Talk:War grave

Historcal perspective

I question the accuracy of the statement The increased mobility of troops and accuracy of weapons means friendly fire more of a risk now than in the past. Surely the only difference is that in recent times it has made more public?

Also The use of vehicles and aircraft and the need to transport and use dangerous equipment and materials increases the risk of accidental death. is questionable. Lots of wooden warships (the Vasa and the Mary Rose being famous examples) were surely far less seaworthy than modern ships and there were many casualties in WWI from the handling of poor quality explosives.

When did any culture first define War graves as opposed to just the sites of battles?--JBellis 22:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I would say that regardless of whether or not accidental death and friendly fire is more likely now than it used to be, it is irrelevant to this article. The topic is "war grave" and merely needs to state that accidental deaths caused by war are included in war graves. The inclusion of accidental fatalities and friendly fire deaths in these graveyards, as well as their likelihood, would be more appropriately discussed in a section that disputes the controversey (if any exists) of their inclusions. -- Dan W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.153.29 (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I very much question the relevance of the statement "friendly fire is more likely now than it ever used to be." I don't think it belongs in this article. Perhaps an alternate section? stdavidsboy (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the statement meant to say that proportionately more deaths are due to friendly fire? Soldiers use more effective armor to protect themselves from enemy fire and medicine protects them from disease, reducing the number of deaths from these causes. Thus, friendly fire may make up a larger percentage of deaths than in previous conflicts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.9 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Field burial versus section of a cementary

Should the article make an distinction between sections of ordinary cementaries where fallen are buried and "field" graves, commonly simple ones with perhaps the helmet on top and such (as the one in the picture). I assume these should be separated. Scoo 09:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

7 years too late (hopefully it won't be 7 years until someone replies to this) but there really should be a distinction between places like the cemetery at Normandy or to a lesser extent Arlington, although Arlington wasn't all during active duty and in a short time span. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Cultural differences and war graves

I think this article would be improved with some amplication of the different approachs to war graves. For example, in the U.S. the general philosophy is that fallen soldiers should, if possible, be brought home and buried on American soil. By contrast, the British tend to believe that dead soliders should lie where they fell. I can't really speak for other countries. Would someone with a broader knowledge base care to take a shot? --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)