Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
#1
I seem to remember half way through last year our think tanks came up with a new vehicle that would beat all of the road side bombs and give our troops superior fire power. as I remember it, it should have been delivered about April this year.
No doubt it was delayed again due to an MP's pay rise.
Talk about doing duty for your country.
Ian...
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#2
Yes those Land Rovers are absolutely useless against landmines and similar devices. The death toll mounts in Afghanistan, the Americans are taking more losses there too than they are in Iraq...and on Newsnight the other night it said the current Afghanistan conflict has gone on longer than World War II.
Although to be fair re equipment. This new system employed by the Taliban is a change in tactics. I dont suppose for an economic minute that its possible to have every piece of equipment ready for every type of emergency that crops up. When you are hit by some new tactic, some new device, you then have to catch up and try and equip to deal with it. It takes time, and in the interim troops are vulnerable.
#3
Troops are always vulnerable, and that's why we should value them and treat them well.
Guest 663- Registered: 20 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,136
#4
Have to agree comeing from a strong Army back ground war has changed so much even since my Grandfathers time,
the question is where would we be without them for what we ask of them, they should be given what ever it takes to do the job.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#5
i do not think that there is much our troops can do about suicide bombers or zealots.
it is not the warfare they are trained for.
on the subject of equipment, andy mcnab maintains that our people have never been so well-equipped.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#6
Howard - that is not true, what you say about Andy McNab. You may be referring to his comment on his tv programme about the upgraded assault rifle. Some of the equipment is better than ever, true - that surely is a logical development of Defence procurement and development but ask any soldier and there remains many shortcomings and they are still having to scrounge kit off the yanks....
The Navy has lost far too many escorts, the Air Force need more transport aircraft and reccy aircraft, the Army are desparate for more choppers.... to mention a few items..
Oh, not to mention the RN frigates going into war zones lacking their main missile armanent... due to costs.
What about the scrapping of the Sea Harriers, reducing the air defence capability of our carriers.
We are getting half the number of Type 45 destroyers than are needed, we have too few AS frigates, the order for the Astute class has been reduced and the Army do not have enough boots to put on nthe ground or in reserve...
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#7
A solution to the shortage of troops would be to start either a commonwealth regiment so those nationals completing 7 years or whatever could then qualify for UK residency or introducing a foreign legion so all these young males who have fled their country and submitted a bogus asylum claim can enlist and show their commitment to the UK by putting in 7 years in the army before being granted residency.Finally thugs found carrying knives could be offered the choice 5 years in chokey or 3 years in the services.
A bit controversial I agree but sometimes we have to think outside the box in order to resolve different problems.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
#8
We could do with a bit more of that thinking outside the box, frankly! Creative solutions are needed in these times.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
or....we could just build on one of the finest infantry brigades in the British Army (and that means the world) and recruit more Ghurkas, raising a couple of extra Battalions. We would have no shortage of volunteers.
The real problem is not where to find troops, there are plenty of suggestions, indeed improve pay and conditions and we could improve home grown recruiting as well.
The problem is the Defence budget. It is far too low to meet its commitments and to maintain balanced forces. There is a £1bn blackhole in the equipment budget alone.
We need to make a significant increase in our Defence budget.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
#10
Or we could stop getting dragged into America's wars. Just a thought.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
#11
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#12
We have common purpose with our main allies, the USA.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#13
marek makes a good point here.
it would certainly show who is committed to their new country.
will not happen though.
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
#14
Marek.
You make some very dood points there, this was talked about in th past with a lot of forumites.
I did state if it happened I would eat my socks.
sorry to say that my socks will end up in my drawer and my diet will be a lot helthier.
NO chance of these things happening in our lifetime.
Ian...
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
#15
BarryW, I can't help noticing your over use of the plural pronoun. Please stop including me in your own dreams of right wing glory led by George Dubya, or whichever puppet inhabits the West Wing next. I do not have a common purpose with the USA, given that the purpose of the USA is to promote itself and dominate the world to the detriment of anyone in the way. Not my choice!!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#16
Totally disagree with your interpretation of the USA's purpose and GWB is not the USA, he is merely the President, for now.
Interesting that you disasocciate yourself with Western interests Bern.
#17
Not Western, just Gung-ho USA. I would be a fool if I thought the USA had my interests at heart.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
#18
Western intersets and American interests are not always the same thing. The cold war period saw American planning based around fighting the war in Europe, great for them but terminal for us. During Gulf War 1 they encouraged uprising against Sadam but then pulled back from supporting them. This time they dragged us all in for spurious reasons and without learning anything from the previous conflict. To his credit our own MP voted against the war, although he then backtracked by voting against any investigation into why it was begun. While Sadam was without doubt a man who needed deposing his regime still saw more women in education than in any other muslim majority country and was the only one to have christians in positions of authority. Other means of forcing a regime change could have been and should have been looked into rather than rushing into the insane glory of a war for which none of its planners had any ideas for the country beyond the conflict. It would be nice to think that "Western Interests' would be better served by civilising rather than destabalising other nations.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#19
just as an aside, i remember mr henry kissinger saying many years ago that america does not have friends, only interests.
clearly this means monetary gains for the major companies.
is this worth the life of even one serviceman?
