Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 73

Thread: Body Counts and Metrics

  1. #41
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Here are some more suggestions for metrics...

    - Number of destroyed buildings; this correlates well with victory in Germany in WWII

    - Number of resettlement camps built - didn't that work in the Philippines or Malaysia?

    - Number of US forces on the ground- after all, a surge of forces in Iraq was followed by an abrupt change in the situation.

    So long as we ignore the unique challenges of the specific mission, dreaming up easy answers is effortless. I still say my touchdown metric is the best, however.

  2. #42
    Council Member Red Leg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ft Leavenworth
    Posts
    11

    Default Info vs Important Info

    Answering "why that guy left" allows us to exploit success. One of the dangers of EBO, is that Commanders get hung up on "the end justifies the means" without determining which mean (MOP) caused the end (MOE). IMO, the reliance on "measurables", enabled by the ability to generate and transmit massive amounts of data, has ground both planners and the executers to a halt. I returned from my second tour in Iraq a few months ago. Both as a commander and an operations officer, I was required to measure and submit over 200 metrics each month. There was no way, practically or tactically, to do this with accuracy, but not answering the mail was not an option. So you estimate, guesstimate, and sometimes just guess what the numbers are. The smart commander, and his supporting staff, asks not "what do you know?", but "what do I need to know?" It is not about information; it is about important information. That data that leads to a decision point. Don’t ask "how many insurgents quit last month?"; ask "why did insurgents quit last month?"
    "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple"
    - Oscar Wilde

  3. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    So long as we ignore the unique challenges of the specific mission, dreaming up easy answers is effortless. I still say my touchdown metric is the best, however.
    Why stop with football?

    CENTCOM is 4 under par... but ISAF just shot a boogey...

    The war on terror is in the second inning...

    I can just imaging Gen. McChrystal running wildly the room, stripping his shirt off while his staff cheers "GOAL!!!!"

  4. #44
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Leg View Post
    Answering "why that guy left" allows us to exploit success.
    Excellent point. Hadn't thought of that! Why is more important that how? Like it!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  5. #45
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fergieis View Post

    Do we utimately care how that guy leaves the enemy's force pool, only that he does?
    Yes, I believe it does because the Military Aim is to disarm him in order to get to the Final Political Aim of making peace........the original purpose of War in the first place. If you don't make peace than as St. Carl said War may just erupt again.

  6. #46
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post

    You may very well bring this about through physical action eliminating the armed. Could also get there by taking away the arms, or even finding ways to suppress the effectiveness of said arms. Last but not necessarily least the armed might decide it is no longer in their interest to be armed or come to feel the need for them is gone.
    Exactly!!! it should all lead to Peace!!!

  7. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Yes, I believe it does because the Military Aim is to disarm him in order to get to the Final Political Aim of making peace........the original purpose of War in the first place. If you don't make peace than as St. Carl said War may just erupt again.
    I don't disagree on the goal of seeking peace, but rather that the military aim is to disarm.

    Is the state of peace simply the absence of conflict? Or does peace come when the involved parties submit to the will of the victor?

    I would say the latter, as it prevents a powderkeg of a population that has the will to fight but no longer the means. The man without a gun who still wants to fight will peaceably submit while looking for another weapon. The converse, an armed man who means no more harm, is a non-issue.

    I would even go further and say that a man who is disarmed, but not *defeated*, still has not been taken out of the opposing force's available strength. He can still support the conflict without arms, or await a new weapon. While disarming efforts can prevent access of those who wish to fight the means to do so, it will not solve the root problem(s).

    It is only through the imposition of one's will on another, with recognition of and submission to the victor, that you get peace rather than mere absence of conflict. It sounds worse (as in: might makes right) than it is. You can convince intellectually or emotively through words rather than high explosives, try to change to conditions that make a man want to fight, try to provide other avenues for political enfranchisement, provide jobs that co-op the mercenary attitudes of citizens looking for money, etc...

    Ultimately though, you have to remove the man's will to fight.

    Otherwise, as von Clauswitz notes, you'll be back at war- which kind of voids the assertion you were ever at peace.


