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

[vetran]

I dunno, I haven't applied for a gig in about 5 years.

As pointed out in the briefing, the site didn't crash. It was just fully booked. CV testing is the new Glastonbury.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Blimey AssGoo got it wrong?

[Old Greg]

The 'over the top strategy' was pursued by all the armies along with Artillery, tunnelling , Gas and even tanks (a British invention enthusiastically adopted by the military that made trenches nearly obsolete in WWII).

The majority of soldiers were killed by artillery not going over the top so the 'over the top strategy explanation' you like doesn't hold water.

If 70% died by artillery not the machine gun that suggests every side quickly realised the machine gun was a lot more deadly than a Zulu with a spear so they dug trenches that would suggest that tactics changed appropriately in response to the situation - hardly incompetence.



The great misconceptions of the First World War - HistoryExtra

Not sure if this bloke knows what he is talking about he seems to disagree with our two experts

David Olusoga - Wikipedia





so same level of Artillery deaths as the French but about 6% more British soldiers lived? Damn those incompetent generals?




The war was close but the Americans came in and Germany made a massive tactical error. But we won it again not a sign of incompetence.




Needless deaths suggest that the situation would have been different if the leadership was better than their peers. Comparing death statistics suggests that the chance of being killed was less in the British army than the German or French ones as they were all in roughly the same place. There are plenty of other experts that agree.

The fact fewer soldiers died compared to the other armies suggests the Generals were not incompetent.


Viewpoint: 10 big myths about World War One debunked - BBC News

You were doing quite nicely before you incorrectly brought in those stats again. Good try though. Definite progress.

[Mordac]

Blimey AssGoo got it wrong?

If only had coded it, the site "would have been great, really great, and we're going to do lots of great things with it, it's a great site"...

He's on my ignore list now, and I'm feeling better already.

[vetran]

You were doing quite nicely before you incorrectly brought in those stats again. Good try though. Definite progress.

Nice and condescending from someone who has been proven wrong by both me and a few world class historians.


OK lets try an analogy.

There are two competing consortium's tendering for a contract. How would you compare the success of the tender and each company involved?

Me personally the consortium that won would be a major point - that would be a Big plus - the Allied team with the British won.

Then the one who had the lowest cost and highest remaining margin by these figures the company with the least percentage deaths is probably that. So the British win again(well the Americans did better but they weren't there for long, only joining up because the Germans had sunk their passenger craft on purpose). Yet you two still insist that the British had the most incompetent military leadership.

War Losses (Germany) | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)

However, a greater reason for the confusion was that German soldiers were killed, wounded or went missing in such enormous numbers, and whole units were destroyed so quickly, that no one could hope to tally the losses. John Keegan, for example, notes that during the Ludendorff Offensive, the “Kaiser’s Battle,” which was fought between 21 March – 4 April 1918, the Germany military suffered 303,450 casualties, about one-fifth of troops available. In April 1918, in Flanders, the German army suffered about 120,000 losses in less than a month.[1] Such shocking casualty rates were not typical, but when they did occur, they made the precise calculation of casualties almost impossible.

303,450 - nearly half the number the British lost in total was lost by the Germans in one offensive! That they aren't sure of because they were in such disarray they didn't count properly so casualties are probably even higher.

German Spring Offensives 1918 | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)

The Spring Offensives failed for several reasons. There were serious command errors. Ludendorff squandered his best chance at victory by missing British logistical vulnerabilities, and he lost a grip on the operations, repeatedly reinforcing mere tactical successes.

By contrast, the German army had no reserves to replace its nearly 1 million casualties and was stretched out on a front 120 kilometers longer than in March. Its fittest and best-trained troops had disproportionately perished in the failed operations. Officers and soldiers were exhausted and demoralized.

Löwen von Eseln geführt?


The french lost a lot higher percentage both in shelling and in action .

The Germans lost a higher percentage to small arms fire.
War Losses (Germany) | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)

Artillery was by far the greatest killer in the war; about 58.3 percent of German deaths were caused by artillery and about 41.7 percent by small arms.

So to conclude both you an Assgoo think my use of these statistics is foolish and cretinous? Despite me providing an explanation?
Löwen von Eseln geführt

[Old Greg]

Nice and condescending from someone who has been proven wrong by both me and a few world class historians.


OK lets try an analogy.

There are two competing consortium's tendering for a contract. How would you compare the success of the tender and each company involved?

Me personally the consortium that won would be a major point - that would be a Big plus - the Allied team with the British won.

Then the one who had the lowest cost and highest remaining margin by these figures the company with the least percentage deaths is probably that. So the British win again(well the Americans did better but they weren't there for long, only joining up because the Germans had sunk their passenger craft on purpose). Yet you two still insist that the British had the most incompetent military leadership.

War Losses (Germany) | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)



303,450 - nearly half the number the British lost in total was lost by the Germans in one offensive! That they aren't sure of because they were in such disarray they didn't count properly so casualties are probably even higher.

German Spring Offensives 1918 | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)






Löwen von Eseln geführt?


The french lost a lot higher percentage both in shelling and in action .

The Germans lost a higher percentage to small arms fire.
War Losses (Germany) | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)



So to conclude both you an Assgoo think my use of these statistics is foolish and cretinous? Despite me providing an explanation?
Löwen von Eseln geführt

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.

[vetran]

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.

As I keep repeating they obviously wasted less lives than the other armies as the figures show. 6% more of our soldiers survived than our Allies or the Germans (who under reported deaths).

