What is presence patrolling?

[JMA]

As I said, "mentioned." - see Red Rats post. As I said, "verification" remains an issue. If you do not have verification procedures in place, then you are dependant on estimates.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

Why are you trying to sell me this line of c***? I know how to verify the kills, you count them. Only actuals, no estimates.

On the big externals they ran an air photo sortie (where possible) and then left it to the photo interp boys to count the bodies. Only count what you see.

Then of course we used radio intercepts of their reports to confirm our numbers which were always higher than what we counted. So that filled the gap between kills verified by mark one eye-ball and actual. No estimates needed.

Why should it be different there?

[Ken White]

you count them. Only actuals, no estimates...Why should it be different there?

in Viet Nam at a cost in time and effort only to find out the hard way -- as did you in Rhodesia -- that it didn't make an ounce of difference in the outcome.

So why bother.

[William F. Owen]

Why are you trying to sell me this line of c***? I know how to verify the kills, you count them. Only actuals, no estimates.

I'm not trying sell you anything.
Both "verified" - by what ever means = "Recovery" AND "Estimates" also have value = IMINT/SIGINT/Witness statements, ground sign, "all sources."

Again, I cannot see your point. You opined/implied Loss-exchange-ratios favoured the Taliban - on the basis of no evidence - as with most of your comments.

[Infanteer]

At the risk of wandering off topic, I have videos of engagements of insurgents by our LAVs where you see the bad guy turned into fine pink mist but when the troops cleared through the area for BDA, they found a few blood splotches. As easy as it may be to say "just count the bodies" it is very hard to do with insurgents such as the Pashtun who police the battlefield in such a detailed and rapid manner.

Heard a story of an IDF specialist that was taken out with A-10s. They had to basically put two Kiowa's on the body until a BDA assessment could recover the body lest the locals police the scene.

[JMA]

in Viet Nam at a cost in time and effort only to find out the hard way -- as did you in Rhodesia -- that it didn't make an ounce of difference in the outcome.

So why bother.

Because certainly we collected and then either took with us or destroyed in situ any weapons and war materials that were found in the contact area. And believe it or not we quite often found some valuable (Intel) documents in the pocets and kit of the leaders. So while doing this why not count (verify) the kills?

[JMA]

At the risk of wandering off topic, I have videos of engagements of insurgents by our LAVs where you see the bad guy turned into fine pink mist but when the troops cleared through the area for BDA, they found a few blood splotches. As easy as it may be to say "just count the bodies" it is very hard to do with insurgents such as the Pashtun who police the battlefield in such a detailed and rapid manner.

Heard a story of an IDF specialist that was taken out with A-10s. They had to basically put two Kiowa's on the body until a BDA assessment could recover the body lest the locals police the scene.

You cont the bodies or the body parts. Simple, yes.

Now if you have a video of a gook being converted to gases at a rate of 3,000m/s then that is verified proof of a kill, yes?

What I'm saying is that (probably) the vast majority of kills can be verified by a physical count. The odd other one you can't find any trace of then you don't claim as a verified kill, pretty simple stuff.

It seems the Brits are talking about a kill ratio of 1 (of theirs) to 100 (Taliban).
So with 300 Brit KIA that would be 30,000 Taliban kills. Can't see it, sorry.

What do you mean police the battlefield?

[JMA]

I'm not trying sell you anything.
Both "verified" - by what ever means = "Recovery" AND "Estimates" also have value = IMINT/SIGINT/Witness statements, ground sign, "all sources."

Again, I cannot see your point. You opined/implied Loss-exchange-ratios favoured the Taliban - on the basis of no evidence - as with most of your comments.

I did not say favoured the Taliban, but I will say that the 1(Brit):100 (Taliban) spoken about is probably a big thumb suck.

Secondly I'm NOW asking why the troops do not clear the contact area where if they did they could easily count the bodies and collect war materials?

[William F. Owen]

It seems the Brits are talking about a kill ratio of 1 (of theirs) to 100 (Taliban).
So with 300 Brit KIA that would be 30,000 Taliban kills. Can't see it, sorry.

The estimate refers to LERs from contacts. Not all theatre losses.

I did not say favoured the Taliban, but I will say that the 1(Brit):100 (Taliban) spoken about is probably a big thumb suck.

