I placed his name in the headline so that should you run across it in the future, you'll be cautioned that the content you're about to read may be unreliable;
A couple of weeks ago, a few of us in the blogosphere were e-mailed by a journalist in Kabul who was looking to do some research for a story he was writing about military vehicles and IED deaths in Afghanistan. The thesis he ran by all of us was that "non-US coalition partners (Canada included) are taking casualities because they simply are not driving vehicles that are effective against the IED."
We tried to gently turn his head from that over-simplistic notion. And at the time, I naively thought we were doing a decent job of it.
Day's "research" was prompted by.... oh, I'll let you figure it out.
I am not sure Torch adds anything more to the discussion but his math is questionable.
"A less innumerate exercise would be to divide the total number of fatal casualties (139) since 2002 by the total number of deployed personnel since 2002 (somewhere north of 25,000 by my rough estimate). Call it about one half of one percent. Epic fail on the high-school math."
Seems a bit dodgy. Think about it. Say you have a university lecture room that accomodates 30 people. Depending on the time of the day, there are 30 science students or 30 arts students or 30 engineering students in that class. One day a gunman walks into that class and shoots 5 of them. The casualty rate is determined by the number of people in the class at that moment, and not by the number of people who may have held that position in the past. The calculation is simple then - 5/30, not 5/many gazillions who passed through that class earlier in the day/week/month/year/decade. For all practical purposes, the arts science and engineering students are interchangeable in the calculation.
The same applies to deployed personnel. At any given time there were 2,800 personnel deployed in Afghanistan. Therefore, at the instant that the attack took place, there were 2,800 personnel in the country. All 2,800 personnel are interchangeable - it doesnt matter who held the position before them - previous position holders are irrelevant in the calculation.
I may be wrong, but The Torch's math looks like very fuzzy to me.
Me, me, me. That whole self-esteem effort has been a huge success.
These guys also report AGW as science.
The US stats are squewed by the american practice of patrolling their roads with IR equiped helos and IR drones. This catches Ali Baba emplacing his mine or locates the IED's later anyhoo.
IED's in Iraq have hurled 60 tonne tanks right across a road. There is no invulnerability even in a Main Battle Tank.
Under the brave leadership of Fat Steve, we should never question anything about the military ever ever ever ever ever never never ever ever never never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever never never ever ever ever ever ever.
Also, teh climate change!
"Day's "research" was prompted by...."
Uhm... cowardice? Just a wild guess.
Maybe they should have special super DUPER vehicles for the press, and the stupid soldiers can keep their crappy ones. Because reporters are, y'know, important.
BTW Kaplan, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Fat Steve the first prime minister since Trudeau to buy new vehicles for the army? And didn't he try to buy some tanks recently but the opposition made a ruckus over the cost, but then he told them to shove it and bought tanks anyway? Which are now arriving in the 'Stan, finally?
And didn't Paul Martin send the army to Kandahar with the Iltis, which is a 30 year old VW Thing with zero armor and a Rabbit four banger diesel motor? Most of which broke down the first week they were there, and they were robbing parts off three to get one to work?
I'm trying to remember, what party was Martin with, starts with an "L"...
I'm guessing the Military beat is completely new to this moron.
Wanna bet he wouldn't know a right dress from an evening dress, believes anything with tracks is a "tank" and doesn't personally know - and is proud of it, anyone who has ever served?
I may be engineering challenged, but I see the future of armored vehicles in composite armor.
I am sure we will live to see the tanks and APC built of layers of carbon fibre and/or kevlar with added granules of tungsten or boron carbide or another ceramic to break the projectiles.
Those vehicles will be much lighter than steel or depleted uranium armored ones, and should be easier to shape to more impact resistant form, thus resulting in higher maneuverability, larger ammunition capacity and better fuel efficiency.
Hey, kaplan
know why most military personal vote for some one like fat steve?????
On the very same day, he posted another story:
Thomas L. Day, U.S. armored vehicles designed to push explosions away
"We've had charging weights of 2,000 pounds that have destroyed our MRAPs," said a senior International Security Assistance Force intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because intelligence is classified...
He (and his editors) evidently didn't see any inconsistency, or overlooked it in pursuit of their agenda.
