Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

"Sue Smith was the mother of Private Phillip Hewett, killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2005. She was so angry that her son, like so many others, had been sent on patrol in a vehicle notoriously vulnerable to roadside bombs that she wished to sue the Ministry of Defence in a bid to prevent similar tragedies in the future."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8612742/Our-troops-win-victory-in-the-courts.html

The Snatch Land Rovers were so good that you can now buy a second-hand one from just £1500.

http://www.mod-sales.com/direct/vehicle/,37,/37043/Land_Rover.htm

Sad. Very sad. 


H/T eureferendum.com

[albitz]

.......And Brown was cutting their budget while they were trying to convince the MOD to give them the tools to do the job.
He later lied to the Iraq enquiry when he told them that he had increased defence spending every year. This was a barefaced lie and was exposed as such in a matter of days after he told it.
Hateful character.

[Jim]

I'm a serving soldiers and I would travel in a SNATCH Landrover rather than walking on patrol, everyone know that they only have limited protection but a SNATCH landrover saved me from being shot in Bosnia in 1995 when we took incoming fire, I have also used them when they where first issued in Northern Ireland in 1993, before that we had petrol series 3 Landrovers with some bolt on armour which would have given no protection against road side bombs.

People need to understand in 2005 I was also serving in Iraq (Baghdad) to be exact, and that was all we had and we got on with the job I tavelled along Route Irish (then the most Dangerous Road in the World) everyday in a SNATCH and didn't think twice about it, and a lot of our vehicles didn't have any protectsion against anything they where designed for a war in Europe during the Cold War but the threat has now changed and we know have a lot of brand new vehicles for the job. you can't just change a fleet of military vehicles overnight.

[Gaffers]

I'm a serving soldiers and I would travel in a SNATCH Landrover rather than walking on patrol, everyone know that they only have limited protection but a SNATCH landrover saved me from being shot in Bosnia in 1995 when we took incoming fire, I have also used them when they where first issued in Northern Ireland in 1993, before that we had petrol series 3 Landrovers with some bolt on armour which would have given no protection against road side bombs.

People need to understand in 2005 I was also serving in Iraq (Baghdad) to be exact, and that was all we had and we got on with the job I tavelled along Route Irish (then the most Dangerous Road in the World) everyday in a SNATCH and didn't think twice about it, and a lot of our vehicles didn't have any protectsion against anything they where designed for a war in Europe during the Cold War but the threat has now changed and we know have a lot of brand new vehicles for the job. you can't just change a fleet of military vehicles overnight.

Well said Jim 

[Jim]

I'm a serving soldiers and I would travel in a SNATCH Landrover rather than walking on patrol, everyone know that they only have limited protection but a SNATCH landrover saved me from being shot in Bosnia in 1995 when we took incoming fire, I have also used them when they where first issued in Northern Ireland in 1993, before that we had petrol series 3 Landrovers with some bolt on armour which would have given no protection against road side bombs.

People need to understand in 2005 I was also serving in Iraq (Baghdad) to be exact, and that was all we had and we got on with the job I tavelled along Route Irish (then the most Dangerous Road in the World) everyday in a SNATCH and didn't think twice about it, and a lot of our vehicles didn't have any protectsion against anything they where designed for a war in Europe during the Cold War but the threat has now changed and we know have a lot of brand new vehicles for the job. you can't just change a fleet of military vehicles overnight.

Well said Jim 

Cheers Guffer, but it's being pi**ing me off for a while when the media job on the band wagon and don't give the full fact's.

[Nickbat]

I'm a serving soldiers and I would travel in a SNATCH Landrover rather than walking on patrol, everyone know that they only have limited protection but a SNATCH landrover saved me from being shot in Bosnia in 1995 when we took incoming fire, I have also used them when they where first issued in Northern Ireland in 1993, before that we had petrol series 3 Landrovers with some bolt on armour which would have given no protection against road side bombs.

People need to understand in 2005 I was also serving in Iraq (Baghdad) to be exact, and that was all we had and we got on with the job I tavelled along Route Irish (then the most Dangerous Road in the World) everyday in a SNATCH and didn't think twice about it, and a lot of our vehicles didn't have any protectsion against anything they where designed for a war in Europe during the Cold War but the threat has now changed and we know have a lot of brand new vehicles for the job. you can't just change a fleet of military vehicles overnight.

Well said Jim 

Cheers Guffer, but it's being pi**ing me off for a while when the media job on the band wagon and don't give the full fact's.

Jim, I respect your comments but, to be fair, it's not just the media. Major Sebastian Morley, SAS reservist commander in Afghanistan, quit over the issue in November 2008, claiming "chronic under investment" in military equipment, shortly after four of his me were killed after their Snatch Land Rover hit a landmine.

Also Tory MP Patrick Mercer, a former Army officer, accused the [then Labour] government of failing to respond with sufficient urgency to the need to protect troops. "It is not as if there are not better vehicles out there which can be bought and deployed relatively quickly. In fairness, that is starting, but by golly it has taken a long time.

"Men and women have been dying for three or four years now and will continue to as long as these unsuitable vehicles are deployed for unsuitable duties."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/nov/01/sas-commander-quits-afghanistan

So, I'm not alone in suggesting that MoD procurement procedures may have let our soldiers down. 

