Just been chatting with a mate who is reading a book that he got yesterday off the fat bearded one. It claims that during WWII Soldiers were pretty much too mentally hammered to keep fighting after anymore than 2 months of prolonged fighting. Physically after 36 hours or so we all know that you have to rotate and rest soldiers as they start to get fcuking hungry get lathargic and let their admin go to sh1t. (That is my personal opinion) So you let them sleep. I'd say after no more than a week they need proper rest in order to maintain high levels of efficiency. Soooooo, with all this in mind are the lads in the FOB's of Helmand being burnt out more quickly than we can replace them. Or is the difference in intensity of WW2 - Op Herrick vast enough that soldiers can cope with more time in contact due to less "Tiger Tanks/Air Bombardment/Panzer divisions" being involved? Kind of links in with the push for longer tours. I like the idea of longer tours for a few reasons one of which being the longer you spend in theatre the more tuned in you are so the easier you will spot the combat indicators and adapt. However hand in hand with that is boredom and complacency kicks in. Also I would like to add the affects that those on Op Telic have suffered. The last couple of tours were no push over to say the least not to mention the likes of CIMIC house 2004 etc.