• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Chaos as Corona virus test site for key workers closes after a few hours"

Collapse

  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    To get back on topic, the wife was advised to book in a test at a nearby centre and managed to get one for 2pm.
    Upon arriving she was told "the wait is about 2.5 hours. And we haven't got enough tests" - so returned home making the trip non essential.

    It turns out you don't actually have to bother booking online, you can just turn up. So the whole booking system is fairly pointless and loads of people are hanging around or have to come out multiple times.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

    oh dear so well organised then

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    To get back on topic, the wife was advised to book in a test at a nearby centre and managed to get one for 2pm.
    Upon arriving she was told "the wait is about 2.5 hours. And we haven't got enough tests" - so returned home making the trip non essential.

    It turns out you don't actually have to bother booking online, you can just turn up. So the whole booking system is fairly pointless and loads of people are hanging around or have to come out multiple times.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    well you obviously can't. Can't follow a time line, make a consistent case or even explain it.

    So you now agree that Sas is wrong and you made a mistake insulting me, then spent loads of posts digging, you then try to deny what you meant?

    Fecking sad!


    Here we go for anyone that is still unsure, it has pictures (unfortunately no crayons).

    A Major General who served in the Falklands and used many of the tactics developed at the Somme did a documentary on the Somme and explains fairly convincingly why it happened the way it did.


    Classic vetran. Now you think I've been saying that I think Sas is wrong. Take me through that logic. I'll help you walk through it.

    1. Sas says x is true.
    2. You post links to try to show that x is untrue.
    3. I say that only a truly cretinous gammon could think that the complexity of differing historical viewpoints can be settled by picking the one that makes the British establishment look good.

    How do you infer from 3 or from anything else that I have posted that I am saying that x is untrue?

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    You can do it, vetran!
    well you obviously can't. Can't follow a time line, make a consistent case or even explain it.

    So you now agree that Sas is wrong and you made a mistake insulting me, then spent loads of posts digging, you then try to deny what you meant?

    Fecking sad!


    Here we go for anyone that is still unsure, it has pictures (unfortunately no crayons).

    A Major General who served in the Falklands and used many of the tactics developed at the Somme did a documentary on the Somme and explains fairly convincingly why it happened the way it did.


    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    1. Sas says x is true.
    2. You post links to try to show that x is untrue.
    3. I say that only a truly cretinous gammon could think that the complexity of differing historical viewpoints can be settled by picking the one that makes the British establishment look good.

    How do you infer from 3 that I am saying that x is true?
    You can do it, vetran!

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    done!
    1. Sas says x is true.
    2. You post links to try to show that x is untrue.
    3. I say that only a truly cretinous gammon could think that the complexity of differing historical viewpoints can be settled by picking the one that makes the British establishment look good.

    How do you infer from 3 that I am saying that x is true?

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    wriggling like a worm
    done!

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    I thought you were a bit of a stats expert??


    Assuming that the "donkeys" were responsible for excessive deaths etc. due to incompetence the statistics would clearly indicate the worst military strategists among the major players?

    The Great War . Resources . WWI Casualties and Deaths | PBS



    Country Total Mobilized Forces Killed Wounded Prisoners and Missing Total Casualties Casualties as % of Forces
    ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS
    Russia 12,000,000 1,700,000 4,950,000 2,500,000 9,150,000 76.3
    British Empire 8,904,467 908,371 2,090,212 191,652 3,190,235 35.8
    France 8,410,000 1,357,800 4,266,000 537,000 6,160,800 73.3
    Italy 5,615,000 650,000 947,000 600,000 2,197,000 39.1
    United States 4,355,000 116,516 204,002 4,500 323,018 7.1
    Japan 800,000 300 907 3 1,210 0.2
    Romania 750,000 335,706 120,000 80,000 535,706 71.4
    Serbia 707,343 45,000 133,148 152,958 331,106 46.8
    Belgium 267,000 13,716 44,686 34,659 93,061 34.9
    Greece 230,000 5,000 21,000 1,000 27,000 11.7
    Portugal 100,000 7,222 13,751 12,318 33,291 33.3
    Montenegro 50,000 3,000 10,000 7,000 20,000 40.0
    TOTAL 42,188,810 5,142,631 12,800,706 4,121,090 22,062,427 52.3
    ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS
    Germany 11,000,000 1,773,700 4,216,058 1,152,800 7,142,558 64.9
    Austria-Hungary 7,800,000 1,200,000 3,620,000 2,200,000 7,020,000 90.0
    Turkey 2,850,000 325,000 400,000 250,000 975,000 34.2
    Bulgaria 1,200,000 87,500 152,390 27,029 266,919 22.2
    TOTAL 22,850,000 3,386,200 8,388,448 3,629,829 15,404,477 67.4
    GRAND TOTAL 65,038,810 8,528,831 21,189,154 7,750,919 37,466,904 57.5
    So British deaths & casualties by mobilised forces 35.8% were nearly half in percentage compared to Germany 64.9%. What where the Germans led by?

