Why are there so many insurgent deaths compared to coalition force deaths after a ground battle?

Question

aside from air power

do they not know how to aim? do they have inferior tactics? crappy weapons? what tactics do they use that a coalition soldier would not use?

and i know the soldiers are the best in the world. however i'm just wondering of some technical examples.

Answer 1

American and British troops are better trained, better lead, and better equipped. Since the Iraqi troops that are performing well were trained by us, they too are better.
The main and most relevant fact is because we're winning.

Answer 2

Well everyone has answered the question pretty well,but the thing is,the insurgents are doing a better job then Saddam's military ever could,though the insurgents have inferior weapons and no air power,and they are getting beaten badly,they are able to put up a better fight then Saddam's conventional force.In the initial invasion,7,800 troops in the Iraqi Army perished while U.S. casualties were in the hundreds.Guerrilla tac tics obviosly works better then getting a bunch of old equipment and coming to attack in a high density formation against a superior force.

However since the insurgency started,now the Coalition death (not including the New Iraqi Army) is 4,164,and the insurgents killed numbers at 19,000.Casualties in the Iraqi police and Iraqi New Army are over 7,000 (due to inferior training and more combat roles).

The places the Coalition death at 4,164 compared to 19,000 insurgents and 7,800 Iraqi Old Army deaths.

4,164:26,800

Total deaths including New Iraqi security forces
who also played a major role in insurgent deaths:

11,564:26,800

So basically the enemy's casualty is twice that of the allys.
Though its an impressive figure,the Gulf War went a lot smoother,why? Simply because that was a conventional war,when tanks come and blow each other to smitherines.

358 killed with Coalition forces
30,000 Iraqi combatants

358:30,000

In the current Iraq War,when Saddam's military was being crippled,this was the casualty of Coalition forces,and Saddam's Army:

180:7,800

So obviosly the ratio of enemies killed to Coalition forces killed was better before the insurgents arrived.

So the Gulf War went a lot better,because it was a conventional fight,the war against a state,not against a non state entity,when a war is against a state,you cripple the army and drop a nuke if nothing works,however for non state entities,one can't say "drop the nuke".

Answer 3

TRAINING
TACTICS
DISCIPLINE

Most of these insurgents are mere civilians who were aimed and sent out into battle.Very few have any training at all and know nothing of military tactics.Usually when the bullets start flying at them they break and run.They don't have the discipline training to fight it through and carry on.
Their weapons are also second generation leftovers and they were not trained to use or maintain them.Just a simple point and shoot approach .But that does not make them any less dangerous.Some out side training has been shown to them on bomb making (IEDs) and some sniping weapons.
Still they are far inferior to our troops in the field and our state of the art weapons systems.They are simply routed at every turn and destroyed.
It seems their only motivation in battle is their religious fervor and will to die for what ever their cause.They waste their soldiers in in ridiculous raids that kill their own people and civilians alike.The kill ratio is a joke when they go against our forces,but they seem to have a steady supply of martyrs.

Answer 4

There are many reasons. First, their training--if they have any--does not compare to the training of an experienced American soldier or Marine. No army in the world can stand toe-to-toe against the American military, because of its training and its technology. Their weapons are hand-me-down old Russian technology that has far worse accuracy or punch compared to American counterparts, especially taking into account the training behind Americans using that technology. That's why the insurgents generally try to avoid toe-to-toe ground battles against U.S. troops--they slink around and use underhanded tactics, more politely referred to as "assymetrical warfare". Lobbing mortars from pickup trucks in the middle of residential neighborhoods at a nearby U.S. base then driving away, so that if we launch any counterbattery we risk hitting a residential area and taking the blame for it. (They do the same with rockets). Setting IED's in the road and indiscriminately blowing up any passersby, Iraqi or American, or deliberately trying to observe American movements to launch more targeted attacks. Suicide bombers, either on foot or worse, in a vehicle, at any crowded target they can reach... these are the kinds of thugs and killers some people back home in our country want to abandon the Iraqi people to. Insurgents are NOT a legitimate homegrown force; they have far too much support from outside influences to be considered thus. Any veteran of this war would tell you the same--and would tell you to stop believing the way this war is portrayed on TV.

Answer 5

Yes, American soldiers are very well trained, while insurgents are more likely to be enthusiastic amatures, and that does have an effect on the 'kill' ratio.

But there are other factors. Soldiers wear body armor, which can make a lethal wound into a 'merely' life-threatening one. They are promptly evacuated and recieve life-saving medical care. So, even if insurgents and soldiers are shooting eachother with comparable degrees of accuracy, more insurgents are going to die of thier wounds than soldiers.

And, yes, at least some insurgents are martyrdom-seaking fanatics who would not be inclined to use tactics meant to maximize thier chance of survival...

Answer 6

The insurgents are for the most part disorganized and poorly equipped. In a pitched battle, they will lose many more than the coalition, even without considering air power. The insurgents are most effective when operating singly, or in pairs, and seldom do they dare present themselves for open combat.

Answer 7

Well, insurgents don't have body armor, nor can they call in airstrikes.

An insurgent can't make a stand. If you are shooting at the US army for any length of time, an APC or tank will show up, and demolish your sanctuary. The only advantage they have is an ambush. If they ever give pitched battle, US military forces will annihilate them.

Answer 8

MA #a million grasp Of Puppets - Metallica #2 Rust In Peace - Megadeth #3 Seasons in the Abyss - Slayer #4 Chaos advert - Sepultra MA2 Battery Hanger 18 war Ensemble Refuse/withstand BA: Yeah I hate it, inspite of the reality that Imo, Reign In Blood is sweet among the suited steel riffs ever written so there We disagree, lol. BA2: trip The Lightning - Metallica grasp Of Puppets - Metallica Rust In Peace - Megadeth administration And Resistance - Watchtower

Answer 9

1) Our troops are well trained in combat, theirs aren't (don't mistake here, they are VERY well trained at insurgent tactics)

2) we use night vision, they dont

3) Our weapons are more accurate

4) we have aerial support and heavy equipment

5) Body armour is a must have

6) superior tactics

Answer 10

You got it. U.S. forces employ better men, weapons, tactics, and armor than these gangster-style insurgents.