Well Teribus, this is the internet, I'm no historian and I get to focus on the bits I know about if I want (actually, my own dad has spent half a lifetime studying WW1 and was a celebrated local speaker on the matter in his heyday, trousering quite a few quid while he was at it. He is also an expert on old London and the Pendle Witches: I'd wager that no-one alive knows more than he does about the latter. Sadly, not a published person). I am talking about the terrible tactical blunders that led to the mass loss of life on Day One. You serially try to expand away from that in order to to dilute the effect. At least you're honest enough to refrain from saying it didn't happen. I have no comment on the leadership over the whole four years of the war. But, on that day, and quite possibly on many another day, our leadership was wanting and the result was catastrophic. As for rounding up, I remind you that I was confining myself to Day One. There were 60000 British casualties that day. The line was 25 miles long. One mile is 1760 yards. A soldier might have been just under two yards tall. Let's say, then, 1000 men end-to-end per mile. That would, then, be 60 miles needed for 60000 men. So, in fact, I was guilty of not doing enough doubling up. In 25 miles some of the men would have to have been lying three abreast. This is all very silly, but it does at least demonstrate that Musket doesn't need to have a word in my shell-like about rounding up.

And quit the control freakery malarkey where you try to set the agenda in the thread in a way that does nothing more than shine the best light on your own take on events. It's an incredibly puerile and transparent tactic that shows up in all your longer posts. I'm still talking about WW1, you know, not about which is the best ear for a folk singer to stick his finger in (though, in m'humble, while I'm here, it's the right ear).