Musket - 25 Nov 14 - 09:11 AM - What an idiotic post - at least you are consistent:

"Oh, so we were only half as incompetent as other forces. Thanks.

Tell me why is your glass always half-empty? Using the same reasoning you could equally state that they were twice as competent as any of their contemporaries in command of the largest armies of the day, indeed the largest armies the world had ever seen.

Tell me Musket how do you talk to and comfort a skeleton? Do you do it often? Perhaps you got some practice in at Stafford - well you are banging on about incompetence aren't you?

If you wish to compare GUEST Rahere then compare like with like (World War One to Afghanistan - are you f**kin serious??). But as you appear to like digging up figures for Afghanistan and Iraq can you furnish us with the figures for the number of soldiers, Royal Marines and SF who rode about in Land Rovers who didn't get killed, who completed their journeys and their missions successfully. Perhaps you could go through the same exercise for those who were equally safe and successful whilst being transported in Vikings or Warriors who did not get killed.

Rather liked the comment that those killed in the Warriors were killed because they were engaged in operations the Warrior was not intended for:

The two Warriors hit by "friendly fire" during Desert Storm were part of an armoured formation moving across open terrain in accordance with orders that they had received to do so - OK then GUEST Rahere WHAT IS IT that these Warrior AFVs are supposed to be capable of doing?

The investigation of the most recent incident of British soldiers being killed in a Warrior AFV (Blown up by a massive IED) revealed that those soldiers would have died even if they had been sitting there in a Main Battle Tank so large was the charge that was used. The main contributing factor to their death by IED was the fact that when patrolling that stretch of road they stopped in the same place regularly - i.e. their enemy knew where to plant the charge and they knew where they could hide to hit the command detonate button.

Two facts of life - there are no unsinkable ships and there are no mine-proof vehicles.

By the way Rahere do you attribute the 50 to 100 million who died because of the "Spanish" Flu pandemic as being down to British Generals as well?

I dare say if you compare the mortality rates from various diseases in the early 1900s to the mortality rates from the same diseases today you will find an amazing difference - all a matter of understanding of the disease, its treatment, the medicines, the facilities and procedures available and used in its treatment. All of that plus the ancillary, peripheral things that help, such as better communications, better roads, better transport, better nutrition.

Considering that the First World War was the most horrendous armed struggle the world had ever seen at that time yet 9 out of every 10 British/Commonwealth soldiers who either volunteered or was conscripted survived it - Very easy with 20 x 20 hindsight to decry what others did and how others reacted when faced with real and unimagined problems 100 years ago only makes those leveling the criticism in retrospect with 21st century attitudes and perceptions appear to be downright foolish - sort of like the American tourist at Windsor Castle remarking how stupid it had been of the British Royal family to build their principal London residence so near to the airport.