Talk:German Armed Forces casualties in Afghanistan

	Afghanistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: National / Asian / European / German / South Asia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	Asian military history task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Untitled

05|11|07 change source:

"Terror in Afghanistan Deutsche Soldaten bei Anschlägen verletzt

Bei zwei Anschlägen im Norden Afghanistans sind sechs deutsche Soldaten verletzt worden. Einer der Bundeswehrsoldaten erlitt schwere Verletzungen und soll nach Deutschland geflogen werden. Wie das Bundesverteidigungsministerium mitteilte, ereignete sich ein Anschlag etwa 25 Kilometer nördlich von Kundus, der zweite im Raum Feisabad. Eine Patrouille der Bundeswehr war nach übereinstimmenden Angaben am Donnerstagmorgen 25 Kilometer nördlich der Stadt Kundus unterwegs, als eine an einem Fahrrad befestigte Sprengstoffladung ferngezündet wurde. Drei deutsche Soldaten wurden durch die Explosion verletzt, sagte ein Sprecher der Internationalen Schutztruppe ISAF. Bei dem Anschlag wurden auch drei Zivilisten aus Afghanistan verletzt, davon ein Opfer laut ISAF lebensgefährlich. Nach anderen Angaben kam der Mann ums Leben.

Angriff mit Panzerfaust

Der zweite Anschlag ereignete sich am späten Mittwochabend in Feisabad . Unbekannte griffen mit einer russischen Panzerfaust ein Erkundungsteam der Bundeswehr an. Dabei seien drei deutsche Soldaten leicht verletzt worden. Nach dem Angriff sei es zu einem Schusswechsel gekommen. Das Erkundungsteam blieb laut ISAF über Nacht in einem Feldlager. Dabei soll es erneut zu Schusswechseln gekommen sein. Die Bundeswehr ist derzeit mit knapp 2500 Soldaten in Afghanistan im Einsatz der internationalen Friedenstruppe und hat zuletzt die Verantwortung für den Norden des Landes übernommen.

Stand: 07.04.2006 16:35 Uhr [C. Heinzle, ARD Neu Delhi]

Am 06.04.2006 gegen 00:13 Uhr Ortszeit wurde ein deutsches Monitoring and Observation Liaison Team (MOLT) der ISAF während der Übernachtung in der Ortschaft Jorm (ca. 40 km südöstlich von Fayzabad) mit Handwaffen und einer Panzerfaust beschossen. Dabei wurden drei Soldaten verletzt.

Das Team führte eine mehrtägige Erkundung in den Distrikten Baharak und Jurom durch und verlegte nach dem Angriff in den frühen Morgenstunden des 06.04.2006 nach Fayzabad zurück.

Die Distrikte Baharak und Jurom weisen die provinztypischen Gefährdungen auf: Lokale Größen und die Bevölkerung ist deutlich konservativ/fundamentalistisch orientiert, Geistliche verfügen über einen starken Einfluss und die Regierungsorgane (Verwaltung, Polizei) gelten als schwach bzw. in illegale Handlungen (OK) verstrickt. Beide Distrikte sind wesentliche Schlafmohnanbaugebiete der Provinz, hinzu kommt die Rohopiumveredelung und der damit verbundene Schmuggel. Entsprechend stark ist die Stellung der OK, die sich auf illegale bewaffnete Gruppen abstützt.

Hintergründe für den Angriff sind zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt spekulativ. Die nahe liegendsten Motive dürften Vertreter der OK haben, die das MOLT fälschlicherweise in Verbindung mit Vorbereitungen für Drogenbekämpfungsaktionen brachten.

[C. Heinzle, ARD Neu Delhi]"

With the greatest of respect I would suggest that a summary note in English would be helpful to non-German speakers who might want to help with the article. 82.45.248.177 12:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the article is giving only two noteworthy informations: 04-06-06/05-06-06: Two attacks (IED attached to a bycicle in Kunduz province, ambush with RPGs and small arms fire in Faizabad province) injured six Germans and several Afghans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.192.75 (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respective?

Under Controversy, para 2 contains this:

Additionally, the Bundestag received a petition to reestablish the order of the Iron Cross as a visual decoration for soldiers beside the NATO Medal that any soldier would receive for serving in Afghanistan for a respective period.

- I am not sure what "a respective period" would mean here. Is it possible to clarify or reword it please? Thanks 82.45.248.177 12:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Armed Forces award three medals for service in foreign deployments; The lowest level, bronze, requires only 30 days of service in another country. That would mean that a clerk or technician received the same medal like a grunt who puts his life at risk on an everyday basis.