...and the difference between an estimate and guessing is?

Secondly I'm NOW asking why the troops do not clear the contact area where if they did they could easily count the bodies and collect war materials?

Fairly obviously, they do, when they can. That is part of your post contact drills. Does the number of bodies recovered inform the estimate commonly quoted? I do not know. What do you think? How come Red Rat an I hear the same figures?
Point is, I know this is part of an on going discussion within the British Army.
What's your point?
a.) Why do you want to know?
b.) What do you hope to contribute?

[JMA]

The estimate refers to LERs from contacts. Not all theatre losses.

Estimates just don't cut it. Why do you need to estimate when you can actually count? Unless...

...and the difference between an estimate and guessing is?

Not much but its all about the motivation. Is it because the actuals are such that it is better to work off (suitably inflated) guestimates?

Fairly obviously, they do, when they can. That is part of your post contact drills. Does the number of bodies recovered inform the estimate commonly quoted? I do not know. What do you think? How come Red Rat an I hear the same figures?

So if you have actual figures from bodies counted why not just use them and not suck 1:100 ratios out of one thumb?

[JMA]

Fairly obviously, they do, when they can. That is part of your post contact drills. Does the number of bodies recovered inform the estimate commonly quoted? I do not know. What do you think? How come Red Rat an I hear the same figures?
Point is, I know this is part of an on going discussion within the British Army.
What's your point?
a.) Why do you want to know?
b.) What do you hope to contribute?

I had stated "Secondly I'm NOW asking why the troops do not clear the contact area where if they did they could easily count the bodies and collect war materials?"

You say they do when they can. And I ask when would it be that they can't?
This is important from a military/tactical point of view. Why would troops who have supposedly just won the contact not be able to hang around in the contact area? There is something very strange going on there.

Especially when Infanteer makes a statement like the following:

"As easy as it may be to say "just count the bodies" it is very hard to do with insurgents such as the Pashtun who police the battlefield in such a detailed and rapid manner."

Very, very strange.

[William F. Owen]

Very, very strange.

No, not strange. What is it, that you do not get about the fact that there aspects to this subject which are both operationally and politically sensitive?
Those of us who actually care, do not want to get sucked into a pointless debate with you on a public forum.

SWC is a prominent and highly regarded source of information on operational issues. (well it used to be!) Thus it is read by a great many people.

JMA - you have no dog in the fight, and you are neither formally or informally involved with the discussions concerning UK activity in Afghanistan. Now none of that would be an issue, if you could contribute usefully to open source learning and discussion on the issue of "Small Wars." - which is why most of us are here. Your agenda seems incompatible with that objective.

[Pete]

What do you mean police the battlefield?

In this context policing means cleaning things up. It's a U.S. Army expression. Police Call was the old bugle call for troops to assemble for tidying up the area.

[JMA]

In this context policing means cleaning things up. It's a U.S. Army expression. Police Call was the old bugle call for troops to assemble for tidying up the area.

Thanks Pete, now I just need to learn what is meant by that in the Afghan context.

[JMA]

No, not strange. What is it, that you do not get about the fact that there aspects to this subject which are both operationally and politically sensitive?
Those of us who actually care, do not want to get sucked into a pointless debate with you on a public forum.

SWC is a prominent and highly regarded source of information on operational issues. (well it used to be!) Thus it is read by a great many people.

JMA - you have no dog in the fight, and you are neither formally or informally involved with the discussions concerning UK activity in Afghanistan. Now none of that would be an issue, if you could contribute usefully to open source learning and discussion on the issue of "Small Wars." - which is why most of us are here. Your agenda seems incompatible with that objective.

Lets take a step back and look at this subject:

I introduced it with the following:

"I often wonder what the ratio of kills between the two sides is? I know it has to be poor when it is classified."

Then having to explain myself again I said:

"What I'm saying is if this ratio ISAF KIA / Taliban KIA were in any way reasonable it would be released."

then you countered with "Ratios >100:1 were mentioned" to which I responded whether these kills were verified.

Then we got the official line from an actual serving officer (who really does have a dog in the fight) which I complemented with a copy of a letter under the Freedom of Information Act (what a joke) which basically said we are not goin to tell you. (see here)

The MoD came up with the bizarre "There is also no reliable method to calculate the number of insurgents killed." to which I replied "why not just count the bodies"?