    I do really agree with the point by Redleg that:
    Answering "why that guy left" allows us to exploit success.
    But considering we can't effectively count them in the first place, I doubt we can make a quantitative assessment of impact, much less be able to sort out which program impacted an identified change. Errors of false precision are the most common logical fallacy I encounter.

    My opposition to all the 'metrics' is not theoretical, but practical. Practical objections that probably would not hold on a conventional battlefield, due to a higher likely fidelity of information; though the other points still hold. Surrender-defeat-destruction, all remove enemy combat power. Tracking how to most effectively remove combat power, when feasible, is just common sense. The rest of the time you're just spinning your wheels.

  8. #48
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fergieis View Post

    The man without a gun who still wants to fight will peaceably submit while looking for another weapon.
    And why would this man still want to fight? Because the the will you imposed is such a bad peace he would rather risk death then submit. That is why I think it is better to disarm and then reach a peace that both sides can live with instead one trying to impose their will..... which will sooner or later just lead to another war.

  9. #49
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Fort Leonard Wood
    Posts
    98

    Default braveheart

    or he is wee lil william wallace chunking rocks at sheeps heads because Real Scotsmen, Afghani's, Alabamians are warriors to the core of their culture.
    People in general are interested in self preservation and promotion so "peace" is attained when it is in their interest specifically security of person and property.

  10. #50
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    My favorite example of metrics. If we can just address the pirates, then we'll know we're winning...



    Metrics = easy answers

  11. #51
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Fort Leonard Wood
    Posts
    98

    Default Waterworld

    Waterworld is a much better movie now that i have your chart Scmed...nah its still crap.

    I still maintain that some people just like to fight. What say you gungrabbers?

    Maybe a directing the will to fight would be easier than destroying/incapacitating the will to fight?
    Last edited by OfTheTroops; 02-27-2010 at 05:40 AM. Reason: add

  12. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    9

    Default


    http://xkcd.com/687/

    Same point as the Pirates picture.

    Correlation doesn't imply a cause-effect relationship (though often it does point you in the right direction)

  13. #53
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    58

    Default Body Count

    As a metric, it is of questionable value. However, it is important to instill the concept of BDA and verification. As a commander in Zabul, I half-jokingly would say, "Its not a TIC if you ain't got the body." You lay scunion on an AO, you better be willing to hump up that hill and verify what you did. A number of wins to this approach.
    1. An aggressive, manuevering force will quickly break and scatter the enemy. If you are passive, the TB is more aggressive and capable. Simply put, closing in is safer.
    2. If you own the ground and the bodies, you control the IO (or STRATCOM) high ground as well. Can't claim its a farmer when you got the pics to prove it isn't.
    3. If you #### up, you can mitigate. TB initiated an ambush on my forces with a 10 year old goat herder in between. WE shot the boy. We humped the 600M up hill to close with the enemy and found the boy who took 2 7.62 (one to the head). We medevac'd and treated the boy and held a Shura 2 days later explaining our actions, apologizing and showing the elders how the TB were responsible. As a TB rep was at the Shura, it was pretty funny watching him lose his cool. The boy lost an eye but otherwise recovered. The boy's father was actually very grateful that instead of leaving him to die and driving away, we "fought like pashtoons" on foot. What could have been an IO disastor became an IO victory.
    4. Pashtoon society respects bravery. While we know the scariest part of AFG is driving around waiting for IEDs, they see this as cowardice. Fighting on foot is what they respect and, for the babas, differentiates us from the Soviets, which is critical.
    5. Body snatching while macabre, hurts TB recuiting. After we claim a body, we give it to the ANP. The local TB family has to go and grovel for their son's body which is humiliating for an elder. Instead of dying a great martyr and being buried by the TB at the site of the great battle, they are buried days later, after the family made cash payments to the Police and not on the battlefield. Knowing that if they die, instead of being a hero, they embarass their family has great effect on TB. Not to mention the fact that americans in body armor (with ANP) are going to climb up hills and kill you is scary. Combine that with Apaches and ISR and its down right terrifying to be a TB.
    6. Body in hand allows you to BAT/HIIDE and verify who you killed. Also get their cell phones/ICOMs which can be exploited. You can verify their logistics status by seeing how well the bodies were supplied.
    7. Free motorcylces!

    YMMV.
    Last edited by Sylvan; 03-28-2010 at 06:36 PM. Reason: because I am an idiot who types to fast.