Sources for latest adaptions (05-19-08):

http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd443DnQHSYGZASH6kTCxoJRUfW99X4_83FT9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQCsXOUq/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfQ18zUUc!?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256EF4002AED30%2FW27ETCDZ141INFODE%2Fcontent.jsp http://www.einsatz.bundeswehr.de/C1256F1D0022A5C2/CurrentBaseLink/W27DYAY7094INFODE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.204.69 (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Edits

08-26-08 edits

Attack in Kunduz: http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd443DnQHSYGZASH6kTCxoJRUfW99X4_83FT9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQCsXOUq/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfQ18zUUc!?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256EF4002AED30%2FW27HULKE769INFODE%2Fcontent.jsp

Death of one soldier

http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd443DnQHSYGZASH6kTCxoJRUfW99X4_83FT9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQCsXOUq/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfQ18zUUc!?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256EF4002AED30%2FW27HUCDP541INFODE%2Fcontent.jsp

08-27-08 edits

http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd443DnQHSYGZASH6kTCxoJRUfW99X4_83FT9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQCsXOUq/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfQ180QzU!?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256EF4002AED30%2FW27HWAGM410INFODE%2Fcontent.jsp

One soldier killed, three wounded in Kunduz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch818 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German ranks

Our Kameraden deserve to be listed with their real ranks and not with American pseudo-ranks. The US rank structure is totally different from the German one. Please stop this act of Anglo-saxon arrogance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.104.103 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While your statement about rank structures is technically correct, this entry in the english version of Wikipedia should be understandable to international readers. I (OF-2 DEU A) suggest to use NATO ranks to avoid misunderstandigs.--194.98.42.19 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I would agree to this opinion, which I do not, why are even policemen listed with militay ranks? The german police, even the BKA and the Bundespolizei, is no part of the military. It is no Gendarmerie Nationale or Carabinieri, and there are no military ranks. 91.36.254.215 (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consequences of the Anglo-Saxon ignorance are already apparent: Hauptgefreite are listed both as "Corporals" and as "Privates First Class", while a listing as "Specialist" does not indicate whether the soldier in question was a Stabsgefreiter or Oberstabsgefreiter. Incompetent translations are always worse than the original ranks! - 91.45.104.103 (talk) 19:31, October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.89.166 (talk)

Incorrect Statement

Among them are the first German reservists to fall in hostile actions and the first German policemen to die in a deployment abroad. That can´t be correct, if you think about the World Wars. It´s true for the Bundeswehr though.--Tresckow (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruined structure

After my today's edit the structure of the article was absolutely messed up although nothing essentially of it was changed. Could someone review it? I cannot seem to find the error.--Fuzz2 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the Bundeswehr in foreign countries

Please have a look at de:Verluste der Bundeswehr bei Auslandseinsätzen. Is there any need for an english version of that article? Hybscher (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense

"The number of fatalities has caused a stir in Germany since it is the highest of all abroad deployments the German army has ever participated in" I would demand a source for that. Nobody cares about the 50 soldiers that died in that "war". The real and only problem is that the operation is considered imperialist by many, who argue that Germany does neither have right nor responsibility for Afghanistan. But the amout of fallen soldiers is irrelevant in the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.9.70 (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

I've just spent several hours copyediting this article. I say 'several' because it is enormous! The table must be the longest on Wikipedia.
On looking at the title German Armed Forces casualties in Afghanistan (my emphasis), I was wondering why there are so many entries which say something like: "...no German troops were killed or wounded during the fighting". At least 50% of the content could be edited (i.e. deleted), as it is irrelevant to the "casualties" part of the title.

If the existing material is not to be discarded, the solution to the problem is obvious; create another article with a name like Bundeswehr actions in Afghanistan - or something similar.

What do other editors think?

Changing the subject, I always have the word 'consistency' in my head when editing an article. I noticed that there were many in- consistencies in this one. For example, distance is expressed as "15km", "15 km" "15 kilometres", "15kilometres" and there was often (code for a non-breaking space) in there as well; likewise, compass directions appear as "north", "North", "N" and so on.

I would lay a lot of the blame for this state of affairs at the feet of the article's size. I'm sure that standards would improve markedly if it wasn't so damm big.

RASAM (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spent some more hours to make this huge table more accessible. And I agree that we should either discard the instances where no German troops where hurt or killed, or we move this page to a title that fits the list. And since the article is already in a category that refers to personnel having been "killed" in Afghanistan I suggest we do away with those incidents where German troops remained unharmed. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German Armed Forces casualties in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]