Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
but those comparisons seem like apples and oranges to me. IRA snipers were in a good position to kill with precision whereas Taliban IEDs are in a good position to bring about loss of limb and sight and to cause brain damage via their shock waves. And I would assume that the length of the ISAF engagement has resulted in improvement of infrastructure and routinization conducive to a level of response not possible over the much shorter course of the Falklands War.

It would be interesting to see a well-designed study investigating some of these issues. Does anyone know if there has been such an effort?
IRA snipers are mostly a misnomer, most shoots were at relatively close range. By far the most dangerous weapon in NI was the IED from the 1980s onwards.

What has significantly improved survival rates in Afghanistan is the amount of protection afforded to the individual (body armour) and significantly improved treatment capabilities at every stage of the process. Units deploying to Afghanistan aim to have at least 1 in 2 (and preferably everyone) personnel trained as a team medic. Every patrol is accompagnied by a combat medical technician (mostly of paramedic grade) and in the event of a casualty our MEDEVAC and CASEVAC capabilities are significant. On arrival at hospital they are into one of the best truama centres in the world and from there can be dispatched to the best centre to cope with their particular injuries.

In the Falklands our tolerance of risk was much greater, so less body armour and while the medical chain was world class for its time it was nothing like what we have now.

The situation in AFG is very much more like that in N Ireland in terms of the development of medical TTPs and capabilities and attitude towards risk.