The improvised explosive device that killed Lang and four Canadian soldiers flipped the 23-ton LAV upside down, according to the Canwest News Service, Lang's employer.
MRAP 14+-tons, MATV 16+-tons.
Any explosive powerful enough to flip a 23-ton vehicle is going to kill the occupants with the kinetic energy from the vehicle itself and/or the overpressure from the explosion coming through open ports.
LAV occupants routinely die when LAVs roll over during exercises.
It's the kinetic energy.
Soft or bad roads cause roll overs.
A large portion of Canadian deaths in Afghanistan are due to lack of helicopters over the 8 year occupation.
If our troops flew more often they wouldn't be victims of IEDs as often.
The lack of helicopters was due to Jean Chretien's Liberal government, the same one that sent our troops to Afghanistan, cancelling the new helicopters ordered by the Mulroney government.
"We've had charging weights of 2,000 pounds that have destroyed our MRAPs,"
A -ton- of explosive spent on one vehicle? That could sink an aircraft carrier. It would vaporize a truck.
Which brings up an interesting question. Just where does a bunch of Afghan hillbillies lay hands on a ton of high explosive anyway? Or pay for it, even? Things that make you say "Hmmmn..."
Just where does a bunch of Afghan hillbillies lay hands on a ton of high explosive anyway? Or pay for it, even? Things that make you say "Hmmmn..."
Watching reruns of Macgyver on Al Jazeera?
ISAF only began actively enforcing the ban on ammonium nitrate fertiliser in September. Thus:
Operational Update, 10 November 2009
Afghan National Police and ISAF forces seized 500,000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, 5,000 IED components and detained 15 people after a raid in Kandahar Nov. 8...
I have an idea. Instead of constantly trying to stay ahead of improved methods of killing our troops, lets start focusing on killing more of the people who come up with these improved methods. Dead men can't build bombs. Or hijack airplanes. Or recruit suicide bombers. Or behead Americans on youtube. Or collect welfare in Canada.
In your hearts, you know that nuclear war is inevitable. Always has been, since the first test.
"You'll be cautioned that the content you're about to read may be unreliable"
Thanks. But I always have that caution light on. Even when reading say Plato, box scores, or this blog...
... and in this case - does the guy really deserve 'moron', 'poofter' (at the original halls of macadamia story), etc?
Looks like he was embedded in Iraq in 2003, and his one book is on the heroics of the 101st Airborne.
Anyway, whatever, he's a journo so he's de facto useless.
However, to Fred above: "Wanna bet he wouldn't know a right dress from an evening dress, believes anything with tracks is a "tank" and doesn't personally know - and is proud of it, anyone who has ever served?"
I'll take you up on that bet.
PS:
armytimes.com/entertainment/books/military_tigrisbook_070716w/
Looks like it could be *Sgt* Thomas L Day up in the headline, if you happen to be a stickler for honoring the ranks of vets.
> Just where does a bunch of Afghan hillbillies lay hands on a ton of high explosive anyway?
Phantom, you are asking the most important question. I am a big fan of doing accounting for everything that goes, and I did the accounting for Afghan and Iraq insurgency. It would cost billions of dollars to run the guerrilla war in either place.
Most interesting fact is that ammonium nitrate does not account for majority of IEDs. Surprise, surprise! Ammonium nitrate bombs are relatively weak, thus requiring huge amounts of explosive. One would expect that in poor countries it would be widely used, but no - lots and lots of articles traced Iraq explosives to Iranian military industry and to some other countries. They even mentioned Dupont and Dynamite Nobel as the manufacturers. Someone has to pay for the countless tons of expensive sh1t they stuff into containers under the roads.
Someone is funneling money into those regions and that flow is invisible to the carefully crafted AML infrastructure in the West. What is it???
The majority of IEDs in Afghanistan are ammonium nitrate-based, hence the large charge weights. Check out JIEDDO's website.
I have an idea. Instead of constantly trying to stay ahead of improved methods of killing our troops, lets start focusing on killing more of the people who come up with these improved methods. Dead men can't build bombs. Or hijack airplanes. Or recruit suicide bombers. Or behead Americans on youtube. Or collect welfare in Canada.
Part of Post by: dp at January 22, 2010 1:04 PM
I sure in hell agree with this statement.
