In message <20060628.0754.106923snz@zhochaka.org.uk>
dbell@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:

> On 27 Jun, in article
> <1151442646.282042.265910@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
> datchworthdisco@yahoo.co.uk "GS" wrote:
>
> > A few minutes on the BBC1 10pm news this evening regarding the
> > suitabilty of Land Rovers for the Army. Angled towards "Is/has the
> > government cost lives by not investing in a more suitable vehicle for
> > the forces..."
>
> It depends what you want to do. The Army has certainly been looking at a
> larger vehicle, more in the class of the 101, which would have light
> armour. The wheels of procurement grind slow, and the odd little bits I
> recall suggest that the specification had no input from Iraq, but was
> meant for the sort of large-scale warfighting that was associated with
> the invasion, where protection from shell-splinters rather than RPGs was
> more significant.
>
> A modern 101--diesel engine, coil springs--might not be a bad vehicle,
> but the cost to the manufacturers of submitting a design these days is
> so high that Land Rover was squeezed out of the market. The Wolf isn't
> really a new vehicle.
>
> When the Defender line is replaced, Land Rover are going to be starting
> from scratch on military sales, and, even with Ford money, it's going to
> be hard.
>

It's already be widely said that Ford are not interested in the
military market and have no intention of competing for military
contracts for any new vehicles. That's very believable bearing
in mind LR's move away from "off-road first" designs. Sadly.

Now, with new version of the JCB Fastrack whizzing round here,
looking very much more Unimog-like, I can't help wondering
if JCB could resurrect the 80's plan to take over Defender,
presumambly under a new name, when the current model dies and
leave LR to play with their urban 4x4's?

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:19:21 +0100, Tom Woods
<news@NOPSAMtomwoods.co.uk> wrote:

>Its still a war though!.

No it isn't, it's a conflict. Don't confuse a conflict with a war.

>Even if its not a 'proper' war its still a
>situation involving lots of armed people with conflicting viewpoints -
>its not hard to see where that could end up.

In which case I'm currently at war with the Planning Department of
Sheffield City Council. (Not armed, yet, though...)

>You choose to be a soldier you run the risk of getting killed, part of
>the job description isnt it?.

No. TBH I don't know anyone in the forces who signed up in order to
kill anyone. The JD is primarily about ensuring peace and security -
not killing thousands of innocent people on some misguided lie of a
political agenda.


--
Coming quite soon:
http://www.ulrc.net
 
Srtgray wrote:

>>
> Getting the F**k out, and never having gone there in the first place?
>
> Sorry, I'm a big supporter of the Army (got some good ex-BA buddies),
> but this is one spat that we should NEVER have got into.
>
> Stuart

Can't argue with that, Stuart :)

--
Regards

Steve G
 
Ian Rawlings wrote:
> On 2006-06-27, Derek <del.wattsnospambaby@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Seems crazy to send a lightly armoured vehicle out on a patrol when you
>> are aware that insurgents are about with rather more than small arms but
>> then it shows how much the government cares they gave the Armed Forces a"
>> Veterans Day" as in they do in the US crap on the forces but give them a
>> day to celebrate the process.
>
> The yanks get the humvee, which also has the same problem, just not
> designed to withstand explosions. I've got no idea what makes someone
> join the army (I'm crap at taking orders, not to mention fond of
> living) but I don't see how any government could send troops in
> lightly, it's a huge thing to ask of anyone. If anyone ever thinks
> they've got a stressful job, being a soldier has to ace them all.
>
> Sending tanks in might make it worse, that seems to be what's being
> said, but who's saying it and what they are saying it for is a
> question that's hard to answer; is it an attempt to "explain away" the
> decision, or is it genuinely inappropriate to send in large armoured
> vehicles.
>
The US military actually used to tell their recruits that the HumVee was
armoured - they soon learned the truth!

The use of a main battle tank (like Challenger or the Abrahms, for
example) is pretty much unrealistic. They are designed for open, rolling
country (like Europe or the deserts of the Gulf) warfare and do not
perform well in either mountainous regions or urban areas.

--
Regards

Steve G
 
On or around Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:16:54 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> enlightened us
thusly:

>As to whether the Land Rover is the right vehicle for the job in
>Afghanistan (or elsewhere for that matter) that's another question
>altogether. I wonder, though, what you would have provided to protest
>the troops from a rocket propelled grenade attack - tanks? An RPG7 can
>immobilise a Challenger II (which would be totally unsuitable for the
>Afghan terrain anyway). What do you think is the solution?

AIUI the SAS go around in a stripped-down roofless vehicle for maximum
visibility and angles of fire...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There are three sorts of people in the world - those who can count,
and those who can't" (Anon)
 
On or around Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:43:47 +0100, Tom Woods
<news@NOPSAMtomwoods.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>I get sick of them reporting stuff about people dying in wars on the
>news.
>I heard them saying earlier on TV that '8 british soldiers have died
>in landrovers in iraq so far'
>
>Its a war!, theyre in the army!.. dying in the line of duty is surely
>one of the associated risks of being a soldier!
>
>why do they always report when soldiers die in wars like its a
>surprise or its wrong? its obviously not very nice, but its not
>unheard of!

"If you can't take the heat..."

but seriously, you join the army knowing full well that you may in the line
of duty get fired at and killed. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't
belong there in the first place.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There are three sorts of people in the world - those who can count,
and those who can't" (Anon)
 
On or around Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:47:56 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<news05@tarcus.org.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2006-06-27, Tom Woods <news@NOPSAMtomwoods.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> why do they always report when soldiers die in wars like its a
>> surprise or its wrong? its obviously not very nice, but its not
>> unheard of!
>
>It's not that kind of war, the casualties on our side are relatively
>rare so more deaths is an event, especially as so much of the country
>doesn't agree with the invasion in the first place. Would you prefer
>not to hear anything at all?

I'd prefer to know that people are being killed but I get fed up with the
implication that it's somehow unexpected and wrong that soldiers get shot
at. FFS, that's the sodding job, if you don't like it why TF did you join
up in the first place? It's not all posing around looking hard...

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There are three sorts of people in the world - those who can count,
and those who can't" (Anon)
 
On or around Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:02:51 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother}
@"@101fc.net> enlightened us thusly:

>No. TBH I don't know anyone in the forces who signed up in order to
>kill anyone. The JD is primarily about ensuring peace and security -
>not killing thousands of innocent people on some misguided lie of a
>political agenda.

but there's no guarantee that having joined up you're not going to have to
go into a high-risk situation where you may be shot at and if unlucky
killed. That is, IMHO, par for the course.

And the ordinary soldier on the ground never did get any say in where and
what he did, he obeys orders from his superiors.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic
face by frightening people in the street.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:02:51 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:19:21 +0100, Tom Woods
><news@NOPSAMtomwoods.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Its still a war though!.
>
>No it isn't, it's a conflict. Don't confuse a conflict with a war.

I thought a war was just a conflict that took place between lots of
people on a large scale and often involved weapons?

>>You choose to be a soldier you run the risk of getting killed, part of
>>the job description isnt it?.
>
>No. TBH I don't know anyone in the forces who signed up in order to
>kill anyone. The JD is primarily about ensuring peace and security -
>not killing thousands of innocent people on some misguided lie of a
>political agenda.

I didnt say that killing other people was part of the job, but being
killed by someone else is one of the risks of being in the army.

I mean that if you become a soldier you might expect to be involved in
armed fights that may end in you getting shot or killed.. in the same
way that if you become an IT techie you might expect to get RSI or
develop a liking for beards and sandals.. One of the expected risks of
the job i'd have said.


 
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:10:41 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<news05@tarcus.org.uk> wrote:

>Equally silly reporting traffic accidents, don't want to die in a
>crash, don't drive!

I'm definately not against reporting it!, just the way that it is
done.
Dont want to get shot at by someone in a conflict then stay away from
the conflicts (so dont become a soldier!)

>You're entitled to an opinion, even if you decide to misuse it ;-)

if everybody had the same opinion then we wouldnt be fighting in the
first place! ;-)
 
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:12:54 +0100, Austin Shackles
<austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:

>>why do they always report when soldiers die in wars like its a
>>surprise or its wrong? its obviously not very nice, but its not
>>unheard of!
>
>"If you can't take the heat..."
>
>but seriously, you join the army knowing full well that you may in the line
>of duty get fired at and killed. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't
>belong there in the first place.

Thats what i was trying to say! :)
 
On 2006-06-28, Austin Shackles <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:

> but there's no guarantee that having joined up you're not going to have to
> go into a high-risk situation where you may be shot at and if unlucky
> killed. That is, IMHO, par for the course.

I don't think anyone's arguing with that Austin, it was just that
someone was saying that he didn't think that we needed to be told that
soldiers were being killed as that's what they were there for, which
isn't really agreeable. Even in the last two wars, casualty figures
were regularly posted, after heavy massaging of course.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
In message <zpBog.92915$wl.77149@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
SteveG <_@_._> wrote:

