Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4454|eXtreme to the maX
An SAS reservist commander in Afghanistan has resigned over what he calls "chronic underinvestment" in troops' equipment, reports say.
The commander - quoted in The Daily Telegraph - says ministers have ignored his warnings about the safety of the Army's Snatch Land Rovers.

The vehicle has been criticised because its armour is not designed to withstand roadside bombs.
The Ministry of Defence said equipping personnel was "a clear priority".

The commander is reported to have blamed a lack of adequate resources for the deaths of four service personnel, including Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first British female soldier to die in Afghanistan.

They were killed on 17 June when their Snatch Land Rover struck a roadside bomb in Helmand Province earlier this year.
In his resignation letter, he is understood to have accused ministers of "gross negligence" in allowing soldiers to go into battle without adequate resources.

The lack of equipment, he is reported to have said, was "Cavalier at best. Criminal at worst".
This does seem pathetic, we've been there for ~5 years now and we still don't have enough mine-resistant vehicles?
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
ELITE-UK
Scratching my back
+170|4822|SHEFFIELD, ENGLAND

Dilbert_X wrote:

An SAS reservist commander in Afghanistan has resigned over what he calls "chronic underinvestment" in troops' equipment, reports say.
The commander - quoted in The Daily Telegraph - says ministers have ignored his warnings about the safety of the Army's Snatch Land Rovers.

The vehicle has been criticised because its armour is not designed to withstand roadside bombs.
The Ministry of Defence said equipping personnel was "a clear priority".

The commander is reported to have blamed a lack of adequate resources for the deaths of four service personnel, including Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first British female soldier to die in Afghanistan.

They were killed on 17 June when their Snatch Land Rover struck a roadside bomb in Helmand Province earlier this year.
In his resignation letter, he is understood to have accused ministers of "gross negligence" in allowing soldiers to go into battle without adequate resources.

The lack of equipment, he is reported to have said, was "Cavalier at best. Criminal at worst".
This does seem pathetic, we've been there for ~5 years now and we still don't have enough mine-resistant vehicles?
Evidently not...
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|5013|NT, like Mick Dundee

I'm pretty thrilled by this news tbh. If it makes things safer for the Brits all the better. After that kerfuffle with the C-130s(I think?) earlier this year maybe the British government will invest more money into protecting the people it sends into warzones.

Oh rite, I remember, politicians and generals for the most part don't give a rats arse about soldiers. Ah well, one can hope it might improve things.
Australian culture is about two things, football and racism.

I never know what to kick.
Switch
Knee Deep In Clunge
+489|4812|Tyne & Wear, England
It can only be a good thing that he's spoke out, maybe such a 'high profile' individual quitting over inadequate equipment might give the government a kick up the arse.

That said, General Sir Richard Dannatt has also spoke out, and fuck all has been done so probably not.....
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4454|eXtreme to the maX
Maybe pass on just one F35 and give the army the gear they need?
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Switch
Knee Deep In Clunge
+489|4812|Tyne & Wear, England
Like we even need these fighter jets.  I think it was kmarion who once came up with a good analogy.  The millitary situation can be equated to a family of 6 buying a Ferarri when they actually need a people carrier.

Last edited by KILLSWITCH (2008-11-01 05:30:21)

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
rdx-fx
...
+955|4940
Every service complains about their lack of 'kit'.  Even the USAF (though every other service on the planet laughs at the USAF whenever the USAF bitches about lack of funding...).  Funding in the US generally goes USAF > USN > Army > USMC

And, generally, the US forces have much more equipment ('kit') than any of the allied forces we ever work with.  So much so, that it's just expected that some of our expendables will grow legs and walk off whenever any allied troops are in our areas.


Here's a Gedankenexperiment for you all:

B-2 Bomber:  2.1 BILLION dollars.

