Lioyd George admitted later in 1918 that he was keeping troops from the army. Google it. After the losses from Passchendaele he didn't want to give Haig what he wanted. And, not mentioned, is that when the divisions sizes were cut they received much more fire power like artillery and so on to make up for the men removed.
A valid observation. The number of machine guns per infantry company was increased. The increased number of tanks and air planes added offensive strength.
The Allies put reliance on airpower, artillery and armoured forces in WW2 in Normandy. But the British infantry loss rate was heavy, comparible to the Somme in 1916.
As a long time amatuer fan of world war one, I always despair at that word wastage! That is the number of men killed or out of action with no major offensives ie just holding the line Wastage - that is someones son or husband or brother!
And what is your alternative? The problem with industrial scale wars is that manpower is a resource, and it has to be managed. There is no way around that. War is a brutal thing, and the economics of war are equally brutal. That unfortunately is the reality of the situation.
She is a mouth piece for Lloyd George, in one of her final sentences she says "the infantry battalions were brought up to full strength" failing to mention that the number of infantry battalions were CUT by 25%. "Slightly understrength on the 21st March" at the lowest level a Brigade which had 4 Battalions was reduced to 3. That doesn't seem like "slightly".
The Military Act Number 1 of 1918 attempted to prioritise man power allocation. The decision to cut the strength of the infantry division was included in the legislation. The agreement to extend the BEF front coverage from the French by 33% seems barmy given the shortage of infantry.
A formation with a full allocation of people, arms, ammunition and rations will perform better that a hollowed out battalion. I think that is the point she is making.
