Sorry if I didn´t explain very good. As I wrote.. Australian Army in 1915 was good recruits but they were inexperienced as it was proved in Gallipoli.. But there they won experience and in 1916 they were the best troops in British Empire Army. British Army was better Army in British Empire during 1914 (BEF) and likely in 1915 (although the soldier in 1915 is not the same standar that in 1914). But in 1916-1918 I think Aussies were the best soldiers in BE Forces.Sorry if I misunderstood you. But your original list implied the Aussies were bettervsoldiers because they were tougher outdoorsy types who could weather campaigning (how that helps in France?) ...
which I disagreed with. They were better because they were able to maintain better standards amongst recruits. British and Germans had widened the goalposts and were taking all types.
But as pointed out how a Melbourne office employee is better prepared for campaigning than a Glaswegian docker or a Nottingham butcher I don’t know.
And I agree with you. A Melbourne pencil pusher did not have to be better than a Highland shepherd or a Yorkshire farmer but British Forces in 1916 were not better than Austrialian forces because british conscript recruits lacked of a very good standar (they accepted recruits they rejected in 1914 or early 1915) and not experience at all.. and not the training BEF had. Australian had better recruit standar (Not conscription at all in 1916) and experience won in Gallipoli.
How do you know 66% British Forces were "volunteers" in 1918? According what I read.. Conscription put end to the volunteers.