observer Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 Whilst I'm sure we would want to give our troops the best possible kit in any conflict; what's best, is not always apparent until experience teaches lessons. So what's it come to, when families are trying to sue the MOD for using "snatch" Land Rovers, that had limited protection against IEDs in Afghanistan? Given the new trend for retro-justice, can we now expect compen claims from relatives of the millions of soldiers who pitted bare flesh against machine guns in WW1 or the crews of Sherman tanks, that couldn't withstand a hit from an 88mm ATG or Tiger tank? Seems the world's gone compen crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 The problem would appear to be that, while better equipment was available at the time, the army chiefs decided not to use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 Furthermore after 12 years of unnecessary deaths with no discernible outcome a peace conference seems to be likely ,although Mr Karzai (?) doesn't seem to want the Americans to be too involved in talks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 What Asp said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 The success or otherwise of additional armour, depends on the size of the IED; trauma can still occur inside due to the blast wave, if the explosive is sufficiently large. In any case, to try to impose H&S and HR standards from a lawyers desk in London to the battlefield, would no doubt create the same managerial inertia, that it has created with most of our civilian institutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 I understand that the MOD believed using proper armoured vehicles would hurt the policy of trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the population. So the decision to use snatch Landrovers was political not strategic and for that reason they are culpable of placing the troops in unnecessary danger. Politicians are trying to formulate legislation that will punish bankers for making bad decisions. Will this also cover Civil Servants? It might make them think about what they're doing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 Civil servants by all means; but I think military commanders have enough to worry about, without having to watch their backs in a hot war, from retro-sniping by some claims lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 The military commanders sitting safely behind a desk in Whitehall sending soldiers into danger in unsuitable vehicles would that be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 I agree again with Asp, If the Commanders use the right vehicles they have nothing to worry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antisthenes Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 Perhaps we should allow only those MP's whose children serve in the military, or who have served personally, to vote on sending our boys and girls off to war? I am sure the correct kit would get to theatres of operations in a more timely fashion, and MOD budgets would be more protected by the House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 "The right vehicles" Kije? So we have kit that makes one immune from the hazards of war? War is a risk laden environment, military personel volunteer for such risks; OK, they can be minimised, but ultimate safety is fantasy. Ant is right, if politicians didn't send them into such futile wars in the first place, they may be safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 You are confusing two issues here Obs. Having sent the troops into a war zone in the first place (whether or not it was justified - that's another matter) it is incumbent on the government (the MOD being part of the government) to equip the troops with vehicles which will offer suitable protection against enemy action. In this case they failed in their duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 What Asperity said. In a similar case, nine men were lost when their aircraft burned and crashed after being hit by ground fire. Fire suppressant material in the tanks, as fitted in identical aircraft by nearly every other military, would have prevented this loss of life. Presumably some bean counter in the MOD had deemed it unnecessary, shame he wasn't on the plane himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 You would really have thought all the years in Ulster would have taught the powers that be all they needed to know about winning hearts & minds while fighting a "terrorist " enemy. It just shows how dangerous a strategy can be when combining seek & destroy with a peace keeping mission.I think next time the Yanks shout "Jump" the British government should reply with "Go bite yer ass ". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 I'll accept your point FJ, when it comes to procurement, the MOD aren't noted for best practise in that regard; but to suggest that all eventualities on the battlefield can be anticipated is frankly impossible, that's the nature of war, it's unpredictable and carries inherent risks. To ham string every operational decision with the threat of retrospective compen claims, would imo, impede such judgement calls and (as with civil institutions), create inertia within the organisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 MOD procurement is based on being ordered then delivered over a lengthy period which could be several years in the future. Your average terrorist only needs to be in touch with an arms dealer, with state of the art samples to get rid of, to be in a position to wreak havoc against even the best organised of military operations. Your average arms dealer has no conscience concerning who he sells to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2013 Especially if it keeps folk in jobs at BAE systems etc ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 22, 2013 Report Share Posted June 22, 2013 Especially if it keeps folk in jobs at BAE systems etc ! Is that a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2013 What? - keeping folk in a job or selling the means to kill?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 22, 2013 Report Share Posted June 22, 2013 Since when has the UK really bothered who we have sold arms to, We are one of the biggest in the World Nothing wrong with keeping people in work as long as the arms they are making are not killing our soldiers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2013 ... and how do you ensure the arms produced don't "kill our soldiers"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 22, 2013 Report Share Posted June 22, 2013 Don't sell them to the rebels in Syria, would certainly stop problems in the future, Support the Assad government, who at least can keep a lid on extremists in Syria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2013 Think you'll find we sell kit to the Saudis, who in turn are supplying the Syrian rebels. Arms get sold on, just like cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 22, 2013 Report Share Posted June 22, 2013 So we are selling to both sides, can we get anymore pathetic, how long before we loose a soldier to arms and ammo made in the UK? Watch this space Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted June 22, 2013 Report Share Posted June 22, 2013 So we are selling to both sides, can we get anymore pathetic, how long before we loose a soldier to arms and ammo made in the UK? Watch this space so you don't recall The Falklands War or Iraq. It must be blissful in your shell and it's lose not loose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.