US Army number of soldiers:  1,055,000
USMC number of Marines: 195,000
Total Army + USMC: 1,250,000

$2.1 Billion divided by 1,250,000 Soldier & Marine = $1680 per Soldier & Marine

For the cost of ONE super shiny stealth bomber, we could've reequipped EVERY Soldier & Marine with a nice new rifle & optics.
(Preferably something in 7.62x51mm, 6.5x47mm Lapua, or even 6.8spc ..  )

Last edited by rdx-fx (2008-11-01 07:04:24)

Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|4050|College Park, MD
RDX, the problem with your experiment is you expect the tools running this country to actually have some fucking sense.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
jord
Member
+2,382|5026|The North, beyond the wall.
The US actually needs air superiority and stealth bombers. We just have them to keep our soldiers in shit conditions.
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|4691|tropical regions of london
full battle rattle
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|4050|College Park, MD

jord wrote:

The US actually needs air superiority and stealth bombers.
Yeah, damn those crafty al-Qaeda insurgents and their advanced planes. I fear that they'll soon have bi-planes or even tri-planes a la Red Baron.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|5110

God Save the Queen wrote:

full battle rattle
jord
Member
+2,382|5026|The North, beyond the wall.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

jord wrote:

The US actually needs air superiority and stealth bombers.
Yeah, damn those crafty al-Qaeda insurgents and their advanced planes. I fear that they'll soon have bi-planes or even tri-planes a la Red Baron.
The point was about how they're a deterrent for your many enemies, Russia, South Korea, Iran, etc...
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|4050|College Park, MD

jord wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

jord wrote:

The US actually needs air superiority and stealth bombers.
Yeah, damn those crafty al-Qaeda insurgents and their advanced planes. I fear that they'll soon have bi-planes or even tri-planes a la Red Baron.
The point was about how they're a deterrent for your many enemies, Russia, South Korea, Iran, etc...
South Korea? I assume you meant N. Korea >_>

Yes a certain degree of deterrence is necessary but don't we (the US) have like 22 B-2s? 21 would have been just as well and, as RDX said, that money for one bomber could have equipped every soldier with new weaponry.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|5110

tell that twat to quit bitching.  i had the gear from the clinton years in 2001 in afghanistan and in iraq in 2003 and i am still alive.  SAS...special my ass.  cry baby.
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|4691|tropical regions of london
reservists are garbage.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|4759|'Murka

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

jord wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:


Yeah, damn those crafty al-Qaeda insurgents and their advanced planes. I fear that they'll soon have bi-planes or even tri-planes a la Red Baron.
The point was about how they're a deterrent for your many enemies, Russia, South Korea, Iran, etc...
South Korea? I assume you meant N. Korea >_>

Yes a certain degree of deterrence is necessary but don't we (the US) have like 22 B-2s? 21 would have been just as well and, as RDX said, that money for one bomber could have equipped every soldier with new weaponry.
We've got 20 now. Those bombers were built long before 9/11, so your tradeoff makes no sense.

To think that counterinsurgency is the only fight the US military should be prepared to fight is remarkably (but not surprisingly) short-sighted. Thank God there are strategic thinkers responsible for that kind of stuff.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
jord
Member
+2,382|5026|The North, beyond the wall.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

jord wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:


Yeah, damn those crafty al-Qaeda insurgents and their advanced planes. I fear that they'll soon have bi-planes or even tri-planes a la Red Baron.
The point was about how they're a deterrent for your many enemies, Russia, South Korea, Iran, etc...
South Korea? I assume you meant N. Korea >_>

Yes a certain degree of deterrence is necessary but don't we (the US) have like 22 B-2s? 21 would have been just as well and, as RDX said, that money for one bomber could have equipped every soldier with new weaponry.
Ya North.

And if you went down that road of thinking. Why not 20? Actually why not 19? Hmm 18 and we can all get some dragonskinz. 17 and we could all get a pay rise. Etc.