Boy did that open up a can of worms...

Infanteer came up with "As easy as it may be to say "just count the bodies" it is very hard to do with insurgents such as the Pashtun who police the battlefield in such a detailed and rapid manner."

And you put the rider "when they can" in response to my question about troops clearing the contact area.

It appears that for whatever "operational" reasons the contact area is not really/properly swept/searched/secured.

The reason for this and the actual number of Taliban casualties are being kept from the public.

Then I get the "I'll put this upstart in his place" speech from you.

I respond as follows:

* The Taliban know exactly how many casualties they are taking.
* The Taliban know exactly why some of the time/most of the time the Brits do not consolidate and sweep/search the contact area.

There is no OPEC issue here other than what the MoD wants to hide from the British people. This being what the actual Taliban casualties are.

Is this what you term operationally and politically sensitive?

Then your comments re my contributions to SWJ, I treat them with the contempt they deserve. Your cheap attempts to silence me are the stuff of the playground bully.

Serious military men would never shy away from dealing with the "difficult" issues and would welcome the opportunity to talk through some of these issues in a forum such as this. If still serving they have the option to hide behind a nickname so as to give them greater freedom to discuss sensitive issues.

It would have been better had Infanteer responded with "Count the dead, you make it sound so easy, we can't do that because of A, B and C." Then instead of attempting to make a simple action (clear the contact area after a contact and count the bodies and collect/destroy the weapons and equipment) familiar to almost every soldier who been in a war sound unreasonable he would have shown an understanding that the problem actually lay with his situation and not with the routine experience of others.

[Ken White]

...So while doing this why not count (verify) the kills?

To satisfy the idle whims of posters on discussion boards?

The political fallout from body counts published in the media in most western societies, certainly in the US, make the publication of such counts an invitation to trouble (LINK). Probably should not make any difference but it does. The counts are generally made, situation permitting -- it does not always do so -- but the stats aren't going to be published due to bad experience with such publication during Viet Nam. In fact, one US Division made a decision to publish their count (LINK) but that decision was overruled after some controversy about publishing the figures (LINK). There are advantages to counting and that's done, there are advantages and disadvantages to publishing the figures. The current US / NATO decision is to not publish them at least partly because many in NATO with troops in Afghanistan adopt the fiction there's no war there. You may disagree with that but I doubt ISAF much cares.

So, there are political reasons for not counting -- or, more correctly, for not reporting the count. If that wasn't reason enough, as you said on another thread:

Now what these tactics would be in each different theater I don't know but rather than just a raw body count the kill rate is even more important in my opinion.

(Detailed stats out of Rhodesia are difficult if not impossible to get.)

LINK.

So you acknowledge the issue is somewhat academic as the kill rate is more important (and I'd add that would have little benefit as published data for most civilians), that there are likely problems with the data but you still wish to make an issue of it? Sounds almost troll-like to me...

[William F. Owen]

Is this what you term operationally and politically sensitive?

• Have you ever heard the UK MOD saying they use body counts as an operational metric of success? Yes/No?
• Do you think the issue of body counts may be politically sensitive? Yes/No?
• IF, and ONLY IF - there were set body count procedures being used in Theatre - to inform intelligence estimates - do you think it would be politically sensitive? Yes/No?
• Would the converse be true?
• As estimating the enemy casualties is a intelligence activity, - and not one for public debate, do you understand why it may be operationally sensitive? Yes/No?

Then your comments re my contributions to SWJ, I treat them with the contempt they deserve. Your cheap attempts to silence me are the stuff of the playground bully.

You are responsible for your comments. I am in no way attempting to silence you. I, and perhaps a few others, am waiting for something of use or insight, instead of the variable content and baseless allegations to date.

Serious military men would never shy away from dealing with the "difficult" issues and would welcome the opportunity to talk through some of these issues in a forum such as this.

Well I submit I am pretty serious, but yet far less so than many more here. My track record of saying in public and publishing uncomfortable and unpalatable things about the British Army is pretty well charted.
I've made no friends saying that some aspects of infantry training/doctrine/equipment concepts suck - unlike your support for the DS solutions.

...and I think things are badly wrong in Afghanistan, and as I have said many time before, I think some really hard questions need to be asked.

