An interesting question raised by mags "was it safer being an artillery man than a simple soldier ".

From Tom's analysis of Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914 – 1920 it would appear that surviving unscathed was more likely as a gunner than an infantry man. If one considers that the main threat to the artillery man was counter battery fire, the infantry were subject to the same risk as bombardment of trenches and lines of communication were also prevalent. For the PBI it would be the contact battle in no mans land, subject to concentrated artillery and machine gun fire, which the majority of artillery would not be exposed to.

However, this needs to be put in context. As Ken points out the Royal Artillery Memorial in Hyde Park records;

In Proud Memory Of The Forty-Nine-Thousand-Seventy-Six

Of All Ranks Of The

Royal Regiment of Artillery

Who Gave Their Lives for King

And Country in the Great War'

1914—1919'

Looking at the statistics 85% of casualties came from the infantry and machine gun corps, testimony to the dangers those men faced. The Artillery sustained more casualties than the other arms added together. This is not surprising as Kevin points out;

It's worth bearing in mind that on many occasions Artillery units remained in the line whilst the Divisions' Infantry went back to billets. They also were switched to other Divisions on a temporary basis whilst the Infantry had a period of rest.

However looking beyond the statistics Roger makes a poignant statement;

I'm not sure that I am bothered which was "safer". They all did their duty

Hi all,

From the figures provided from the upper part of the table on page 249 of Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914 – 1920, the following breakdown of casualty percentages are produced:

Aye,

Tom McC

Source: was it safer being an artillery man than a simple soldier