Until you have 5, and they get raped by Russians and you all die.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|5110

usmarine wrote:

tell that twat to quit bitching.  i had the gear from the clinton years in 2001 in afghanistan and in iraq in 2003 and i am still alive.  SAS...special my ass.  cry baby.

God Save the Queen wrote:

reservists are garbage.
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|4691|tropical regions of london

FEOS wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

jord wrote:


The point was about how they're a deterrent for your many enemies, Russia, South Korea, Iran, etc...
South Korea? I assume you meant N. Korea >_>

Yes a certain degree of deterrence is necessary but don't we (the US) have like 22 B-2s? 21 would have been just as well and, as RDX said, that money for one bomber could have equipped every soldier with new weaponry.
We've got 20 now. Those bombers were built long before 9/11, so your tradeoff makes no sense.

To think that counterinsurgency is the only fight the US military should be prepared to fight is remarkably (but not surprisingly) short-sighted. Thank God there are strategic thinkers responsible for that kind of stuff.
AQ doesnt have a strong navy,  we should ditch our carriers.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|4759|'Murka

God Save the Queen wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:


South Korea? I assume you meant N. Korea >_>

Yes a certain degree of deterrence is necessary but don't we (the US) have like 22 B-2s? 21 would have been just as well and, as RDX said, that money for one bomber could have equipped every soldier with new weaponry.
We've got 20 now. Those bombers were built long before 9/11, so your tradeoff makes no sense.

To think that counterinsurgency is the only fight the US military should be prepared to fight is remarkably (but not surprisingly) short-sighted. Thank God there are strategic thinkers responsible for that kind of stuff.
AQ doesnt have a strong navy,  we should ditch our carriers.
Nobody does. And nobody's planning on building any any time soon. Scrap all the carriers, give all the planes to the USAF and USMC, give the savings to the Army and USMC for equipment, then pay off a large chunk of the budget deficit with the left over.

Problem solved.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
jord
Member
+2,382|5026|The North, beyond the wall.
Reservists have go the right idea, they just need a little help getting onto the right path...
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|4691|tropical regions of london

FEOS wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

FEOS wrote:


We've got 20 now. Those bombers were built long before 9/11, so your tradeoff makes no sense.

To think that counterinsurgency is the only fight the US military should be prepared to fight is remarkably (but not surprisingly) short-sighted. Thank God there are strategic thinkers responsible for that kind of stuff.
AQ doesnt have a strong navy,  we should ditch our carriers.
Nobody does. And nobody's planning on building any any time soon. Scrap all the carriers, give all the planes to the USAF and USMC, give the savings to the Army and USMC for equipment, then pay off a large chunk of the budget deficit with the left over.

Problem solved.
we just need skynet online
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|4050|College Park, MD

FEOS wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

FEOS wrote:


We've got 20 now. Those bombers were built long before 9/11, so your tradeoff makes no sense.

To think that counterinsurgency is the only fight the US military should be prepared to fight is remarkably (but not surprisingly) short-sighted. Thank God there are strategic thinkers responsible for that kind of stuff.
AQ doesnt have a strong navy,  we should ditch our carriers.
Nobody does. And nobody's planning on building any any time soon. Scrap all the carriers, give all the planes to the USAF and USMC, give the savings to the Army and USMC for equipment, then pay off a large chunk of the budget deficit with the left over.

Problem solved.
What if the micronation of Sealand decides to build multiple huge carrier groups? You have to think about the bigger picture here...
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|4759|'Murka

God Save the Queen wrote:

FEOS wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

AQ doesnt have a strong navy,  we should ditch our carriers.
Nobody does. And nobody's planning on building any any time soon. Scrap all the carriers, give all the planes to the USAF and USMC, give the savings to the Army and USMC for equipment, then pay off a large chunk of the budget deficit with the left over.

Problem solved.
we just need skynet online
What makes you think it isn't?

That's a conspiracy Dilbert or Ramm should run with, I think.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard