contribute to the reduction.



Of course luck, or lack of it, also has alot to do with casualties in these types of conflicts. Luck is tricky to build into a combat estimate though, so it's best not to include it in a COA backbrief to your CO!


----------



## Infanteer (12 Jan 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> Can someone in the know provide an informed opinion on how the missions undertaken by year may have influenced those numbers?
> 
> Like (for example) 2006 was a heavy combat ROTO so the numbers reflect that.....Im just curious as to why the numbers fell in 2010?
> 
> (not that I mind less wounded etc) just curious.....



I'll take a stab at this.

2006 was obviously a high point for two reasons - we were "lighter" in terms of supporting assets and enablers and the Taliban launched a general offensive to take Kandahar.

Late 2009 and 2010 were a major change in the way we operated.  Our AO compressed significantly, and all elements in TFK moved to a more static role in lines with the new counter-insurgency doctrine.  Less roaming around = less TICs and, more critically, less chances of a vehicle hitting an IED.  We haven't taken a direct fire KIA since 2008 - IEDs are the number one danger to us there.  To top it off, many of the "worst" areas in terms of insurgent presence - Zharei District, the Horn of Panjwayi, and Arghandab District post 2008 - were handed off to the Americans in the summer/fall of 2009.  The East Panjwayi/Dand insurgency was a bit of a different animal.

This is all in this document here which, although a year old, is pretty good.

TIC and IED strike/find numbers (which CEFCOM has) can validate this, but I'm willing to bet AO contraction and change in campaign were the two primary reasons for the drop in casualties.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Jan 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Matthew Fisher: A Year in Afghanistan
> 
> http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?videoid?746480670001
> 
> In the above interview Matthew Fisher, who has spent a lot of time in theatre, opines about the drop in casualties. Note - the interview is 15 minutes long, but worth taking the time to watch. He also notes that the US casualty rate has recently dropped sharply despite the large increase in troop strength.



Just watched this - his first minute or so basically is in line with my statement above.

The interview is pretty good - although I don't agree with all his points (like confusing things with silly phrases like "win the war, lose the peace"), I think he is generally on target.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (12 Jan 2011)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> CF's Pre-Deployment Training



I, and most of the guys I deployed with this past summer, would say that PDT had NOTHING to do with casualty rates.


Having a smaller AO, having more Americans than you can shake a stick at, and the pakistani floods probably had something to do with it. A lot of the mid-level TB are tired and running out of dudes/resources/bomb makers.

Any more and I would stray into opsec.


----------



## KingofKeys (12 Jan 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Just watched this - his first minute or so basically is in line with my statement above.
> 
> The interview is pretty good - although I don't agree with all his points (like confusing things with silly phrases like "win the war, lose the peace"), I think he is generally on target.



I like this guy. He is straight forward and seems to have a good grasp of what he has observed. Good link!


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jan 2011)

Fisher interview was up at this topic thread two days ago:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-1008120.html#msg1008120

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Armymedic (13 Jan 2011)

Can anyone explain the dramatic increase in non-battle injuries from a few handfuls, up to 300+ per year?


----------



## KingofKeys (13 Jan 2011)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain the dramatic increase in non-battle injuries from a few handfuls, up to 300+ per year?



http://hilltimes.com/page/view/afghanistan-02-01-2010


----------



## Kiwi99 (16 Jan 2011)

What surprises me is the non-battle injury stats vs battle related wounds.  In 2007 they more than tripled from the previous year.  Honestly, the numbers in those two columns are very interesting.  Does this mean in theater only, or do the non-battle injuries also mean those that suffered some form of tour related illness after they got home?


----------



## Armymedic (16 Jan 2011)

By definition, non-battle injuries are injuries sustained in theater, which are duty related, but not as a result of enemy actions. Prior to 2007, the majority were as a result of vehicle accidents and training mishaps. Generally, those stats are not collected after a tour completion.

Which still begs the question; why the increase from less than a dozen to 300?


----------



## Journeyman (16 Jan 2011)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> By definition.....


Well, _by definition_, I wouldn't think that a soldier dying of a heart attack while on leave would be considered an operational fatality....so I'm afraid my faith in statistics is shaken.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jan 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, _by definition_, I wouldn't think that a soldier dying of a heart attack while on leave would be considered an operational fatality....so I'm afraid my faith in statistics is shaken.



Sheesh...... I assume that this means you can win a VC on HTLA too, right? :


----------



## Armymedic (17 Jan 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, _by definition_, I wouldn't think that a soldier dying of a heart attack while on leave would be considered an operational fatality....so I'm afraid my faith in statistics is shaken.



Too true.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Jan 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, _by definition_, I wouldn't think that a soldier dying of a heart attack while on leave would be considered an operational fatality....so I'm afraid my faith in statistics is shaken.



I would say "plus infinity", but MilPoints are maxed at 300, so, I suppose it's "plus 300".


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Jan 2011)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> By definition, non-battle injuries are injuries sustained in theater, which are duty related, but not as a result of enemy actions. Prior to 2007, the majority were as a result of vehicle accidents and training mishaps. Generally, those stats are not collected after a tour completion.
> 
> Which still begs the question; why the increase from less than a dozen to 300?



Maybe the reporting mechanism/criteria changed? When a unit sends a keen young officer on a safety course they will experience a spike in accidents immediately after. It isn't because there are more accidents, but rather that they now get reported for a while. I'm not saying that that happened here, but just throwing it out there.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (17 Jan 2011)

No. I blame recruiting standards....

...no PT test on entry = fat, clumsy people dropping things on their toes or spraining ankles on the boardwalk.


----------



## GAP (17 Jan 2011)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> No. I blame recruiting standards....
> 
> ...no PT test on entry = fat, clumsy people dropping things on their toes or spraining ankles on the boardwalk.



That would apply if we were talking about 5-6 months in, but these people have gone through BMQ, trades training, workup.....and you would think they're mostly past the clumsy stage.....

You might be partly right, but I would suggest that T2B's point is probably a bigger factor.....

 + change... ;D


----------



## Gunner98 (18 Jan 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Of course luck, or lack of it, also has alot to do with casualties in these types of conflicts. Luck is tricky to build into a combat estimate though, so it's best not to include it in a COA backbrief to your CO!



Similarly, hope is not a course of action.  Without a better breakdown of the injury numbers the stats are useless.  Sports days, charity runs, desert heat /poor hydration, an infectious flu strain can really tilt the scales. For example at one point in 2008, there was serious outbreak of flu that affected more than 150 soldiers (albeit in a UK HQ), many who required long hospital stays and depending on the acclimimatization period, time of year and the ops tempo, many new arrivals and backfills can become serious heat stroke victims.  We used to track heat casualties by nation and report to RC Comd so he could assess preparedness of TFs.


----------



## Kiwi99 (19 Jan 2011)

Or, dare I say it...the advent of FOBs and Fob Mentality...


----------

