"British Air Force claims to have killed 1,700 Isis ..." Topic

…terrorists with no civilian deaths.

"RAF Typhoons,Tornadoes and Reaper drones carried out 1,066 air strikes in Iraq and Syria.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said that the Islamic State (Isis) is "being defeated" after killing 1,700 militants in air strikes in Iraq and Syria. The MoD claims it has conducted 1,066 strikes against Isis with "detailed assessments" revealing no civilian losses.

It added that 1,571 fighters have been killed in Iraq and 181 jihadists killed in Syria since parliament voted to begin air strikes in December 2015. The UK has been operating in Iraq with assistance from the government, in contrast to Syria…"
From here
link

THAT'S a good job!…(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

to quote Victor Meldrew '' I don't believe it ''

Why not? Are you an SME on the targeting process? Or maybe you've read all the Misreps?

Sorry, just 're-read my post, didn't mean to come across as holier than thou or facetious. I'm genuinely interested in why you don't believe it. As someone who was involved in the targeting business, there's a lot more to not killing civvies than most people realise.

It's clearly an anniversary article – 1,066 air strikes to mark the 950th anniversary of Hastings this weekend…

At the risk of hijacking this thread, there's more on these "revenge for Brexit" festivities here:

link

Um, I think it's great they have killed no civilians, but correct me if I am wrong: isn't a kill ration of 1.6 enemy soldiers per airstrike a bit expensive?

Not compared to our losses if we'd sent conventional ground troops in.

Obviously the British Air Force isn't as good as the Royal Air Force……………smile

I laud those figures for removing Daesh, AQ, etc., from the battlefield. If I say Anymore … and Bill would DH me …

Not compared to our losses if we'd sent conventional ground troops in.

Amen …

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

If true, we should turn over/loan our Harriers to them, since they seem to have a much better success ratio than we do.

I don't believe it. Apparently ISIS has already been killed 1.5 times over by the Americans alone. Yet here they still are…

Westerners have funny obsessions about "kill ratios."

I guess according to that logic the Germans won WWII because they killed more Russians than what the Russians killed Germans.

It's not about kill ratios, they're just saying a certain amount of ISIS have been killed by a certain amount of strikes, every single strike is int led and recorded, it's not hard to count.

Yes, Fox, again has it right. Bomb or Battle Damage Assessment (BDA), is all part of the system. You have to see/know what you killed, basically.

Not to be obnoxious, but -

The MoD said that due to the nature of the conflict in the self-declared caliphate they cannot be completely accurate as to how many persons they had killed. They said: "They are estimated figures based on post-strike analysis."

Presumably thing have improved since the NATO air campaign in Kososvo where the 200+ Serb tanks destroyed turned out to be 6 when they were able to actually count them on the ground. As I recall there was similar reduction in body count when it came to personnel as well.

Frankly it would be great to find out they have been overly conservative in their analysis and have caused even more casualties than their estimate.

The estimate is only called that because they cannot guarantee that the targeted individuals are actually dead rather than wounded. 1571 and 181 are quite precise figures for an estimate. This is because, if say, 4 confirmed enemy are seen getting in a vehicle and the vehicle is struck miles down the road, the only means of assessment may be the platform that hit it. It's 99.999% sure that they're all dead, but it's impossible to prove unless you go in and have a look.

Very true … very true …

I don't believe Post Strike Analysis can be accurate especially in this kind of war.

It gets really wonky once you have people who don't wear uniforms or don't drive around in military vehicles and don't hang out in blatantly military facilities.

And given US et al have constantly failed in terms of intelligence in the last 20 years I don't think they're really that capable.

Militaries in general like to ramp up kill numbers either as a way of showing their mastery or to show they're doing something productive.

There's also a lot of political masquerading. The US for example denies drone strikes kill civilians. NATO denied hitting any civilians in Libya and then refused to investigate a number of claims including annihilation of an apartment block which was close to a military barracks.

