The Ministry of Defence said the death toll for British Armed Forces this year now stands at 92 in Afghanistan, with one soldier who died from gunshot wounds while on base in Basra, southern Iraq.
The death toll does not include two soldiers who were shot dead outside a military barracks in Northern Ireland in March this year.
The previous highest death toll since the Falklands conflict was in 2007, when 89 members of the armed forces died on active service.
Today's news brings the total of British service personnel who have died since the start of operations in Afghanistan in 2001 to 229.
The grim development comes after eight soldiers died in a period of 24 hours in Afghanistan in July, the bloodiest 24 hours for ground troops since operations began in the country.
The beginning of July also saw the death in Afghanistan of the most senior British officer to be killed since the Falklands War, Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, the commanding officer of the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards.
That month also marked another milestone with the conflict claiming the lives of more British troops than the Iraq war.
Six soldiers died in October, including Corporal Thomas Mason, from Fife, who died six weeks after he was injured by an improvised explosive device.
In September 2006, 14 British service personnel - 12 RAF service personnel, a Royal Marine and an Army soldier - were killed when a Nato Nimrod MR2 aircraft crashed in southern Afghanistan.
In 2008, 51 members of the British forces died in Afghanistan, compared with 42 in 2007 and 39 in 2006.
Between October 2001, when the mission began, and the end of 2005, five members of the British armed forces died.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article