Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
Well I cannot speak for the US, but the UK infantry are probably just as fit and just as robust as in past times. The same is probably true for their shooting.
Is that supportable with data?

..... but there are a number of pressing questions to be asked about UK infantry training, if only because what we did "back in the old days" was not good, and we might still be doing the same things today. IMO, a lot can be simplified. In my Kingdom, infantry training would be different from today and nothing like the bad old days.
I would love to hear more of your ideas.

For the UK, there is masses of data on every injury from Iraq and A'Stan, and it's all used to inform body armour design.
IMO, there are some sensible questions to be asked about body armour, especially the ballistic standards in relation to aerial density, and coverage.
What about using that data to assess whether given the cost, the actual reduction in wounding and the loss of mobility etc etc that body armour is in fact necessary for general issue rather than for issue only for certain types of operations. ( note I said "for certain types of operations" as oppossed to "to certain types of units only".)

I don't see any chance of the Brits making that data available in the public domain. Maybe the US have such data available?