heres a link to the deaths of soldiers over afghan/iraq just goes to show that not really any job is safer than any other in the army as on this you can see alot of the regiments etc. they served with. also like to say R.I.P boys you deserve it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121552.stm
Share This Page:
R.I.P
dont mean nothing by it and dont think anybody else would think i mean anything by it lol couldn't think of a title so i just put something random i change it if i can sorry if i offended anyone :S it does make you wonder though
BARB - Passed
Basic Skills - Complete
Reg Choice - The Duke Of Lancaster's
Role - Infantry
Basic Skills - Complete
Reg Choice - The Duke Of Lancaster's
Role - Infantry
yeah more educational than interesting.
opens the eyes of the ignorant thinking that it's just infantry that get KIA.
there's a hell of a lot of marines on there even from marine attachments like the RA. certainly opened my eyes anyway.
opens the eyes of the ignorant thinking that it's just infantry that get KIA.
there's a hell of a lot of marines on there even from marine attachments like the RA. certainly opened my eyes anyway.
BARB: PASSED; 76
BASIC SKILLS: PASSED
Interview 1: PASSED 04/03/09
Interview 2: waiting
Wanting to join the Royal Artillery as Gunner UAV Operator.
BASIC SKILLS: PASSED
Interview 1: PASSED 04/03/09
Interview 2: waiting
Wanting to join the Royal Artillery as Gunner UAV Operator.
i was expecting maybe 5 kills max outside infantry or a small number anyway but theres not just goes to show your not really safe no matter what role you choose basically anything can happen also noticed on there one of the guys listed killed a colleague and then killed himself :S some shocking incidents on there like just thought some of you would like to take a look at it, also remember the soldiers we have lost
BARB - Passed
Basic Skills - Complete
Reg Choice - The Duke Of Lancaster's
Role - Infantry
Basic Skills - Complete
Reg Choice - The Duke Of Lancaster's
Role - Infantry
-
davidemmerson
- Guest
Re: interesting (R.I.P)
Dawber wrote:heres a link to the deaths of soldiers over afghan/iraq just goes to show that not really any job is safer than any other in the army as on this you can see alot of the regiments etc. they served with. also like to say R.I.P boys you deserve it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121552.stm
Why not drop the "Interesting"Dawber wrote:dont mean nothing by it and dont think anybody else would think i mean anything by it lol couldn't think of a title so i just put something random i change it if i can sorry if i offended anyone :S it does make you wonder though
RIP speaks for it's self.
Better still, send it to Mr Brown.
Re: interesting (R.I.P)
whats your problem? as i already said i dont mean anything nasty by it simply just putting a point across at the simple fact i didnt know that any other job role has as high of death rate as the infantry simple point and as for dropping the interesting bit i will try mate i do aree it looks a bit dodgy but i dont mean it to sound that way as if like i have no respect for the soldiers sacrifices as i do just not sure how to change it though, as i was putting it up i didnt think through the title fully and again apologise for any offence causeddavidemmerson wrote:Dawber wrote:heres a link to the deaths of soldiers over afghan/iraq just goes to show that not really any job is safer than any other in the army as on this you can see alot of the regiments etc. they served with. also like to say R.I.P boys you deserve it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121552.stm
BARB - Passed
Basic Skills - Complete
Reg Choice - The Duke Of Lancaster's
Role - Infantry
Basic Skills - Complete
Reg Choice - The Duke Of Lancaster's
Role - Infantry
Dave was highlighting the sentence:
Another poor choice of words. You obviously had good intentions with this thread but you need to think about how you word what you are saying because as you can see it has attracted a lot of attention for the wrong reason.
also like to say R.I.P boys you deserve it
Another poor choice of words. You obviously had good intentions with this thread but you need to think about how you word what you are saying because as you can see it has attracted a lot of attention for the wrong reason.
