"John Kulp" wrote in message
news:4819ff7d.18263421@news20.forteinc.com...
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:18:30 +0100, "nightjar"
> here>.me.uk> wrote:
...
>>In general, armies have a lot more soldiers in support roles than they do
>>in
>>combat. I have heard figures of between five and nine in support for every
>>one on the front line for armies of the time. The differences may depend
>>upon whether soldiers in rest areas count as being in support or not. It
>>would therefore make sense for troops who were less well battle trained to
>>be put into support roles, at least when they first arrived.
>
> That's a nice spiel, but Alan said the Maoris being taken to the
> battlefields to work was nonsense. What's your proof of that?
I have no specific information about the Maoris. I was simply pointing out
that any soldier being sent to war was just as likely to end up doing
non-combat duties as being sent into the front line.
Colin Bignell
|