Now given some thought, if anyone had any relevant expertise in irregular warfare, that they wanted to share it, it might be good if they started threads on general topics of concern - body counts, patrol operations, QRF procedures - that might help, instead of making a lot of baseless allegations about on-going operations of which they are poorly informed. Just an idea.

[Ken White]

Lets take a step back and look at this subject:

Excellent idea

I introduced it with the following:

"I often wonder what the ratio of kills between the two sides is? I know it has to be poor when it is classified."

That's an accusatory and inflammatory statement and an assumption on your part.

Then having to explain myself again I said:

"What I'm saying is if this ratio ISAF KIA / Taliban KIA were in any way reasonable it would be released."

Another inflammatory statement based on an assumption.

The MoD came up with the bizarre "There is also no reliable method to calculate the number of insurgents killed." to which I replied "why not just count the bodies"?

Boy did that open up a can of worms...

You opened the can and fed the worms with this:

It appears that for whatever "operational" reasons the contact area is not really/properly swept/searched/secured.

The reason for this and the actual number of Taliban casualties are being kept from the public.

Then I get the "I'll put this upstart in his place" speech from you.

I respond as follows:

* The Taliban know exactly how many casualties they are taking.
* The Taliban know exactly why some of the time/most of the time the Brits do not consolidate and sweep/search the contact area.

There is no OPEC issue here other than what the MoD wants to hide from the British people. This being what the actual Taliban casualties are.

Is this what you term operationally and politically sensitive?

That is all your opinion and you can say it -- however, you will receive curt answers due to your abrasive approach. You receive more generally polite responses from others than your posts sometimes merit. You may not be aware of that but several other posters have made comments on the board and you seem to ignore them.

Everyone needs to chill a bit or I'll lock this thread.

[JMA]

To satisfy the idle whims of posters on discussion boards?

The political fallout from body counts published in the media in most western societies, certainly in the US, make the publication of such counts an invitation to trouble (LINK). Probably should not make any difference but it does. The counts are generally made, situation permitting -- it does not always do so -- but the stats aren't going to be published due to bad experience with such publication during Viet Nam. In fact, one US Division made a decision to publish their count (LINK) but that decision was overruled after some controversy about publishing the figures (LINK). There are advantages to counting and that's done, there are advantages and disadvantages to publishing the figures. The current US / NATO decision is to not publish them at least partly because many in NATO with troops in Afghanistan adopt the fiction there's no war there. You may disagree with that but I doubt ISAF much cares.

As the man said “…when you stand with your legs astride a dead body, call me and tell me you killed one person.” and I would add "a dead body with a weapon".

But i guess the main problem I have with this is the lie that the enemy casualties can not be estimated. Why do the Brits try to lie their way out of a Freedom of Information Request? (Not only that but they are actually breaking their own law.)

The next point is that maybe all that is needed is good honest factual reporting. Is this concept so revolutionary? If you tell the truth nothing can come back and bite you in the... If people want the info let them request it via the Freedom of Information Act and then give it too them. What could be more subversive as asking for the enemy casualty figures, do I hear you ask?

What on earth has the 24 hr burial requirement got to do with anything? The sweep/clearance of the contact area takes place hours/minutes after the kills so what relevance has it?

It should be quite obvious that the truth of the matter is being shrouded by an all smoke and mirrors magician show which leaves one to think only of the worst.

And finally of course ISAF doesn't care. ISAF under its last boss didn't even care what the President thought. And just like their counterpart during the Vietnam war who swore by body counts by the spin of a coin they too may be wrong now in Afghanistan.

So, there are political reasons for not counting -- or, more correctly, for not reporting the count. If that wasn't reason enough, as you said on another thread:LINK.

I said the "kill rate" is even more important than mere enemy kills data. Nowhere have I said that body count was unimportant.

So you acknowledge the issue is somewhat academic as the kill rate is more important (and I'd add that would have little benefit as published data for most civilians), that there are likely problems with the data but you still wish to make an issue of it? Sounds almost troll-like to me...

Ken, rule number for moderators should be not to take cheap shots.

But the Rhodesian stats are only a problem because no one is really sure where all the info has ended up. Currently a lot of COMOPS and Army HQ stuff sent out to the UK is being scanned to be available to the UK public through the library system.

Everyday in SITREPS every contact and incident was recorded with all the relevant detail. Its out there some where in its entirety.