    The French were at 73.3% yet they were on the same major battlefields as us for the majority of the war.


    death wise it was

    British 10.2% chance of death.
    German 16.1%
    French 16.1%

    So the Lions had 6% fewer dying must have been a mistake the generals didn't kill enough to keep up with the others.

    There are plenty of other stats to look at if you want.
    Using the express was meant to trigger your arrogance and as usual it worked you attacked the messenger not the facts

    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Classic vetran. Poor attempt at correlation. Tick.
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    is replying to my links sent to Sas and is your first contact.


    There were no stats in these! Scary you arent able to follow a timeline.


    I'm still on topic but you said your expertise is in Roman history so I quoted a reputable source that clearly used winning & fewer casualties = competence.


    Just give up, you make no sense.
    I was following a timeline. I just didn't start at the beginning. But you would like to start at the beginning so let's do that, although it won't help you.

    1. Sas says x is true.
    2. You post links to try to show that x is untrue.
    3. I say that only a truly cretinous gammon could think that the complexity of differing historical viewpoints can be settled by picking the one that makes the British establishment look good.

    How do you infer from 3 that I am saying that x is true?

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Only a truly cretinous gammon could think that the complexity of differing historical viewpoints can be settled by picking the one that makes the British establishment look good.

    is replying to my links sent to Sas and is your first contact.


    There were no stats in these! Scary you arent able to follow a timeline.


    I'm still on topic but you said your expertise is in Roman history so I quoted a reputable source that clearly used winning & fewer casualties = competence.


    Just give up, you make no sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    Sas posted that 'lions led by donkeys' stopped in WWI.

    I replied to Sas and linked to articles suggesting that the donkeys narrative was now being challenged by experts.

    You replied to me saying my proof was rubbish and suggested my stance (linking to the BBC) was Gammon like & cretinous . By inference you support that 'Lions led by donkeys' was a valid description of the Generals and Sas's point of view. If you are confused I suggest you avoid trying to move off topic repeatedly.
    Then why don't we stay on topic? Your inference is incorrect. Let me simplify this for you and take out the personal insults we have both indulged in along the way:

    1. Sas says x is true.
    2. You offer stats to show that x is untrue.
    3. I say that your stats do not show that x is untrue.

    How do you infer from that that I am saying that x is true?

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Take me through the conversation that shows I'm clearly supporting Sas. My response to you, was clearly stating that your argument was nonsense. Show me how it was stating that the Donkeys narrative is true. To repeat, what I'm clearly doing is saying that your argument and proof are nonsensical. I've not been trying to 'prove' the other side of the argument. I have a degree in Roman History and Latin. I know how historical argument works.

    So have another go. Show me where I was supporting Sas or promoting the 'Donkeys' narrative, and then I'll evidence it. But of course I haven't been. This is just your misunderstanding. It's fun to watch, but now it's time for you to demonstrate that I've been arguing in favour of the Donkeys narrative point, rather than insist that I provide evidence or proof for a point that I haven't been arguing. If you manage that, we can move the argument in that direction. Alternatively, when you've conceded that you are wrong, I'm happy to go back to taking down your 'proof'.
    Sas posted that 'lions led by donkeys' stopped in WWI.

    I replied to Sas and linked to articles suggesting that the donkeys narrative was now being challenged by experts.

    You replied to me saying my proof was rubbish and suggested my stance (linking to the BBC) was Gammon like & cretinous . By inference you support that 'Lions led by donkeys' was a valid description of the Generals and Sas's point of view. If you are confused I suggest you avoid trying to move off topic repeatedly.

    You have done nothing to prove your point even if you know what it is.If you want to wriggle out of your position then say so.

    You know the Romans were a long time ago? The argument is about the well documented WWI battles by professional observers examined by military experts, not stories of battles written mainly by the victors.

    But lets go down that route for a moment, how would you decide if the Romans had won a battle in a competent manner?