  14. #54
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    45

    Default

    This may be oversimplified, so I apologize in advance...

    Is a "body count" not effective in some areas, and bad in others?

    If I was fighting a German panzer division, the more kills the better.

    if I was fighting a population that hold grudges over generations and generations... I would be weary of killing more than I would need to. If i was to kill an uncle, and have 5 Nephews stand up to avenge him, I would need to start killing at a rate that exceeds the possible pop ups...

    Anyone remember "space invaders"? You shoot the little widgets as fast as you can... but at some stage there are just too many, they are too fast... and getting more and more....

    Like I said, over simplified, but I am a simple mind... :-)
    Last edited by Seabee; 03-29-2010 at 11:20 AM.

  15. #55
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    A basic rule of thumb is that when you are fighting your own populace (COIN); or assisting another country fight their own populace (FID); you really need to keep the killing to a minimum and focus on addressing the issues of poor governance that set that segment of the populace onto a separate course.

    If you are fighting another state, even if the state used to be part of your state (as in the American Civil war), then it is game on and you are competing for state survival. In states with empowered populaces you have to be pretty hard on them to ensure that the entire populace, not just the military, understands that it has been defeated.

    In COIN you are not fighting for state survivial, it is often really just an "illegal violent election" in a country that denies effective, legal processes to at least the insurgent segment, if not the entire populace. In COIN you are typically fighting to preserve a particular team or type of governance; but the state continues on as a sovereign under new management if the insurgent prevails. You will all still need to get along, win or lose, to be an effective state.

    This is why I think it is more helpful to think of insurgency as a "civil emergency" rather than as "war," and military intervention as "Military Support to Civil Authorities" rather than as "warfare" to help set the proper mindset for the military. Call it a war and they will fight it like a war.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 03-29-2010 at 12:18 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  16. #56
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seabee View Post
    This may be oversimplified, so I apologize in advance...

    Is a "body count" not effective in some areas, and bad in others?

    If I was fighting a German panzer division, the more kills the better.

    if I was fighting a population that hold grudges over generations and generations... I would be weary of killing more than I would need to. If i was to kill an uncle, and have 5 Nephews stand up to avenge him, I would need to start killing at a rate that exceeds the possible pop ups...

    Anyone remember "space invaders"? You shoot the little widgets as fast as you can... but at some stage there are just too many, they are too fast... and getting more and more....

    Like I said, over simplified, but I am a simple mind... :-)
    Metrics are hard to come by in COIN.
    A better metric in fighting a german panzer division is how many guidons you captured as that indicates units taken out of action. An insurgancy doesn't have units in the traditional sense. You can have fuzzy metrics such as atmospherics, but hyper Type-As don't do fuzzy. Dead bad guys is about the only true quantifiable that you can use that is of any (albiet very limited) value. Its hard to get away from. Even the messiah (peace be upon him) has found his administration crowing about how he has killed more bad guys then Bush has.
    You really want to go down that road?
    BTW, killing bad guys is an integral, important part of COIN, but basing success or failure on the numbers is stupid.

  17. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I started this because I hate to see another useful area of discussion die in the "Journal."
    See here.
    Sorry, but Body Counts work. That the it has been done it badly in the past by those cannot use the data usefully, does not mean it does not work.
    We have to get over rejecting things just because they fail in the hands of people not skilled in their use.

    Should it be THE measure of success? No, of course not, but most armies who defeated irregular forces used body counts. They were used in Kenya, Malaya (see my quote), Dohfar and Cyprus - and also Rhodesia!
    Historically best practice body counts were based on recorded kills, verified by physical control and recovery of the body AND Weapons - usually for some form of exploitation.

    The point is, you do not pursue a score as in judging success by the number you kill, but that you are sure that you are actually killing the enemy, when and as it is required. - that is why Templer used Body Counts, and British Army operations were predicated on "killing the enemy."

    Do something well it works. Do it badly and it fails.
    In Rhodesia the RLI Fire Forces could not kill them fast enough, the cannon-fodder kept on coming. It was nice to know we were getting around 100 kills every six weeks (near then end) but what was the point if that made hardly a dent in their numbers.