Lets say you deploy a company of troops on offensive ops for say 6 weeks and they kill nothing what does that tell you. Maybe a number of things. If your infanatry are not killing then you are wasting your time. They my point comes in that when you start killing to look towards the efficiency of that killing. That is kill rate = what percentage of those contacted are killed in that contact. We've been through this before: Brit SAS in Malaya 13%, average across all Rhodesian forces 18%, and RLI fire force at the height of the war 84%. Can you venture a guess as to why this stat may be significant?

From the other two stats (own force KIA and enemy KIA) you can simply calculate the kill ratio. Not critical information nor earth shattering unless that ratio is not very comforting. There can be no reason other than the worst possible news why the Brit MoD is deliberatelt floating the law in not complying with a Freedom of Information Act request. Or could there?

[Ken White]

But i guess the main problem I have with this is the lie that the enemy casualties can not be estimated. Why do the Brits try to lie their way out of a Freedom of Information Request? (Not only that but they are actually breaking their own law.)

Have no knowledge of or concern with British law, I'm not British. As to the estimate, it may be a lie, may not be -- it could be that some PR flack misspoke, could be that it's a cover for the real policy. Hard to say. The answers to many of your questions are hazy as I'm sure you know and while those answers are important to the people actually concerned they become of merely academic interest to people on discussion board that are not going to change the policies of any government.

What could be more subversive as asking for the enemy casualty figures, do I hear you ask?

No, you do not hear me ask. It's not subversive but it also has little relevance to most people so one could assume that anyone with no vested interest who made an issue of it had some arcane point to make.

What on earth has the 24 hr burial requirement got to do with anything...so what relevance has it?

Depends on the action, immediate sweeps cannot always be conducted and later assessments of air strikes or artillery are often at the outer limit of that time. Plus there's the fact that the Talibs -- most area forces -- collect bodies and casualties and haul them off if possible specifically to deny the count for several reasons, not least so they can downplay there casualties while inflating ANA / ANP and coalition casualties in their videos and on their web sites.

... which leaves one to think only of the worst.

Depends on ones inclination, I believe. You can do that it you wish and you obviously do.

Nowhere have I said that body count was unimportant.

Nor did I say you had done so.

Ken, rule number for moderators should be not to take cheap shots.

If you'll check my responses to you over the past few months, you'll see the majority are civil. Not warm but civil. I have told you on a couple of occasions that you are pushing things with your attitude and idle harassment. That comment you quoted was not what you apparently think it was.

Sorry you think it a cheap shot -- I very much disagree and think it an accurate assessment. It was not a cheap shot -- it was a warning.

Either way, it will not deter me as a Moderator from reacting to your tendency to be deliberately abrasive all too often, to make assertions that make adverse implications and to employ innuendo for whatever purpose you deem to be that critical.

...RLI fire force at the height of the war 84%. Can you venture a guess as to why this stat may be significant?

Don't need to guess, I know. It was important to you because you were there, it was important to Rhodesia due to the relative numbers on both sides and it is important as a statistic because it applies to one war in one nation at one time. Can Fire Force tactics be replicated in, say, Afghanistan today? No. Therefor it may be important but it is also irrelevant to this thread except as a point scoring rhetorical trick.

You make valid points and you -- and many of us -- have valid complaints about governmental and senior leader failures. No doubt error and failures occur daily. Comments about those are welcome, hopefully they will be civil comments and not accusations disguised a 'opinions' with no discernible basis of whatever malfeasance they might indicate.

However, you generally refuse to accept the political constraints that both we and the British are forced to accommodate, you constantly ask others to do research which you could do yourself, you make continual accusations and you are quite adept at pushing the envelope on civility. You attempt to be deliberately provocative, perhaps to foster discussion, but you appear to several here to overdo that. If you're smart enough to do that, you're smart enough to not do it to score your many cheap shots IMO on a recurring basis.

Do not misunderstand that sentence above. It is not a cheap shot at you -- It is a warning to clean up your act, keep the snide comments to a minimum, avoid making sweeping allegations based on your opinions as opposed to facts and behave with a little more civility.

You've proven quite capable of making informed sensible and civil comment, I hope you continue to do so

[JMA]

Thanks for those kind words Ken, I'll take them under advisement