    Lets try

    Battle of Cannae | Carthage-Rome | Britannica

    The Romans were crushed by the African, Gallic, and Celtiberian troops of Hannibal, with recorded Roman losses ranging from 55,000 (according to Roman historian Livy) to 70,000 (according to Greek historian Polybius). One of the most significant battles in history, it is regarded by military historians as a classic example of a victorious double envelopment.
    Hannibal was the first to arrive at the battle site, with a force of about 40,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry.

    Among the Roman dead were 28 of 40 tribunes, up to 80 Romans of Senatorial or high magistrate rank, and at least 200 knights (Romans of equestrian rank). It was estimated that 20 percent of Roman fighting men between the ages of 18 and 50 died at Cannae. Only 14,000 Roman soldiers escaped, and 10,000 more were captured; the rest were killed. The Carthaginians lost about 6,000 men.
    So was Hannibal incompetent or not?

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    You started out with personal attacks of course. In response to the links to the BBC etc that corrected the Alan Clark fantasy Sas had proposed. That is clearly in support of him. Maybe you were just vomiting on the keyboard instead?



    I then suggested that to easily prove that the British Generals were competent the fact that we won against a fairly well respected Army and fewer of our troops died was a fairly good indicator.

    This was accompanied by links to statistics and word renowned historians (many ex military) who support this opinion. Sas linked to a tabloid columnist.

    You then suggested that the British Generals were incompetent because they sent troops over the top'! Not quite what else you expected them to do? It was trench warfare and you had two choices sit there and be shelled (70% of British/French troops died of this) or attack (less than 30% of our troops died of that). The Germans tended to die from more small arms fire so one has to assume the Allied over the top attacks were more successful than German attacks? Unless of course they shot themselves?

    You talk about new technologies developed later in the war until then there was little to break the stalemate. Obviously easy to see in hindsight.

    The British developed a number of strategies & inventions that would reduce the risk of attacking. That hardly shows a wish to needlessly send troops over the top to die?

    You have to remember that the German high command decided to pursue submarine warfare an the sinking of the Lusitania bringing the reluctant but fresh & Numerous Americans into the war and the crushing defeat that delivered. Easy to see from hindsight but looking forward from 1916 it looks like you are talking out of your hindquarters.

    Again we won and fewer died! of course some died needlessly (clue - its war) but a smaller percentage did than at Waterloo or the Crimea.

    If you want to prove your case then provide some facts. I will try your suggestion but it will be amazing if the author can demonstrate his expertise in the 4 years war over the 500 years he covers compared to experts in the field.

    You talk about what-aboutery then deviate more from the topic than a drunken tramp.





    Still waiting for you to provide some credible sources or evidence. Again I supplied the BBC/Military lecturers and Professors, you supplied insults and denials.
    Take me through the conversation that shows I'm clearly supporting Sas. My response to you, was clearly stating that your argument was nonsense. Show me how it was stating that the Donkeys narrative is true. To repeat, what I'm clearly doing is saying that your argument and proof are nonsensical. I've not been trying to 'prove' the other side of the argument. I have a degree in Roman History and Latin. I know how historical argument works.

    So have another go. Show me where I was supporting Sas or promoting the 'Donkeys' narrative, and then I'll evidence it. But of course I haven't been. This is just your misunderstanding. It's fun to watch, but now it's time for you to demonstrate that I've been arguing in favour of the Donkeys narrative point, rather than insist that I provide evidence or proof for a point that I haven't been arguing. If you manage that, we can move the argument in that direction. Alternatively, when you've conceded that you are wrong, I'm happy to go back to taking down your 'proof'.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Talk me through where I decided to support Sas. I've quoted all of my posts on the topic above. so with yout 'good pass' in O level English (was that you?) you should easily be able to pick out the relevant text if it's there.

    My posts read to me that my aim is to demonstrate the irrelevance of the stats you quote and the futility of claiming to prove something that cannot be proved.

    I haven't even expressed a point of view about the Donkeys narrative except to say 'I'm sure there are good arguments against it'.

    So again, tell me where I decided to support Sas, and then we can get back to showing why you have failed to prove that the Donkeys narrative in incorrect.

    You started out with personal attacks of course. In response to the links to the BBC etc that corrected the Alan Clark fantasy Sas had proposed. That is clearly in support of him. Maybe you were just vomiting on the keyboard instead?