    I do however like these kind of stats. In nine years in Malaya the Brit SAS kill 108 CTs out of an estimated 800 contacted in 280 contacts giving a kill rate of 13.5%. And a rate of a contact where kills were achieved at less than 38%.

    From these stats the Brits would have (I'm sure... I hope) tried to figure out how to one, achieve kills in every contact, and two, to increase the kill rate per contact. On the other hand the CTs were probably figuring out the
    opposite.

    Through Fire Force in Rhodesia one of the RLI Commandos (with the Air effort obviously) accounted for 1,680 kills out of an estimated 2,000 contacted in a nine month period. This was an unprecedented kill rate of 84% while the average Rhodesian security force kill rate in contacts was 18.5%

    Surely the aim is to not let the enemy become battle hardened and combat experienced? The best tactics therefore must be those that achieve the highest kill rate, yes?

    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.)

  18. #58
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    In Rhodesia the RLI Fire Forces could not kill them fast enough, the cannon-fodder kept on coming. It was nice to know we were getting around 100 kills every six weeks (near then end) but what was the point if that made hardly a dent in their numbers.
    Externals and internal kills had a significant effect on the Terrs. There only option was for a Libyan/Sino backed invasion, probably some time in 1982. That was why Lancaster House got up and running. The Rhodesians in some way still represent the COIN gold standard. Kill the enemy. All else is rubbish.
    I do however like these kind of stats. In nine years in Malaya the Brit SAS kill 108 CTs out of an estimated 800 contacted in 280 contacts giving a kill rate of 13.5%. And a rate of a contact where kills were achieved at less than 38%.

    From these stats the Brits would have (I'm sure... I hope) tried to figure out how to one, achieve kills in every contact, and two, to increase the kill rate per contact. On the other hand the CTs were probably figuring out the
    opposite.
    See the bottom of all my posts.

    Surely the aim is to not let the enemy become battle hardened and combat experienced? The best tactics therefore must be those that achieve the highest kill rate, yes?
    You are correct, but the US and UK Army do not want to focus on killing the enemy. Currently we are badly loosing our way.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  19. #59
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Improving the kill ratio: an armchair comment

    The latest posts by JMA & Wilf on kill ratios in ambushes and "sweeps" refer to the military search for simply being better. I am sure this issue has appeared on SWC before, although not so directly IMHO.

    I am sure that some scientific research and output was present in Rhodesia and other earlier conflicts, notably WW2, on improving the kill (accuracy) ratio. There is one current thread that comes to mind: Increasing Small Arms lethality in Afg http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=9942
    davidbfpo

  20. #60
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    You are correct, but the US and UK Army do not want to focus on killing the enemy. Currently we are badly loosing our way.
    Greater efforts for more kills would probably not yield much more kills anyway in the medium term. The TB would necessarily react with less exposure, using their elusiveness.

    The greatest advantage of going for more kills on the defence would probably be that there would be less TB attacks (because attacks would become more risky).

    Going for more kills on the offense doesn't promise a similar effect. The TB would probably improve their opsec and hide better, but their vulnerability to their foe's offensive actions couldn't be reduced by less offensive actions on their own, so there would be no motivation to change the latter.

    Defensive and counter-offensive (counterattacks by convoy escorts and such) lethality should probably be improved.

    A general increase in conflict intensity could not be sustained, though. The attempt to do it might turn out to be a double-edged sword.


    Always keep in mind that the world is full of counter-forces.



    edit: I write with ISAF in mind. ISAF's mission is to keep guarding until Afghan national forces take over. I've yet to see "victory against insurgents" in any of its mission statements or in relevant UN resolutions. I don't think that exterminating an insurgency is necessary or even advisable in such a context. Keeping the insurgency low and the ground fertile for a Kabul government takeover should be the mission. For example, I don't consider the Basra story/mission a disaster. It turned out well and the death & destruction up to that point wasn't as bad as it could have been.
    Just guard a little longer and let them hurry up with their forces buildup and stabilisation of the state.
    Last edited by Fuchs; 03-30-2010 at 11:47 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. How to Measure Insurgencies
    By SWJED in forum Catch-All, Military Art & Science
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 01:00 PM
  2. Will the Trigger-Puller shift mission?
    By Abu Suleyman in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-13-2007, 03:53 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •