In the most dangerous regions of the country, the casualty rate is approaching 10 per cent. Senior officers fear it will ultimately pass the 11 per cent.
More than 11 million troops served in the British Commonwealth during the Second World War with 580,000 killed or missing and 475,000 wounded, giving a casualty rate of almost 11 per cent.
More than 11 million troops served in the British Commonwealth during the Second World War with 580,000 killed or missing and 475,000 wounded, giving a casualty rate of almost 11 per cent.
THE EXPECTED LENGTH OF THIS ENGAGEMENT:
Canadian Senate Report: Afghanistan
Chris Alexander, when he was Canada’s Ambassador to Afghanistan said that it would take 5 generations of effort to make a difference.
Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, currently Commander of Land Forces said on a number of occasions, that the mission would take two decades to complete.
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
The rate at which British soldiers are being seriously injured or killed on the front line in Afghanistan is about to pass that suffered by our troops during the Second World War.
In the most dangerous regions of the country, the casualty rate is approaching 10 per cent. Senior officers fear it will ultimately pass the 11 per cent experienced by British soldiers at the height of the war 60 years ago.
The official injury rate given by the Ministry of Defence among the 7,000 British troops in Afghanistan is about three per cent. But when the figures are applied to the three infantry battalions on the front line, it rises to almost 10 per cent.
The rise is partly driven by a tenfold increase in the number of wounded in action - those injured, but not killed - in the past six months as fighting in Afghanistan has intensified.
Last November, only three British soldiers were wounded in Afghanistan by the Taliban, compared with 38 in May.
The disclosure follows concern that the MoD's official figures do not accurately reflect the true injury rate in the way the US figures do.
They do not take into account, for example, soldiers treated on the front line.
Last autumn, Major John Swift, who was commanding a company of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in Afghanistan, complained in the regiment's newsletter that the "scale of casualties has not been properly reported".
However, the MoD said last night the casualty rate in Afghanistan included non-combat related injuries, such as diseases.
The three infantry battalions fighting in Afghanistan have seen the brunt of the action and suffered the most.
Out of a well-manned battalion of 650 men, the 1st Bn the Royal Anglians has in the first three months of its tour suffered 42 casualties, who were sent back to Britain.
This has included three dead and three who returned to the front line. But 36 soldiers remain in hospital and are unlikely to return to combat operations.
With more fighting expected during the summer, officers are bracing themselves for the figure to double in the last three months of their tour, meaning that the battalion could be without an entire combat company.
It will also mean that the infantry could exceed the Second World War casualty rate of 11 per cent experienced at the height of the conflict. The Anglians, nicknamed the Vikings, have also sustained a number of minor casualties treated on the front line, which are not included in official MoD statistics.
The other two infantry regiments, the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters and Grenadier Guards have been involved in heavy fighting suffering similar casualties.
The majority of the wounded are much needed front-line soldiers, experienced in fighting the Taliban. The battalions are relying on soldiers coming straight from basic training to the front line as soon as they turn 18.
At least 30 will deploy to the Anglians in Helmand in the next two months, but this will not be enough to replace those being lost.
Military commanders are now worried about the dangers raised by a high casualty rate.
"There are two issues," said an officer who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Firstly, there is the morale component with teams being broken up when individuals are shipped home.
Secondly, there is a reduction in available troops where if you lose 70-odd soldiers with two months of the tour remaining then this will have a real effect on our ability to conduct operations."
The Ministry of Defence said it was "nonsense" to suggest that casualty rates in Afghanistan were "anywhere near those suffered in the Second World War".
More than 11 million troops served in the British Commonwealth during the Second World War with 580,000 killed or missing and 475,000 wounded, giving a casualty rate of almost 11 per cent.
Canadian Senate Report: Afghanistan
Chris Alexander, when he was Canada’s Ambassador to Afghanistan said that it would take 5 generations of effort to make a difference.
Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, currently Commander of Land Forces said on a number of occasions, that the mission would take two decades to complete.
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
The rate at which British soldiers are being seriously injured or killed on the front line in Afghanistan is about to pass that suffered by our troops during the Second World War.
In the most dangerous regions of the country, the casualty rate is approaching 10 per cent. Senior officers fear it will ultimately pass the 11 per cent experienced by British soldiers at the height of the war 60 years ago.
The official injury rate given by the Ministry of Defence among the 7,000 British troops in Afghanistan is about three per cent. But when the figures are applied to the three infantry battalions on the front line, it rises to almost 10 per cent.
The rise is partly driven by a tenfold increase in the number of wounded in action - those injured, but not killed - in the past six months as fighting in Afghanistan has intensified.
Last November, only three British soldiers were wounded in Afghanistan by the Taliban, compared with 38 in May.
The disclosure follows concern that the MoD's official figures do not accurately reflect the true injury rate in the way the US figures do.
They do not take into account, for example, soldiers treated on the front line.
Last autumn, Major John Swift, who was commanding a company of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in Afghanistan, complained in the regiment's newsletter that the "scale of casualties has not been properly reported".
However, the MoD said last night the casualty rate in Afghanistan included non-combat related injuries, such as diseases.
The three infantry battalions fighting in Afghanistan have seen the brunt of the action and suffered the most.
Out of a well-manned battalion of 650 men, the 1st Bn the Royal Anglians has in the first three months of its tour suffered 42 casualties, who were sent back to Britain.
This has included three dead and three who returned to the front line. But 36 soldiers remain in hospital and are unlikely to return to combat operations.
With more fighting expected during the summer, officers are bracing themselves for the figure to double in the last three months of their tour, meaning that the battalion could be without an entire combat company.
It will also mean that the infantry could exceed the Second World War casualty rate of 11 per cent experienced at the height of the conflict. The Anglians, nicknamed the Vikings, have also sustained a number of minor casualties treated on the front line, which are not included in official MoD statistics.
The other two infantry regiments, the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters and Grenadier Guards have been involved in heavy fighting suffering similar casualties.
The majority of the wounded are much needed front-line soldiers, experienced in fighting the Taliban. The battalions are relying on soldiers coming straight from basic training to the front line as soon as they turn 18.
At least 30 will deploy to the Anglians in Helmand in the next two months, but this will not be enough to replace those being lost.
Military commanders are now worried about the dangers raised by a high casualty rate.
"There are two issues," said an officer who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Firstly, there is the morale component with teams being broken up when individuals are shipped home.
Secondly, there is a reduction in available troops where if you lose 70-odd soldiers with two months of the tour remaining then this will have a real effect on our ability to conduct operations."
The Ministry of Defence said it was "nonsense" to suggest that casualty rates in Afghanistan were "anywhere near those suffered in the Second World War".
More than 11 million troops served in the British Commonwealth during the Second World War with 580,000 killed or missing and 475,000 wounded, giving a casualty rate of almost 11 per cent.
Homepage:
