A little off subject.

All

Given the relevant survival chances, if called up in WWI would you have:

a) Joined the fly boys

B) Taken your chance in the mud.

Personnally i would take option b.

[Billy_Bishop]

Actually, I think I would have joined the Navy.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Actually, I would be happy to be in Switzerland and stay there until the end of the war.

I would have done what I did in the Korean War; join the Army Ordnance Corps. (Then I would have put in for mess kit repair.)

I would definately have to go with "A".
At least there one could be allowed some relaxation, and individuality. Plus, a little more survival time, to boot!

Butler

[PeterL]

Semi serious answer; My Grandfather was two years in the trenches, which I am sure must have left it's mark, but a nicer more well ajusted human being you will not find. I'm just glad it wasn't me. And knowing what I know of the air war, even just from reading about it, I wouldn't fancy that much either.

I guess I'm with Al, but in my case it would have to be the Swiss Navy.

Peter L

The AFC had 3300 men in it's ranks. Of that about 205 died. Cause of death included sickness, combat and accidents in that order. That equates to approximately 6.21%.

By comparison the AIF had an enlistment total of 416,809 and 58,961 deaths which is 14.15%.

There are no figures for the Royal Australian Navy that I have. They werent part of the AIF, and apart from sucking up 90% of the Australian Defence Budget they were also little more than a colonial arm to the Royal Navy ( ie waste of money ). As the RAN ships only participated in a couple of relatively minor battles, I seriously doubt the Navy reached the loss ratios of the AIF.

Incidentally a figure often knocked around is the casualty rate of the AIF, it was an astonishing 64.98% of forces fielded. Basically you had a 3 in 10 chance of not being wounded, low low low odds.

To put that casualty figure in context, the UK had 50.71%, Canada's 49.74% and New Zealand's 59.01%. All extremely high casualty rates. I dont know what the US, Frances or Germanies were. Be interesting to know what the casualty rates of the Austrians, Italians and Turkish were too.

Some more AIF figures are at ;

http://members.xoom.com/PointCook/afc_orga....htm

and ;

http://www.pcug.org.au/~chowell/dps/ampsa....


cam

As much as I would have dreamt to fly and shoot and kill; I would have undoubtedly done exactly as I did twenty-five years ago - join the RCN. That is, all else being equal. Too bad I didnt stay in. I could have retired this year!
Oh well, gotta work tomorrow... beats dying for the VC at 22 in 1918.

VBR
Rosebud

I'll go with (a). One can always started some black market operation over the lines selling booz or by poaching, and still defend your loot/ profit with a pair of Vickers/ Spandaus.

Cheers

A-- definitely, go with the planes
the Flanders offensive alone could help me decide that... there were fewer idiotic orders being handed down from on high to the pilots, although I'm sure there was a good many of those for the pilots as well. As long as I wasn't in a two-seater for very long... unless maybe it was a Bristol Fighter (which seemed like a very good plane)and I didn't have to do too much contact work. But let's face it, if any of us were back there knowing even half of the tactics, deflection gunnery, and technical knowledge we have now I'm sure that many of us, provided our bodies were in good enough shape, might even have survived until the end of the war. not speaking for myself... but I'm sure many of you guys could probably do quite well for yourselves. and after that you could fly luxury liners for rich folk and test out (a dubious blessing in many respects strange new experimental planes! don't forget races... those must have been pretty interesting, even if they were just arms races. well... I've always liked planes so that pretty much cinched it for me.
Jarrod