> Ian Rawlings wrote:
> > On 2006-06-27, Derek <del.wattsnospambaby@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Seems crazy to send a lightly armoured vehicle out on a patrol when you
> >> are aware that insurgents are about with rather more than small arms but
> >> then it shows how much the government cares they gave the Armed Forces a"
> >> Veterans Day" as in they do in the US crap on the forces but give them a
> >> day to celebrate the process.
> >
> > The yanks get the humvee, which also has the same problem, just not
> > designed to withstand explosions. I've got no idea what makes someone
> > join the army (I'm crap at taking orders, not to mention fond of
> > living) but I don't see how any government could send troops in
> > lightly, it's a huge thing to ask of anyone. If anyone ever thinks
> > they've got a stressful job, being a soldier has to ace them all.
> >
> > Sending tanks in might make it worse, that seems to be what's being
> > said, but who's saying it and what they are saying it for is a
> > question that's hard to answer; is it an attempt to "explain away" the
> > decision, or is it genuinely inappropriate to send in large armoured
> > vehicles.
> >
> The US military actually used to tell their recruits that the HumVee was
> armoured - they soon learned the truth!
>
> The use of a main battle tank (like Challenger or the Abrahms, for
> example) is pretty much unrealistic. They are designed for open, rolling
> country (like Europe or the deserts of the Gulf) warfare and do not
> perform well in either mountainous regions or urban areas.
>

There's also the local "political" dimension - British[1] forces have
always tried to give a "soft" impression to the locals, hence tanks
(except some Centurion bulldozer conversions) were never used in NI.
I've repeatedly seen commanders in Iraq and all the other
peace-keeping roles being very keen on the "soft" approach (bush
hats rather than helmets, Land Rovers rather than tanks - an
armoured car is a tank to most people, etc). I've not yet seen an
actual solider on the ground complaining - just the press and some
minor politicians trying to make a name for themselves which makes
me very suspicous of their motives.

Richard

[1] Perhaps that should be European/Austrailian?

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 
On or around Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:34:13 +0100, beamendsltd
<beamendsltd@btconnect.com> enlightened us thusly:

>There's also the local "political" dimension - British[1] forces have
>always tried to give a "soft" impression to the locals, hence tanks
>(except some Centurion bulldozer conversions) were never used in NI.
>I've repeatedly seen commanders in Iraq and all the other
>peace-keeping roles being very keen on the "soft" approach (bush
>hats rather than helmets, Land Rovers rather than tanks - an
>armoured car is a tank to most people, etc). I've not yet seen an
>actual solider on the ground complaining - just the press and some
>minor politicians trying to make a name for themselves which makes
>me very suspicous of their motives.

hmmm. you could have a point there. The soft approach seems to work most
of the time, too. and if you have to defend against RPGs you need serious
armour; ditto if you're talking about landmines boosted with 10Kg of semtex.
Typical light armoured vehicles, ISTR, are good for up to 7.62 rounds and
the like.

Travelling around in heavy armour is apt to be seen as a threat/challenge,
and if you're in a "policing" action that's not at all helpful.


On an offshoot - watching the guards doing their bit at HMQ's birthday bash,
is trikes me that it'd be a damned sight better spectacle if they'd kept a
few dozen Lee-Enfields for display purposes. The current infantry weapon
just isn't as good for doing ceremonial displays with, and looks silly.
Mind, I gather that it *is* silly, as well, what with feeble littel bullets
and so forth :)

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Nessun maggior dolore che ricordarsi del tempo felice nella miseria"
- Dante Alighieri (1265 - 1321) from Divina Commedia 'Inferno'
 
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:56:11 +0100, Austin Shackles
<austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:

>Mind, I gather that it *is* silly, as well, what with feeble littel bullets
>and so forth :)

'cept these feeble little bullets penetrate armour.

AJH

 
On Thursday, in article
<d257a2l62j9tj97ec2qs9mjh673hhrl1m7@4ax.com>
austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net "Austin Shackles" wrote:

> On an offshoot - watching the guards doing their bit at HMQ's birthday bash,
> is trikes me that it'd be a damned sight better spectacle if they'd kept a
> few dozen Lee-Enfields for display purposes. The current infantry weapon
> just isn't as good for doing ceremonial displays with, and looks silly.
> Mind, I gather that it *is* silly, as well, what with feeble littel bullets
> and so forth :)

On the other hand, I remember, about 1985, an American acquaintance
noticing a lot of the King's Troop wearing the same medal, and wondering
what it was.

South Atlantic Medal, I explained.

I

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
 
Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:16:54 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> enlightened us
> thusly:
>
>> As to whether the Land Rover is the right vehicle for the job in
>> Afghanistan (or elsewhere for that matter) that's another question
>> altogether. I wonder, though, what you would have provided to protest
>> the troops from a rocket propelled grenade attack - tanks? An RPG7 can
>> immobilise a Challenger II (which would be totally unsuitable for the
>> Afghan terrain anyway). What do you think is the solution?
>
> AIUI the SAS go around in a stripped-down roofless vehicle for maximum
> visibility and angles of fire...

