Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Mod Troop Carriers Are Seconds

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...fghanistan.html

New vehicles purchased to protect British troops in Afghanistan have already been rejected as unsafe by the US military.

The vehicles failed basic 'survivability' tests, which showed soldiers would be left vulnerable to roadside bombs, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

But although the Pentagon rejected them, the Ministry of Defence has ordered 262 to replace the controversial Snatch Land Rovers. In contrast, the Americans have now ordered a more robust model - at half the £600,000 cost of the vehicle the British have dubbed the 'Husky'.

The disclosure, at the end of the blackest week for British forces in Afghanistan, came as Gordon Brown responded to growing anger over the death toll by promising to improve troops' equipment.

Two of the soldiers who lost their lives in the most recent attacks were named last night as Rifleman Daniel Hume, 22, of 4th Battalion, The Rifles, and Private John Brackpool of Prince of Wales' Company, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, who would have celebrated his 28th birthday yesterday.

A total of 15 British troops have died in just ten days in southern Afghanistan as they continue Operation Panther's Claw, a major assault against the Taliban.

Did we get them from a car boot????

Brown will not improve the equipment as he has no money, we are flat broke as a nation.

So the US Army rejects the equipment and we buy it.

Genius, nothing but the best for our lads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...00-1742747.html

Ministers are secretly planning to cut the number of British troops in Afghanistan, at a time when defence chiefs are appealing for thousands more reinforcements to meet the deadly threat from the resurgent Taliban.

Hours after the death toll of UK forces in Afghanistan rose above the number killed in Iraq, The Independent on Sunday established that Gordon Brown wants to bring up to 1,500 service personnel home from the war-torn country after its elections next month, seemingly on grounds of cost.

Astonished former military chiefs condemned the "disastrous" move, which emerged at the end of one of the bloodiest weeks in the recent history of the British military.

And then we have this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon's wargaming is as good as his "prudent" economic management.

How much longer is this overbearing nutcase going to be propped up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...rdon-Brown.html

The Prime Minister said the campaign in Afghanistan was a "patriotic duty" to keep the streets of Britain safe from the threat of terrorist attack.

In an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service, he paid tribute to the "sacrifice" of the 15 troops who had died since the start of the month in the bloodiest fighting the Army has seen in the Afghan campaign.

"I know that this has been a difficult summer - it is going to be a difficult summer," he said. "These sacrifices that have hurt so many families in our country are ones that the whole of Britain will want to acknowledge.

"I think the operation we are engaged with is showing signs of success. Our troops are making progress as they attempt to make the area safe."

Mr Brown's comments came after the deaths of 15 British soldiers in ten days led to the parents of some soldiers killed in Afghanistan accusing the Government of starving British forces of urgently needed equipment.

They joined politicians and former Armed Forces chiefs in demanding that ministers provide more money to pay for helicopters and armoured vehicles for troops fighting in Helmand.

But Mr Brown said that he had been assured in a lengthy briefing by commanders that the Operation Panther's Claw offensive to drive the Taliban from central Helmand province was making "considerable progress".

"I think the operation we are engaged with is showing signs of success. Our troops are making progress as they attempt to make the area safe," he said.

"The reports that I have show that despite the loss of life - and it is tragic and it is very, very sad indeed - our forces are doing a magnificent job in moving forward."

He acknowledged that there was public concern about the campaign, but he insisted that it was part of a "clear strategy" to clear the terrorist networks from Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to protect the streets of Britain.

"This is a patriotic duty," he said. "Of course people want to know if the action we are taking is the right action. It comes back to terrorism on the streets of Britain. If we were to allow the Taliban to be back in power in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda then to have the freedom of manoeuvre it had before 2001, then we would be less safe as a country.

"There is a line of terror - what you might call a chain of terror - that links what's happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the streets of Britain."

I think we are a less save country because we have a delusional idiot in charge who's bankrupting the nation. If there's terror on the streets it won't be because of the Taliban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...fghanistan.html

Did we get them from a car boot????

Brown will not improve the equipment as he has no money, we are flat broke as a nation.

So the US Army rejects the equipment and we buy it.

Genius, nothing but the best for our lads.

Who know what they- the vehicles are not even identified - so why did you post this crap from the..... Daily Mail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we are a less save country because we have a delusional idiot in charge who's bankrupting the nation. If there's terror on the streets it won't be because of the Taliban.

Exactly. This whole Taleban = Al Qeada thing is getting a bit old.

The Taleban were never AQ. Yes they were nasty bunch of nutters but they were never international terrorists.

Besides, the Taleban dont exist in the same form as they did in 2001. These days Taleban is just a catch all for all Afghan insurectionists. Taleban my rse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. This whole Taleban = Al Qeada thing is getting a bit old.

The Taleban were never AQ. Yes they were nasty bunch of nutters but they were never international terrorists.

Besides, the Taleban dont exist in the same form as they did in 2001. These days Taleban is just a catch all for all Afghan insurectionists. Taleban my rse.