[Gaffers]

NB what you have to realise is that as servicemen we know the risks and we do it anyway.  No vehicle is completely bomb proof.  I can't go into details but when you bring in more armour they just change tactics until they defeated it.  Equipment is just one piece of the puzzle, training, analysis of enemy tactics, strong leadership and a fair amount of street smarts all help evade fatality and injury.

To Blame it all on equipment is narrowminded, like I said we know the risks.  If we wanted safe jobs we would work elsewhere.

[blackviper90210]

NB what you have to realise is that as servicemen we know the risks and we do it anyway.  No vehicle is completely bomb proof.  I can't go into details but when you bring in more armour they just change tactics until they defeated it.  Equipment is just one piece of the puzzle, training, analysis of enemy tactics, strong leadership and a fair amount of street smarts all help evade fatality and injury.

To Blame it all on equipment is narrowminded, like I said we know the risks.  If we wanted safe jobs we would work elsewhere.

We've always had the same problems with kit, it's just more news worthy now!
We had this in Gulf 1, Bosnia, Gulf 2, Afghan and quite possibly when we go into Libya - but like Guffer said, it's not just the equipment.
We are in this game because we want to be, not because we have to!

[albitz]

Very admirable sentiments, but please understand that we as civvies expect the govt. we elect to provide our armed services with what they need (equipment or whatever else ) to give them the best chance of keeping safe when they sent them into conflict. Imo there are few things more reprehensible than someone in a suit and tie, sat in an office in London taking a decision which has the opposite effect, particularily if they were party to the decision to send the services into battle in the first place.
If we as a country send our people into battle we have a duty to provide them with the best tools available to do the job. If we arent prepared to do that we shouldnt send them there. We shouldnt be allowed to have it both ways imo.
As an aside I happen to strongly disagree with the decisions to send our forces to Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya etc. but that in no way should ever be an excuse to not equp them properly.

[Jim]

If Sue Smith the mother of Private Phillip Hewett, sues the "Ministry of Defence in a bid to prevent similar tragedies in the future" what is she going to do with the cash???

Who would she sue if he had been on a foot patrol?? and no vehicles where used, the manufacture of the boots he was wearing for not giving enough protection??
It might sound a bit harsh but her son has gone, no amount of cash is going to change that, be proud of what he has done and achieved.
 I have lost close friends in Iraq, Afghan & Bosnia and I know if you asked any of them at the beginning of their tour that they might not come back, not one of them would change there mind about going, we know the risks and get on with it.

[Gaffers]

I actully have a theory, and I know this may sound perposturous to some, but I think that our lack of resources (not just equipment, but manpower, etc) has made us become one of the best armies in the world.  When you dont have the extra equipment you make up for it in skills and drills.  This is why I think that prior to Iraq and Afghanistan the US army was very much below us in the skills stakes; note man to man not the armed force as a whole. 

For example, why learn how to clear a house and take prisoners when you have a missile that will obliterate it for you?  I know this does not exhonerate leadership failues in the procurement chain of which there have been many.  However we have a very adpaptive force which never fails to show initiative through adversity, how much of that is to do with the historic problems of procurement?  Unknown but I have a hunch it plays a significant part in making us better 

[Jim]

I actully have a theory, and I know this may sound perposturous to some, but I think that our lack of resources (not just equipment, but manpower, etc) has made us become one of the best armies in the world.  When you dont have the extra equipment you make up for it in skills and drills.  This is why I think that prior to Iraq and Afghanistan the US army was very much below us in the skills stakes; note man to man not the armed force as a whole. 

For example, why learn how to clear a house and take prisoners when you have a missile that will obliterate it for you?  I know this does not exhonerate leadership failues in the procurement chain of which there have been many.  However we have a very adpaptive force which never fails to show initiative through adversity, how much of that is to do with the historic problems of procurement?  Unknown but I have a hunch it plays a significant part in making us better 

Agreed!!!!!

[Nickbat]

NB what you have to realise is that as servicemen we know the risks and we do it anyway.  No vehicle is completely bomb proof.  I can't go into details but when you bring in more armour they just change tactics until they defeated it.  Equipment is just one piece of the puzzle, training, analysis of enemy tactics, strong leadership and a fair amount of street smarts all help evade fatality and injury.

To Blame it all on equipment is narrowminded, like I said we know the risks.  If we wanted safe jobs we would work elsewhere.

Fair comment, Guffer, and I bow down to your bravery and superior knowledge of the battlefield. However, in an ideal world, I presume you would still prefer to undertake your duties with the best equipment available and not have some accountant decide you can't have it? 

[blackviper90210]

We might not be the biggest or have the latest tech or be such a formidable force we once were (Government slaughter), but we are THE best trained service personnel anywhere!

If think you hit the nail on the head though Guffer, spot on! 

[Chris_H]

We might not be the biggest or have the latest tech or be such a formidable force we once were (Government slaughter), but we are THE best trained service personnel anywhere!

If think you hit the nail on the head though Guffer, spot on! 

Yes.  But be careful who reads it.