Jump to content

The right kit?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem would appear to be that, while better equipment was available at the time, the army chiefs decided not to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The military commanders sitting safely behind a desk in Whitehall sending soldiers into danger in unsuitable vehicles would that be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...