I would rather they were called the "muhjahadine" (spelling not checked), these same guys, now terrorists, were sponsored by the US against the Russian "invasion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know why we dont use these instead.

http://www.satruth.co.za/equip_00065.htm

equip_000065a.gif

The South Africans have been using them since the late 1970s. The yanks recently adopted a modified version of the Caspir.

Bit of a shame so many young lads are being killed because the MoD is utterly incompetent.

Edited by jonewer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont know why we dont use these instead.

http://www.satruth.co.za/equip_00065.htm

The South Africans have been using them since the late 1970s. The yanks recently adopted a modified version of the Caspir.

Bit of a shame so many young lads are being killed because the MoD is utterly incompetent.

MOD, they are not incompetent, they have the nicest offices and furniture in the civil service. (read that somewhere else a while ago)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. This whole Taleban = Al Qeada thing is getting a bit old.

The Taleban were never AQ. Yes they were nasty bunch of nutters but they were never international terrorists.

Besides, the Taleban dont exist in the same form as they did in 2001. These days Taleban is just a catch all for all Afghan insurectionists. Taleban my rse.

Really? How is it that the day before 9/11 they assassinated the leader of the Northern Alliance - could it be beacause they knew an American invasion would come and the US would use need the NA?

Why did they refuse for months to hand over OBL even when an invasion was likely?

Besides, the Taleban dont exist in the same form as they did in 2001.

Where did you get that gem of an idea from? The Taliban's policies and goals are identical to AQ and they are not insurrectionists (whatever you mean by that) as they were the government of Afghanistan for many years.

They destroyed one super power (USSR) and its was their stated plan to destroy another using the same technique (the Bear Trap).

This plan is still in place, the way it works is to get people like you to vote against continuing the war against them, thereby handing the Taliban the victory.

I was/am 100% against the invasion and occupation of Iraq but Afghanistan is a different war altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont know why we dont use these instead.

http://www.satruth.co.za/equip_00065.htm

equip_000065a.gif

The South Africans have been using them since the late 1970s. The yanks recently adopted a modified version of the Caspir.

Bit of a shame so many young lads are being killed because the MoD is utterly incompetent.

Are you ******ing joking? I've seen them blow to little pieces in Iraq. Together with many dozens of M1 tanks, no mobile armour exists that is strong enough.

Edited by Peter Hun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont know why we dont use these instead.

http://www.satruth.co.za/equip_00065.htm

equip_000065a.gif

The South Africans have been using them since the late 1970s. The yanks recently adopted a modified version of the Caspir.

Bit of a shame so many young lads are being killed because the MoD is utterly incompetent.

I've been banging on about these vehicles for ages. Why do we not use these? They work, have a track record and would be cheap. Procurement is not about buying the best but funnelling money to your business mates. When I was doing my army bit I remember an old joke - "If there's a shortage of everything except the enemy you're at the front - and always bear in mind each piece of kit you have was the cheapest they could find" Cheapest isn't the thing anymore - it's all about buying the worst piece of kit.

The British Army is not there to win wars just to fight them. Need to keep them going for financial reasons see? If we were supposed to win quickly do you not think we would use better kit and better tactics? The SA80 is a joke - case in point. Could have bought the Steyr for half the price (no development) and it's a world beater. Don't get me started. I left the army after a very short stint after I VERY QUICKLY discovered that WINNING battles is not what it's all about. Scary isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you ******ing joking? I've seen them blow to little pieces in Iraq. Together with many dozens of M1 tanks, no mobile armour exists that is strong enough.

*sigh* Many dozens of M1 tanks? Are you sure? And they (the Caspirs) might have been "blown to pieces" but the crew survives. Thats the whole point.

Edited by jonewer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The SA80 is a joke - case in point. Could have bought the Steyr for half the price (no development) and it's a world beater.

I accept the price was high, but I also have heard that the A2 is actually a pretty good rifle?

Even the A1 was fantastically accurate, even with the trigger weight. I believe the A2 has an even better barrel.

My understanding was the that prototype was a very good weapon but that every possible corner was cut in the production run, hence the poor performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snip

This plan is still in place, the way it works is to get people like you to vote against continuing the war against them, thereby handing the Taliban the victory.

snip

one teeny tiny flaw in the sentance above.

like, how did the mess start with US (as in we) involved in the first place.

If we werent involved, there would be no victory to be won or lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't get me started. I left the army after a very short stint after I VERY QUICKLY discovered that WINNING battles is not what it's all about. Scary isn't it?

Yes all human organizations eventually just seek self-perpetuation, and as much money as possible - only great leaders understand this and force the organizations to enhance the public good. The military will want to drag the war on for as long as politically possible, at the greatest cost in money. I'm glad you figured it out, and were able to get out before it cost you your life or limbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ask one simple question. "How many men are you willing to lose to defeat the Taliban?." The politicos will answer "as few as possible." Yet that is not an answer. It like saying "I wish to pay a little as possible for a house." The question was not if less or more is better, but a real number.