You're quite right Austin, but the troops killed in Afghanistan weren't
SAS and normal grunts don't get the degree of training needed to be
effective in (what is euphemistically called)a pink panther.

--
Regards

Steve G
 
beamendsltd wrote:
> In message <zpBog.92915$wl.77149@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
> SteveG <_@_._> wrote:
>
>> Ian Rawlings wrote:
>>> On 2006-06-27, Derek <del.wattsnospambaby@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems crazy to send a lightly armoured vehicle out on a patrol when you
>>>> are aware that insurgents are about with rather more than small arms but
>>>> then it shows how much the government cares they gave the Armed Forces a"
>>>> Veterans Day" as in they do in the US crap on the forces but give them a
>>>> day to celebrate the process.
>>> The yanks get the humvee, which also has the same problem, just not
>>> designed to withstand explosions. I've got no idea what makes someone
>>> join the army (I'm crap at taking orders, not to mention fond of
>>> living) but I don't see how any government could send troops in
>>> lightly, it's a huge thing to ask of anyone. If anyone ever thinks
>>> they've got a stressful job, being a soldier has to ace them all.
>>>
>>> Sending tanks in might make it worse, that seems to be what's being
>>> said, but who's saying it and what they are saying it for is a
>>> question that's hard to answer; is it an attempt to "explain away" the
>>> decision, or is it genuinely inappropriate to send in large armoured
>>> vehicles.
>>>
>> The US military actually used to tell their recruits that the HumVee was
>> armoured - they soon learned the truth!
>>
>> The use of a main battle tank (like Challenger or the Abrahms, for
>> example) is pretty much unrealistic. They are designed for open, rolling
>> country (like Europe or the deserts of the Gulf) warfare and do not
>> perform well in either mountainous regions or urban areas.
>>
>
> There's also the local "political" dimension - British[1] forces have
> always tried to give a "soft" impression to the locals, hence tanks
> (except some Centurion bulldozer conversions) were never used in NI.
> I've repeatedly seen commanders in Iraq and all the other
> peace-keeping roles being very keen on the "soft" approach (bush
> hats rather than helmets, Land Rovers rather than tanks - an
> armoured car is a tank to most people, etc). I've not yet seen an
> actual solider on the ground complaining - just the press and some
> minor politicians trying to make a name for themselves which makes
> me very suspicous of their motives.
>
> Richard
>
> [1] Perhaps that should be European/Austrailian?
>

You're right there, Richard. The British methodology is a hearts and
minds approach which contrasts starkly with the American "kick ass"
philosophy. The average British soldier is much happier wearing his
beret than a kevlar helmet.

--
Regards

Steve G
 
AJH wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:56:11 +0100, Austin Shackles
> <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:
>
>> Mind, I gather that it *is* silly, as well, what with feeble littel bullets
>> and so forth :)
>
> 'cept these feeble little bullets penetrate armour.
>
> AJH
>
No better than anything else.

--
Regards

Steve G
 
Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:34:13 +0100, beamendsltd
> <beamendsltd@btconnect.com> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> There's also the local "political" dimension - British[1] forces have
>> always tried to give a "soft" impression to the locals, hence tanks
>> (except some Centurion bulldozer conversions) were never used in NI.
>> I've repeatedly seen commanders in Iraq and all the other
>> peace-keeping roles being very keen on the "soft" approach (bush
>> hats rather than helmets, Land Rovers rather than tanks - an
>> armoured car is a tank to most people, etc). I've not yet seen an
>> actual solider on the ground complaining - just the press and some
>> minor politicians trying to make a name for themselves which makes
>> me very suspicous of their motives.
>
> hmmm. you could have a point there. The soft approach seems to work most
> of the time, too. and if you have to defend against RPGs you need serious
> armour; ditto if you're talking about landmines boosted with 10Kg of semtex.
> Typical light armoured vehicles, ISTR, are good for up to 7.62 rounds and
> the like.
>
> Travelling around in heavy armour is apt to be seen as a threat/challenge,
> and if you're in a "policing" action that's not at all helpful.
>
>
> On an offshoot - watching the guards doing their bit at HMQ's birthday bash,
> is trikes me that it'd be a damned sight better spectacle if they'd kept a
> few dozen Lee-Enfields for display purposes. The current infantry weapon
> just isn't as good for doing ceremonial displays with, and looks silly.
> Mind, I gather that it *is* silly, as well, what with feeble littel bullets
> and so forth :)
>

There was a move by the top brass to keep several hundred SLR's for
ceremonial purposes when the SA80 was first introduced but the idea was
squashed by the politicians.

Don't be fooled by the small calibre of the SA80. It may only be 5.56mm
but it packs the same punch as the 7.62 from an SLR due to it's
significantly higher muzzle velocity. You'll know when you're hit by one :)


--
Regards

Steve G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.