get a grip i put that because they deserve to rest in peace after what they have been through and i have seen this posted on other posts on these forums your just looking for reasons to have a pop at me well just dont bother your being pathetic, obviously i dont mean any harm in my wording as i am applying for the infantry and wouldn't want to be disrespected if i was killed and theres twice where i have apologised if i have caused any offence as that was not my intention but your just getting on your high horse thinking yeah we'll have a go to make him look like an idiot i dont appreciate it if you cant accept my apologies if i have worded wrong which the r.i.p boys you deserve it comment theres nothing wrong with that but you hasve made it look like i was trying to say you deserve to get killed well your in the wrong for pointing out something so horrible
BARB - Passed
Basic Skills - Complete
Reg Choice - The Duke Of Lancaster's
Role - Infantry
Basic Skills - Complete
Reg Choice - The Duke Of Lancaster's
Role - Infantry
Dawber, if that little rant was aimed at me then you obviously are 'a bit' of an idiot. If you read my post correctly you would see that I wasn't having 'a pop', merely stating that you should word your thoughts better. I didn't point out the "R.I.P boys you deserve it" quote either, I was explaining why David had responded as he had as you clearly didn't get that he was only referring to that sentence, hence the bold.
Oh, and TAKE A BREATH EVERY NOW AND THEN.
Oh, and TAKE A BREATH EVERY NOW AND THEN.
Dawber
If go on to your first post at the top of this page there should be a "edit" button in the right hand corner of the post click on that and you should be able to edit the title mate.
If go on to your first post at the top of this page there should be a "edit" button in the right hand corner of the post click on that and you should be able to edit the title mate.
BARB: PASSED; 76
BASIC SKILLS: PASSED
Interview 1: PASSED 04/03/09
Interview 2: waiting
Wanting to join the Royal Artillery as Gunner UAV Operator.
BASIC SKILLS: PASSED
Interview 1: PASSED 04/03/09
Interview 2: waiting
Wanting to join the Royal Artillery as Gunner UAV Operator.
Back to the point in question.
Afghanistan is not a traditional war. There is no 'front line'. Everyone who steps outside the gates of camp is at risk. You'll notice that many of the deaths are from IEDs; this trend actually puts non-infantry trades more at risk - whilst the infantry are out dominating the ground and advancing to contact, where the Taliban have got a lower chance of actually hurting anyone cos they can't shoot for toffee (note not no chance, but a lower one), those restricted to road or well-used route moves run the higher IED risk, which also has a higher chance of causing injury - it's a lot harder to miss with a bloody great bomb. Of course in Afghan the infantry are dependent to a large extent on mobility and therefore vehicles, which proportionally increases the risk to them also. So whilst overall it probably is still slightly riskier being 'front-line', it's by nowhere near the same margin as in more conventional war.
Incidentally, your chances of getting shot/blown up are no greater than those of dying from heart disease taken as a % of front-line troops, and more comparable to dying in an RTA if as a % of all those in theatre (very approx figures and maybe out of date by now before anyone starts getting pedantic ).
The recent event of the first female to die from enemy action highlights this, and also the question of women on the front line; in the forseeable future, we are going to be in Afghan, which surely opens up the question of if women are allowed to serve in jobs where they have at least a good a chance of being injured as an infantry soldier, why should (assuming they meet the same standards) they not be allowed to serve in the infantry? Or conversely, should they not be allowed to perform tasks, even though they are trained in them, which involve such risks? For another thread maybe, but an interesting question.
Afghanistan is not a traditional war. There is no 'front line'. Everyone who steps outside the gates of camp is at risk. You'll notice that many of the deaths are from IEDs; this trend actually puts non-infantry trades more at risk - whilst the infantry are out dominating the ground and advancing to contact, where the Taliban have got a lower chance of actually hurting anyone cos they can't shoot for toffee (note not no chance, but a lower one), those restricted to road or well-used route moves run the higher IED risk, which also has a higher chance of causing injury - it's a lot harder to miss with a bloody great bomb. Of course in Afghan the infantry are dependent to a large extent on mobility and therefore vehicles, which proportionally increases the risk to them also. So whilst overall it probably is still slightly riskier being 'front-line', it's by nowhere near the same margin as in more conventional war.
Incidentally, your chances of getting shot/blown up are no greater than those of dying from heart disease taken as a % of front-line troops, and more comparable to dying in an RTA if as a % of all those in theatre (very approx figures and maybe out of date by now before anyone starts getting pedantic
).The recent event of the first female to die from enemy action highlights this, and also the question of women on the front line; in the forseeable future, we are going to be in Afghan, which surely opens up the question of if women are allowed to serve in jobs where they have at least a good a chance of being injured as an infantry soldier, why should (assuming they meet the same standards) they not be allowed to serve in the infantry? Or conversely, should they not be allowed to perform tasks, even though they are trained in them, which involve such risks? For another thread maybe, but an interesting question.