We have been giving the troops better armour. All that has happened is they have increased the size of the bombs to penetrate it. This will continue and no level of armour will suffice. It has always been the case that armouring troops beyond a point is pointless as the reduced mobility affects their speed. I see news reports of them inching forward behind metal detectors whilst the Taliban runs away, then the Taliban return and do another hit and run. Each time they can pick off a few men. It may be the safest way for the troops to operate but they are not there for safety, if we want to keep them safe we could bring them home. They are there to kill Taliban fighters, all war is about killing more of the enemy than he kills of you. So if we lose 5 soldiers in an operation to kill 10 Taliban, that is a good result. An operation that results in 1 dead soldier and no dead Taliban is a bad result. Sure we have lost fewer soldiers but we are down on the equation.

It's time to realise that war is risk, it is acceptable to have soldiers die. Wasn't it Sun Tzu that said recklessness leads to death, cowardice leads to capture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes all human organizations eventually just seek self-perpetuation, and as much money as possible - only great leaders understand this and force the organizations to enhance the public good. The military will want to drag the war on for as long as politically possible, at the greatest cost in money. I'm glad you figured it out, and were able to get out before it cost you your life or limbs.

Thanks. Watched Queen's Royal Hussars parading through Worcester on Friday. Old friend of mine officer in Regiment. Felt that pang that all 'real' men feel when they see soldiers but realized that I could go home to my family whereas me old mate who's just done 3 back-to-back tours is going to have 3 weeks in Germany then back out to Afghan. Looked great though - Thunderbirds hats an' all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/...gallery.shtml?4

Sa80 far better now - but what a palava, really. Most soldiers on this parade were wearing Hi-Tec Magnum boots btw!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would ask one simple question. "How many men are you willing to lose to defeat the Taliban?." The politicos will answer "as few as possible." Yet that is not an answer. It like saying "I wish to pay a little as possible for a house." The question was not if less or more is better, but a real number.

We have been giving the troops better armour. All that has happened is they have increased the size of the bombs to penetrate it. This will continue and no level of armour will suffice. It has always been the case that armouring troops beyond a point is pointless as the reduced mobility affects their speed. I see news reports of them inching forward behind metal detectors whilst the Taliban runs away, then the Taliban return and do another hit and run. Each time they can pick off a few men. It may be the safest way for the troops to operate but they are not there for safety, if we want to keep them safe we could bring them home. They are there to kill Taliban fighters, all war is about killing more of the enemy than he kills of you. So if we lose 5 soldiers in an operation to kill 10 Taliban, that is a good result. An operation that results in 1 dead soldier and no dead Taliban is a bad result. Sure we have lost fewer soldiers but we are down on the equation.

It's time to realise that war is risk, it is acceptable to have soldiers die. Wasn't it Sun Tzu that said recklessness leads to death, cowardice leads to capture?

Wasn't it Flashman that said "There's none so prim as a Scotsman on the up"?

and "at any given opportunity, hide or run away and let the heroes die if they want to"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's time to realise that war is risk, it is acceptable to have soldiers die. Wasn't it Sun Tzu that said recklessness leads to death, cowardice leads to capture?

Yes, war is a dangerous business. But as British Citizens its our duty to ask questions about how our tax money is spent in the prosecution of a campaign.

If our money is being squandered on refurbishing the MoD offices in whitehall and contracts for desperately needed helicopters are cocked up so badly that "we may as well have bought a turkey" the we have the RIGHT to complain and ask questions and it is our DUTY to our brethren to do so.

These are our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, or friends and neighbouts, who are paying the price for government and civil service corruption and ineptitude.

It is our RIGHT and our DUTY to make a fuss when our soldiers are killed because the MoD has rsehole and earhole disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if we lose 5 soldiers in an operation to kill 10 Taliban, that is a good result.

Is it? How do you arrive at the ratio of 1 dead squaddie per every 2 insurectionists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who know what they- the vehicles are not even identified - so why did you post this crap from the..... Daily Mail?

The vehicle is identified if you read the article.

The "husky"

http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencen...redvehicles.htm

Troops on operations in Afghanistan will benefit from further improvements in safety and protection following the announcement, by Defence Secretary John Hutton, of Preferred Bidders for three new classes of armoured support vehicle.

In October, John Hutton announced moves to acquire some 700 new armoured vehicles in a package worth £700 million, of which £350 million will pay for around 400 brand new armoured support trucks. The trucks will be used to accompany patrols and carry essential supplies such as water and ammunition.

Today, 19 November 2008, Mr Hutton announced the three distinct categories of Tactical Support Vehicles (TSV) and their Preferred Bidders:

Wolfhound TSV (Heavy) - Based on the Cougar 6x6 flatbed made by Force Protection Industries Inc; will support and re-supply our Mastiffs in the highest threat areas. These vehicles will have the highest levels of mine blast protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.