So how do they know that some apartment building that a bunch of guys with AKs entered wasn't full of civilians when it got hit by a JDAM? How do they know the earth moving equipment they hit wasn't being driven by civilians forced to work for ISIS (or even contractors)? How do they know the supposedly all ISIS convoy they hit fleeing Fallujah didn't contain dozens of civilian family members of ISIS soldiers.

The truth is they don't.

Hell they barely even know what the Turks are doing, they were surprised at a massive Russian deployment to Syria, they don't know the true allegiances of the militia they're arming (and in one instance threatening US Special Forces) etc etc.

They can't even recognise a Syrian army position or an Afghan hospital run by Doctors Without Borders.

Oh and they call ISIS the JV team.

But then admitting the truth and saying "our intelligence is never 100% accurate and very often we really don't know what's going on" isn't a good media sound byte.

Much of that may be true to a point.

And only one individual called Daesh the JV … Many of the rest of the military and otherwise knew better.

There's also a lot of political masquerading.

That should be in capital letters.

intelligence is never 100% accurate

I've never known of any situation that was/is 100% accurate. In many cases you won't know until the op is over, etc., … Maybe(?)

All in the military know that … That is why in many cases it's called an "Intel Estimate". Plus much intel is perishable … What may have been good intel a few days ago … it is now inaccurate ?

The nature of the strikes does tend to make body counting fairly easy.

If you read the RAF daily strike reports many seem to be along the lines of:

1) Kurds come across a heavy weapon they can't deal with.

2) RAF drops a Paveway on said mortar/ machine gun/ technical.

The terrain explains the lack of civilian casualties, and the isolated nature of the target the body count.

One can make a reasonable guess as to how many people are crewing a mortar, even if you cna't see them.

So far as I'm aware, if there is the possibility of a building (say) being full of civilians, it's not targeted. That's why Mosul is still full of ISIS fighters and the air strikes restricted to the periphery.

That's why Mosul is still full of ISIS fighters and the air strikes restricted to the periphery.

Yep and in contrast with Raqqa. For many reasons we already know …

The terrain explains the lack of civilian casualties, and the isolated nature of the target the body count.

I don't believe it because US and NATO as a whole has denied it causes any civilian casualties in drone strikes or in Libya or anywhere else.

They were initially denying killing any civilians in an Afghan hospital until all the footage came out and then blamed the Afghans.

We're looking at 100% no civilian anywhere in the middle east I guess.

It makes any statements implausible.

By the way I don't care for civilian deaths. War is war. People die and it's horrible. C'est la vie.

But if you're going to win the propaganda war, try to be realistic.

They were initially denying killing any civilians in an Afghan hospital until all the footage came out and then blamed the Afghans.

I believe that was due to faulty Afghan provided intel. That and the "fog of war", etc., …

Have a Spec Ops friend who operated in A'stan for awhile. He may be there again now ? More than once he said that the US had to deny strikes requested by ANA forces. As it assuredly would cause CD.

Again, with that hospital incident, I'm 100% positive. That US AC-130 crew didn't get up that morning and decided that they'd kill a bunch of Doctors w/o Borders in a hospital. But others can continue to believe otherwise with the same veracity as the claim that the Moon is made of Green Cheese …

We're looking at 100% no civilian anywhere in the middle east I guess.

It makes any statements implausible.

Totally agree …

By the way I don't care for civilian deaths. War is war. People die and it's horrible. C'est la vie.

I agree … but some of the TMP intellectual academic ideologues may vehemently disagree …

But if you're going to win the propaganda war, try to be realistic

Amen … but again don't be too surprised if the globalists, etc., see it otherwise. As has been my experience very often here on TMP. But again, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

It's true that the USA doesn't, unlike the Russians, deliberately target hospitals.

Where they fall down is their inability to 'fess up to mistakes without victim blaming and it's inability to adequately punish those responsible.

It's true that the USA doesn't, unlike the Russians, deliberately target hospitals.

Agreed

Where they fall down is their inability to 'fess up to mistakes without victim blaming and it's inability to adequately punish those responsible.