As the nice historian pointed out the impression that this was what was happening was created at the Somme, the first real clash between the British and German forces, they thought previous tactics such as rushing the position would result in victory. This was successful when quelling the natives.

Major Battles Of World War I (WW1) - WorldAtlas.com

After the bloodshed of the Somme, tactics were revised so casualties fell. As is illustrated by the links to many acknowledged experts and repeated statistics illustrating you were far less likely to die of small arms fire or even shelling if you were British. You keep suggesting the British Generals were incompetent and wasted British lives but the figures suggest something completely different compared to both the French & Germans who suffered more deaths.

If you are trying to make some point about war being futile and loss of life being a waste then turn your ire at the Kaiser who invaded. You can mention his ethnic cleansing atrocities in Belgium and ambition to rule Europe which seems to be a blueprint for WW2 and some might say the EU though they only ignore ethnic cleansing at present.

If you are trying to say the British Army was run poorly in WWI the scores clearly prove otherwise!

[Old Greg]

As I keep repeating they obviously wasted less lives than the other armies as the figures show. 6% more of our soldiers survived than our Allies or the Germans (who under reported deaths).

As the nice historian pointed out the impression that this was what was happening was created at the Somme, the first real clash between the British and German forces, they thought previous tactics such as rushing the position would result in victory. This was successful when quelling the natives.

Major Battles Of World War I (WW1) - WorldAtlas.com

After the bloodshed of the Somme, tactics were revised so casualties fell. As is illustrated by the links to many acknowledged experts and repeated statistics illustrating you were far less likely to die of small arms fire or even shelling if you were British. You keep suggesting the British Generals were incompetent and wasted British lives but the figures suggest something completely different compared to both the French & Germans who suffered more deaths.

If you are trying to make some point about war being futile and loss of life being a waste then turn your ire at the Kaiser who invaded. You can mention his ethnic cleansing atrocities in Belgium and ambition to rule Europe which seems to be a blueprint for WW2 and some might say the EU though they only ignore ethnic cleansing at present.

If you are trying to say the British Army was run poorly in WWI the scores clearly prove otherwise!

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.

[vetran]

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. Hmm professional historians disagree with you and supply evidence see the links.

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

Your response simply does not negate the proposition. - You suggested that excessive incompetence and needless waste of life was a feature of military management the figures do not support this as fewer British soldiers died.

You may as well say that alcohol is not harmful because smoking kills more people. - Actually Artillery killed 70%, small arms fire (what you would die of if you wen over the top) killed a lot less <30% unless you were German and 41% died of small arms fire so maybe the German generals were keener on senseless waste?

It's basic logic and argument. Throwing stats around doesn't change that. - You have not supported your argument just repeated the same discredited mantra

Next to text so you might understand.

New tactics /weapons pursued to avoid over the top.It seems everyone was a bit bemused.

Military Developments of World War I | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)

Military commanders on all sides, then, spent much of the first three years of World War I trying to prevail with manpower in history’s first mechanized war.[15] The new weapons and technologies also made coordination among the various arms absolutely essential. Gone forever were the days when massed infantry alone, attacking with bayonets could win battles. By the end of World War I, the foundations of combined arms warfare were firmly in place, with infantry, artillery, armored fighting vehicles, and aircraft covering each other’s weaknesses and reinforcing each other’s strengths.

[OwlHoot]

Hey you were the one trying to link 100 year old German false propaganda with the current situation, I just wanted to point out you were wrong and educate you. I'm sorry you can only manage to put your fingers in your ears and go la-la not listening.

It's comical to watch Sas steadily losing an argument

[sasguru]

It's comical to watch Sas steadily losing an argument

Hardly.

Your senility probably prevents you noticing that it's OG futilely trying to make a point with the proven cretin Vetran (sic)

But I'll bite.

I've only skimmed the dross that the imbecile vetran(sic) wasted his time posting on a Friday evening.

His main point seems to be that the lower rate of the butcher's bill for the British army proves that the leadership were not donkeys.

But it doesn't logically follow. It's a classic example of a fallacy of presumption or a bifurcation fallacy. Commonly found in low IQ IT types.

There are many other possibilities to explain the low British attrition rate:

1. The German and French leadership were even more donkeyish than the British
2. The German rate was higher because they were the invaders. Military doctrine suggests you need a 3:1 ratio to start with if you want to attack, to account for this.
3. British artillery was superior to the German

Possibly one or more of these or other possibilities are true. It doesn't logically imply, then, that the British leadership were NOT donkeys.

In fact the eminent historian Dr. Neill Ferguson (no lefty he) suggests the biggest "donkey-ishness" of the British leadership was to send a BEF to France in 1914 in the first place and thus lose lose millions of men in the meat-grinder charnel house. His argument is that British naval, economic and empire superiority was so pronounced in 1914 that they should simply have blockaded Europe and starved the Germans into submission.
I'm not sure I agree with his opinion, merely putting it out there to illustrate the wide variety of opinions historians have, as opposed to the binary simplistic nonsense peddled by cretins like vetran (sic).

But the idiot also misses the bigger point: which is that regardless of the merits or not of Britain's leadership 100 years ago, it seems the forelock-tugging, poorly-educated classes still blindly follow the Oxbridge elite blindly over the cliff. Shockingly , until March 14 or thereabouts, the official policy of the leadership (probably driven by Dominic Cummings) was to let Covid rip in the population, casualties be damned. The echoes of 100 years ago reverberate today.

Until a few months ago the sole consequence of the idiocy of the working classes and their forelock-tugging tendencies looked to be just reduced prosperity. Now it looks more like a huge death rate and penury for many. Stupidity always gets punished in the long run.