    Only a truly cretinous gammon could think that the complexity of differing historical viewpoints can be settled by picking the one that makes the British establishment look good.
    I then suggested that to easily prove that the British Generals were competent the fact that we won against a fairly well respected Army and fewer of our troops died was a fairly good indicator.

    This was accompanied by links to statistics and word renowned historians (many ex military) who support this opinion. Sas linked to a tabloid columnist.

    You then suggested that the British Generals were incompetent because they sent troops over the top'! Not quite what else you expected them to do? It was trench warfare and you had two choices sit there and be shelled (70% of British/French troops died of this) or attack (less than 30% of our troops died of that). The Germans tended to die from more small arms fire so one has to assume the Allied over the top attacks were more successful than German attacks? Unless of course they shot themselves?

    You talk about new technologies developed later in the war until then there was little to break the stalemate. Obviously easy to see in hindsight.

    The British developed a number of strategies & inventions that would reduce the risk of attacking. That hardly shows a wish to needlessly send troops over the top to die?

    You have to remember that the German high command decided to pursue submarine warfare an the sinking of the Lusitania bringing the reluctant but fresh & Numerous Americans into the war and the crushing defeat that delivered. Easy to see from hindsight but looking forward from 1916 it looks like you are talking out of your hindquarters.

    Again we won and fewer died! of course some died needlessly (clue - its war) but a smaller percentage did than at Waterloo or the Crimea.

    If you want to prove your case then provide some facts. I will try your suggestion but it will be amazing if the author can demonstrate his expertise in the 4 years war over the 500 years he covers compared to experts in the field.

    You talk about what-aboutery then deviate more from the topic than a drunken tramp.

    Classic vetran.

    Here's a question for you. Given the differing historical analyses, what is your view of the 1943 Bengal famine?
    Perhaps he can bring his razor sharp historical analysis to prove that the British Empire was a Good Thing and that Constantius II was a much better Emperor than the narrative portrayed in the writings of Ammianus Marcellinus.
    Still waiting for you to provide some credible sources or evidence. Again I supplied the BBC/Military lecturers and Professors, you supplied insults and denials.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Only a truly cretinous gammon could think that the complexity of differing historical viewpoints can be settled by picking the one that makes the British establishment look good.
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Classic vetran. Poor attempt at correlation. Tick.
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Personal attacks. Tut tut tut.

    You have got yourself in a bit of a muddle.

    First you talk about 'excessive deaths'. What do you mean by that? Excessive to what? The 'donkeys' analysis is really stating that poor strategic and tactical decisions were leading to unnecessary deaths. How can you possibly arrive at a point where you think that % of forces who were casualties demonstrates what you claim it does?

    Simple it is, and we all know why.

    Fundamentally you have thrown some numbers down, but without understanding what they mean within the context of the 'donkeys' analysis.

    Classic vetran.

    Here's a question for you. Given the differing historical analyses, what is your view of the 1943 Bengal famine?
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    So now you are correlating military success with strategic and tactical competence on the battlefield. Can you really not see how this is wrong? Can you not see how economic factors, weapons development and weight of numbers play important role (and in 1918, critical roles as the Allies brought in new artillery and the Germans saw that they needed one more throw of the dice to knock France out of the war (the Spring Offensive etc.) before American troop numbers overwhelmed them and simultaneously the German economy collapsed.

    The 'donkeys' analysis is (in part) that the British generals were wedded to an 'over the top' strategy that was ineffective and caused many needless deaths and which was repeated time and again. You can't expect to pick that up through these high level statistics. I'm sure there are good arguments against it (but my area of historical (kind of) expertise is 1600 years beforehand), but you won't find those arguments int the statistics you present.

    The problem you have is that you are trying to use statistical metrics in the wrong way in a discipline like history. Stats can be useful in history. I recommend 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000' by Paul Kennedy, if you like that kind of history. But what is really needed is analysis and argument, and this is why there are often differing views.
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    You were doing quite nicely before you incorrectly brought in those stats again. Good try though. Definite progress.
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    And how does any of this relate to whether repeatedly sending troops over the top was or was not needlessly wasting lives? You continue to spout info that is irrelevant to the argument.
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    You continue with irrelevance.

    The proposition: British generals were donkeys because they repeatedly used the tactic of sending their troops over the top which was ineffective and highly wasteful of lives.

    Your response: higher proportions of soldiers died in other countries' armed forces.

    Your response simply does not negate the proposition.

    You may as well say that alcohol is not harmful because smoking kills more people.