We have covered this ground many times before. And they were adequately punished for a serious error they made. Which happens … in war.
Let me quote Deadles …

By the way I don't care for civilian deaths. War is war. People die and it's horrible. C'est la vie.

And let me repeat … I believe initially that was due to faulty Afghan provided intel. That and the "fog of war", etc., …

The Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqi confirmed an airstrike on 3 October, saying that "10–15 terrorists were hiding in the hospital" and confirming that hospital workers had been killed.[30] The Afghan Ministry of Defense and a representative of the police chief in Kunduz also said that Taliban fighters were hiding in the hospital compound at the time of the attack, the latter claiming that they were using it as a human shield.[4][31]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike

link

Have a Spec Ops friend who operated in A'stan for awhile. He may be there again now ? More than once he said that the US had to deny strikes requested by ANA forces. As it assuredly would cause CD.

Again, with that hospital incident, I'm 100% positive. That US AC-130 crew didn't get up that morning and decided that they'd kill a bunch of Doctors w/o Borders in a hospital. But others can continue to believe otherwise with the same veracity as the claim that the Moon is made of Green Cheese …

Where they fall down is their inability to 'fess up to mistakes without victim blaming and it's inability to adequately punish those responsible.

And if Doctors W/O Border or anyone else truly believes this … they can take their case to the UN or the Hague, etc., …

But even then any sanction would not be too severe because of an accident. And neither of those bodies have jurisdiction based on SoFA between the US and Host country.

I wasnt only referring to Kunduz with respect to my comments… the crew made a tragic mistake.

But note the USAF did lie about Taliban being in the building and lies again about the hospital not being clearly identified…

This is not, I hasten to add unique to the US military..

For all its faults, the compensation payments will not be paid only if the relatives can prove they were emotionally affected by the deaths…

…that's a British scandal from 50 years ago. (Aberfan).

The problem with the Afghan hospital bombing was the initial US reaction (denial, blame shifting etc).

Poo happens in war – admitting it straight away and launching an investigation under due process gets more brownie points than "not our fault."

As for the bombing, it was bad processes plain and simple. As for bombings in Yemen by the US supported Saudis of hospitals, now that's an entirely different story!

I wasnt only referring to Kunduz with respect to my comments… the crew made a tragic mistake.

Yes it was …

This is not, I hasten to add unique to the US military…

True … Clearly … the US just gets a lot more media coverage it seems.

Poo happens in war – admitting it straight away and launching an investigation under due process gets more brownie points than "not our fault."

Yes that is the way it works …

As for bombings in Yemen by the US supported Saudis of hospitals, now that's an entirely different story!

Very much so … and the Saudis continue to demonstrate their true colors. And no real ally to the US …

The Saudis are blaming the Yemeni army for giving them wrong data…

… so it's not like they've learned nothing from the Americans… :)

… so it's not like they've learned nothing from the Americans… :)

Not an unexpected post from you …

learned nothing from the Americas

Or the UK

…that's a British scandal from 50 years ago. (Aberfan).

Europe, especially the UK and France, have been meddling in that region, the Mid East, Africa, etc. Long before the USA got involved. Glass houses and stones comes to mind …

Sure they have.

Do they have the bodies?

It's not about kill ratios, they're just saying a certain amount of ISIS have been killed by a certain amount of strikes, every single strike is int led and recorded, it's not hard to count.

Sure but counting the dead when you do not have control of the area is not so easy.

So they come up with something and then make claims.

If they killed 1,700 ISIS members…

I want to see the bodies.

To be fair, every strike is on film….

Alas a Paveway or a Brimstone don't always leave much evidence for further analysis.

Nor does many other ordinance like JDAMs, etc., … just some big craters, etc., …

Mithmee, thanks for your support, I'll pass it on when I go into work tomorrow morning.

Stu.
Give it a rest mate.
Please.

thanks for your support, I'll pass it on when I go into work tomorrow morning.

You'll always have my support Fox !

Stu.
Give it a rest mate.