What is presence patrolling?

[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.

[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.

[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.