    It's basic logic and argument. Throwing stats around doesn't change that.
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Well, you can as good as prove that the First World War took place, that the British Empire existed and that Emperor Constantius II reigned in the third century.

    But is takes an extraordinary simple-mindedness to believe that you can prove that the British soldiers were not lions led by donkeys. Perhaps he can bring his razor sharp historical analysis to prove that the British Empire was a Good Thing and that Constantius II was a much better Emperor than the narrative portrayed in the writings of Ammianus Marcellinus.
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    You think you have proven that the British generals who sent soldiers over the top were not donkeys. It is laughable that somebody could think that such a thing can be proven.
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Because nothing you have said justifies the tactic of sending troops over the top. You're just engaged in a gigantic whataboutery to prove something unprovable.
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    How do the casualty rates show that the British were far better at managing going over the top? The casualty rates have many contributing factors, including economics, technology, logistics, strategy and tactics. How do you draw from these overall casualty rates proof (or even an argument) that the over the top tactic was not needlessly wasteful of British (and Imperial) troops? I've asked this before and I know I should know better than to expect a sensible answer, but hope springs eternal.
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    Assgoo suggested the British Generals were incompetent and that this was obvious. You decided to support him.
    Talk me through where I decided to support Sas. I've quoted all of my posts on the topic above. so with yout 'good pass' in O level English (was that you?) you should easily be able to pick out the relevant text if it's there.

    My posts read to me that my aim is to demonstrate the irrelevance of the stats you quote and the futility of claiming to prove something that cannot be proved.

    I haven't even expressed a point of view about the Donkeys narrative except to say 'I'm sure there are good arguments against it'.

    So again, tell me where I decided to support Sas, and then we can get back to showing why you have failed to prove that the Donkeys narrative in incorrect.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    How do the casualty rates show that the British were far better at managing going over the top? The casualty rates have many contributing factors, including economics, technology, logistics, strategy and tactics. How do you draw from these overall casualty rates proof (or even an argument) that the over the top tactic was not needlessly wasteful of British (and Imperial) troops? I've asked this before and I know I should know better than to expect a sensible answer, but hope springs eternal.

    Assgoo suggested the British Generals were incompetent and that this was obvious. You decided to support him.

    As previously mentioned the two KPIs the army tends to work on are did we achieve our objective (in this case holding the line) and how many were killed. You suggest that casualty rates are dependent on many other factors but as you may not know these were in the control of the Generals so they speak to their competence. Fewer dead than allies & foes suggest that the British Generals are not incompetent. That is fairly simple to understand.

    As you have obviously lost this point you are now changing the question attempting to attain some sort of victory. Your question seems to be applying the above to 'needlessly sending soldiers over the top' suggesting again that Generals were incompetent without supplying evidence. Lets address this point directly.

    I have pointed out again that we won and significantly fewer of our soldiers died so that hardly suggests mass incompetence, though the generals running the war may only have a dim spot around attempts to take ground. Fewer British soldiers died by small arms fire (comparable to the French) most died from Artillery fire not likely if they are supposedly being mown down at close range by machine gun fire sent there needlessly by the Donkeys. The Germans had far more deaths by smalls arms fire so either the Allies were getting close to their trench or they were getting close to our trench in sufficient numbers to kill them in quantity that seems to be the objective so maybe the generals were onto something?

    I have already agreed that initially the Generals were surprised by the new method of warfare there are accounts that having sent millions of shells at the German lines they expected them to be flattened they weren't, the germans then repelled the advancing troops. The generals however adapted fairly quickly and developed or adapted tactics that helped save lives

    First World War.com - Encyclopedia - Creeping Barrage

    Although considered as a battlefield tactic as early as 1915 (and initially deployed by Bulgarian artillerists during the Adrianople siege of March 1913) the so-called 'creeping barrage' was not actually deployed until August 1916 by the British (Sir Henry Horne) during the Battle of the Somme on the Western Front.
    Hardly sounds incompetent or needless.

    By comparison

    French Commander-in-Chief Robert Nivelle placed over-reliance upon the merits of the creeping barrage as a primary form of attack during his disastrous Second Battle of the Aisne in April 1917, the failure of which led to widespread mutiny in the French Army.

    Tanks - British invention

    Tunnelling- centuries old

    Of course we could have surrendered or not bothered to fight despite the Kaiser making it fairy clear he wanted to rule Europe.
    Last edited by vetran; 27 April 2020, 08:45.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X