CF Stats, 2010, WIA/KIA

[The Bread Guy]

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:

    * injuries from IEDs, mines, rocket attacks, and direct combat with an enemy force or terrorist element;
    * personnel injured in friendly fire incidents related to combat action; and
    * acute psychological trauma directly attributable to combat action that required medical intervention.

It does not include traffic accidents, accidental discharges of a weapon, and other accidental injuries not related to combat action.

Non-Battle Injuries statistics include those injured as a result of traffic accidents, the accidental discharge of a weapon, and any other accidental injuries not related to combat.  It also includes those members reported ill, repatriated for compassionate reasons, repatriated for medical reasons, or returned to duty after being assessed by a medical officer.

These statistics are produced on an annual basis to inform the public on casualties sustained by Canadian Forces personnel in Afghanistan. Due to operational security concerns, the statistics are updated on an annual basis according to calendar year.

- 30 -

 

[Container]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[KingofKeys]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.