" the skill of the generals was to send more men over the top to get slaughtered than the Germans did - battled of attrition."

Really?? Is that what you think a "battled of attrition" is (Whatever the F**k it means) Could of course be "a battle of attrition" but even there you've got it wrong.

Ehmm a battle of attrition is when you keep fighting until one side can fight no more or it becomes obvious that one side's losses cannot be sustained so they withdraw. Remember you banging on about that first day on the Somme? Well in 1916 a German General adopted the tactic of attrition and vowed to bleed the allied armies on the western front white - Falkenhayn fought and poured men into the fight at Verdun and on the Somme where he had to defend against British and French attacks. By the end of November 1916 the Germans knew that they could not possibly win on the western front with the forces they had available - i.e attrition had worked against them it had become obvious to the Germans that their losses could not be sustained so they withdrew to a defensive line. Thereafter the Germans bemoaned the fact that it was the allies who selected where to attack and that each attack bit lumps out of their line and the allies held onto that ground and on each occasion the Germans lost men that they knew they could not replace. They had to finish off Russia first so that they could transfer the 1.5 million men from the eastern to the western front. Unfortunately for the Germans the allies were getting stronger and the Germans logistical problems remained the same as they had been in 1914. The launched their last gasp attack in the Spring of 1918 and it failed for exactly the same reasons it failed in 1914 - they lost their war of attrition because they lost more than we did - and yet you clowns say it was OUR leadership that was bad??? 9 out of every 10 men who fought in the British Forces came home from the First World War - approximately the same as came home from the Second World War.

Harry Foster = Musket, thought so, dare say he has appeared as anonymous GUEST as well - you can tell by the style, the language, the stance taken and give away phrases or the mention of little things that tick him off. Talking of which I have yet to discover why Jom holds Cooks in such contempt - he has obviously never worked away in his life - If he had he'd know Rule One: Never piss off the Cook - Reasoning behind Rule One: You have to eat what he Cooks. Strange though thinking how such a champion of the working man looks down and sneers at folks working in what he obviously sees as being menial and degrading positions - some bloody communist/socialist, but there again as any good socialist knows "some animals are more equal than others" eh?