150+ British troops dead in Iraq since 2003?

Question

Please could someone help me with this information as I know nothing of military tactics, war or fighting.

How come only 150 have been killed in four years- isn't that just over 30 a year? Like I said I am no expert but surely 30-40 dead a year is next to nothing for an ongoing conflict? I realise we are fighting guerrillas as opposed to a standing army, and therefore enemy weapons and ammunition will be limited compared to those of the UK/US, but even with this taken in to account, why the small numbers of casualties...for example; what was the equivalent number of British war dead during the Troubles, in a 4 year period (for all I know it might be even lower)?

Please help me understand this. I am in no way being deliberately disrespectful to Allied troops and of course do not condone a single death, let alone 150, but I am neither pro-, nor anti-, the current war in Iraq as I don't know enough to form an opinion. I'd just like to know the answer to the above query.

Thanks!

Answer 1

Sigh, man I'm tired do I'll try to answer this quick. Respectfully, sir, I'm going to suggest you ignore the answers the above. I skimmed though them and frankly, these folks haven’t been doing their homework. (Sorry, but it's true.) Skill, fire power, tactics, and Northern Ireland have nothing to do with the low death rates among death British soldiers. The reason is the PLACEMENT of the British in Iraq. All British troops are stationed in Southern Iraq, in territory which is basically 100% Shite. And the Shites like the new government in Iraq because they're in control so they don't attack the British. The Americans on the other hand have control of all the ethical strife areas, where the Sunni and Shite are mixed and trying to kill one another and the areas of the Sunnis, which are much more prone to attack and kill due to their lack of power in the Iraqi government and AL Quada is a Sunni-only terrorist group, so wouldn't it be hard for them hide and attack from the 100% Shite areas in Iraq under British control :)? I personally suspect however, the British were deliberately placed in Southern Iraq at the start of the occupation to keep their casualties low because if they got too high the British public wouldn’t stomach it and would lead to a embarrassing political situation ending with either Britain ditching its ally and withdrawing troops or the prime minister getting his butt kicked by the people more than it is now.

Answer 2

first you should renumerate it into the deployment ratio. it means that ..blahblah 0,5.. percent of soldiers deployed are KIA
otherwise death of 150 men of the 150 men-sized asset would be a disaster.

the total casualties in the Iraq are showing once again that war may be won by tactics, but it may be lost by politics and/or public meaning.
anyway 30 men a year is pretty low ratio even for the couterinsurgency mission. present in-theatre British troops are said to be 5000.
sadly the glory of those fallen can not be easily measured in terms of gained land, or whatever the direct result of war would be, but only in fragile and untouchable terms like stability, trust, peace.

Answer 3

Amazing aint it
I've seen estimations saying for each of the Coalition deaths there are ten insurgant deaths
I chalk it up to superior training and standoff capability, in the end Coalition forces can go back to a relatively "safe" base, there's nowhere in Iraq for insurgants to hide
Though it is significant to say that there are a lot less Brits than Americans, and they traditionally serve in a secondary role. Like when the Spanish were here, I don't see why terrorists were so eager to get them out of Iraq, they had a very minor role

Answer 4

The reason is that the war is not the meat grinder of death that people would have you believe. The war is very low intensity, and most troops have less than one tenth of a percent chance of being injured. You have ten times less of a chance of dying.

It also doesn't hurt that many of the real bad places are left to the US.

Answer 5

Well consider this--America has lost much, much more in human life than the British ever will. We have more maimed than the British.

Also consider this--Britian (I believe) is pulling troops out of Iraq while the U.S. is putting more in.

I'm not putting down human life either. I don't like the idea of any country having their people die in a war that is being fought for nothing more than control of the oil in another country.

Answer 6

maybe nothing to you 30 to 40 a year but you tell they mums and dads its nothing..... plus we the British have a smaller amount of troops in IRAQ only about 5500 were the USA has so many more so its more likely for a member of the USA army to be killed... that's why the USA has lost 3500 dead in IRAQ....

but bring our lads home and let the USA fight its fights by itself...

Answer 7

since OIF is mostly a US led operation, its gonna be mostly US forces on the ground. then there are the brits that said theyd go in with us. just with a smaller force. its just like the japs and koreans, the aussies, and all these other countries that joined in to help, or gain a potential assest from with iraq. but alot of the brits are located in southern iraq which is fairly peaceful. but whatever.

Answer 8

150 is what % of total deployed over the last 4 years.

what % of the Americans have been killed?

location of troops hahs lots to do with the death toll also.

Answer 9

Britain has experience in N.Ireland etc and has adapted to urban warfare, America has not. This is really an American war, this is why the insurgents are possibly aiming to attack the US troops

Answer 10

its 158 as of today...i would have to say the UK has less troops therefore less casualties, they are not involved where fighting is or was the heaviest, they have different roles than the US forces , for the amount of UK troops out their, the casualties are on track " to say"