A year free of British deaths

Discussion in 'Military History and Militaria' started by PJ399SAM, Jan 31, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hi guys, I've been told that since the 2nd World War there has only been one year where a serviceman from HM Forces wasn't killed in action. I believe that this was sometime in the 60's. Can anyone help me out?
    Cheers PJSM
     
  2. It's interesting to note that in 1968 recruiting figures fell.
     
  3. " An Army for Today

    Peace in 1945 did not mean the end of the challenges faced by the Army. Indeed, since the end of the Second World War there has only been one year, 1968, in which a British soldier has not been killed on active service. "

    Typical. There are entire books written about battles where soldiers get killed, but just one paragraph about soldiers not getting killed. Talk about glorifying war!
     
  4. Memory says it was Dennis Healy in a House of Commons statement saying that in 1968 no British soldier had died on Active Service.
    Memory also says that Brit troops where fighting for Sultan of Oman and I think one officer was killed, but cann't swear to it.
    Always thought Healy was one of the best Defence ministers we had.
    john
     
  5. Sorted, thanks guys.
     
  6. Healey: Gets a bad press due to TSR-2, P1154 and Carrier cancellations, but can honestly say the Treasury dicked him on those. Very serious regarding nukes and NATO - set up the NATO Euro Group to push for keeping up the US commitment to forward defence of NATO when they were looking wobbly, also good on flexible-response rather than hair trigger, one inch over the line and launch the deterrent madness. Couldn't get the cash for P1154 but saved the guts of the project to give us the Harrier. Dealt with the Indonesian Confrontation like a man who'd done Salerno and Anzio. Which he had.
     
  7. "Indonesian Confrontation"
    Sukarno had 1 million troops in the field, we had 1 Division 17,000 men.
    Geuss who won.
    john
     
  8. RP578

    RP578 LE Book Reviewer

    Moreover it was won without having the Air Force reduce Borneo to so-much chop sticks and salad as the Americans were concurrently doing to Viet Nam. Think Healey made some statement in the House about it being the most efficient use of arms in the history of warfare. A fascinating chapter in our military history which often gets overlooked.
     
  9. I think that's a little hard on the Americans RP578. While I have to agree thet their approach lacked sophistication, to say the least, the strategic conditions were very different. I couldn't agree more about how interesting the campaign is. As far as popular history goes I wish more had been written about it if only to the debunk the Gurkha mythology. Something they have been dining out on for the last 40 years. The trouble is they believe their own propaganda.
     
  10. RP578

    RP578 LE Book Reviewer

    Yeah, the comparison with Viet Nam is probably a bit unfair and overused in some circles. I think Col. John Cross dismissed the comparison as irrelevant in his book "Face Like A Chicken's Backside" and if anyone can make comparisons with any authority it's J.P. Cross. My point was the differences in tactics.

    In many ways I think the Confrontation was an apex for the Bde of Gurkhas. I wonder though if the conflict's relative obscurity in the UK, is a result of the majority of the troops having been Gurkhas? Having talked a few of the lads themselves, most of them had no time for the "Gurkha Jungle-Fighting Superman" myth either.
     
  11. Face Like A Chicken's Backside. Now that's what I call a title.