> The majority of IEDs in Afghanistan are ammonium nitrate-based
You are right, 80-90%. That explains huge loads.
Afstan has a fairly big agriculture base. I wouldn't be surprised if this fertilizer was paid for, in part, by us. Diverting that much fertilizer from inventory would be difficult, but not impossible. Especially when you accept the fact that most of the rural population actually supports the Taliban.
Ammonium nitrate is used by a good many professional blasters, in mining and construction. In rock blasting, they'll use half a stick of dynamite, and top it up with fertilizer. It really cuts down the cost, and packs a pretty good whallop. Don't forget, a fertilizer bomb took down a pretty big building in Oklahoma. It's not something to underestimate.
Heh. Turns out this journalist guy is also one Sgt. Thomas L. Day.
Good work, you armchair generalisimorons. Attacking a guy who's actually served his country in the military, in an actual war.
"IED" is the politically correct label for: booby trap.
The acronym is now used by the MSM as a mask/cover for the treachery/takkiya of Islam's murderous cowards.
"By the early 20th century things had got much more serious. By then, traps that could, and were intended to, kill were also called booby traps."
"P. Gibbs, in From Bapaume to Passchendaele, 1918: "The enemy left 'booby-traps' to blow a man to bits or blind him for life if he touched a harmless-looking stick or opened the lid of a box."
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/71000.html
Kate, are you suggesting we not give this journalist the time of Day? Sorry, simply could not help myself.
Kaplan
[....Under the brave leadership of Fat Steve, we should never question anything about the military ever ever ever ever ever never never ever ever never never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever never never ever ever ever ever ever.
Also, teh climate change!]
Your LIBRANO is showing.........
Lefties are a very confused lot.....one minute pickups are racist next thing they declare that they are invulnerable to a blast which can hurl a Main Battle Tank.
That article alludes to this Day fellow serving as a army journalist......it is obvious why he is X-whatever-----I could have sworn he made noises like a cook-----nah cooks are useful...very useful. 101st material he ain't...
It would seem he does research and then files a report as relevant to reality as an IPCC report. He makes definitive statements contradicted by his own research----"no entire crew lost"....Canadians lack these wonder trucks----when Canada has such and the US is adopting vehicles similar to the Nyala/K wagon.
I recall such "journalists" in 'Nam....their bar stools never cooled down.......
It doesn't matter how much armor you put on a vehicle... the kinetic energy from the blast is still going to be transferred to the interior of the vehicle even if it isn't "holed" when things go boom (kinda like being in a building during an earthquake; ya still get shook good). The results aren't pretty to those occupying said vehicle...
Ah, the meme-stream media. BTW, it was the Mulroney government that sold the Chinooks. I suppose he was going to compensate somewhat with the EH-101 purchase. Alas, Chretien cancelled them and we ended up buying already obsolete helicopters, for more money and way later (when we actually receive them).
IED is an inappropriate term for amonium nitrate/fuel explosives. There's nothing improvised there, this is a tried and true design. I guess they ran out of old artillery shells.
If we buy the opium crop (for the legal opiates market) from the farmers, they will be less apt to supply terrorists with fertilizer.
Burning their crops will achieve the opposite.
And yes, a big enough bomb (think 2000 lb +) can blow just about anything up. Think of battleships at sea attacked by bombers in WW2.
Geronimo: "I am not sure Torch adds anything more to the discussion but his math is questionable."
Are you on crack???
You're math doesn't even qualify as math.
First, Torch's example was to compare the cumulative death toll over a period of time with the instantaneous population. Perfectly logical to take the cumulative number of deaths divided by the cumulative population. Not perfect, but not far off.
Second, you give the example of an instantaneous event to compare to a cumulative event. I'll give you a counter example. Suppose on one particular day there are 10 people on patrol and the group is blasted by an IED. All 10 die. Thus the percentage of people killed by IEDs is 100%.
Third, your math is wrong, because you first assume that a particular class isn't targeted then calculate using the numbers from a particular class. What then the probability of a shooter arriving at a particular class if that class time is random? You've just brought in arrival distributions but the refused to calculate. I'd say the probability of a second shooter arriving at the next lecture after the one prior got shot up is minimal as well.