The BAE Systems Scandal

[Big Les]

I see the persistence with Landies as being a reflection of the differing approach of UK and US forces - they keep up-armouring their once fairly fast and acceptably maneovrable Humvees to the point where they are pisspoor armoured fighting vehicles rather than utility vehicles. Our army keep the Landies relatively light and fast because it suits their style, avoids extra expense, and because the more capable of the IEDs will blow through any amount of "up-armouring". As Gumboot said, even tanks can be quite readily disabled by those.

 

[gumboot]

The problem is the standard patrol vechile is the landrover. While the US use the hummer, which is much better protected. The landrover is not armoured, and its not effective.

Have you talked to any US soldiers from Iraq? The humvees - even with their extra armour - offer useless protection. Light patrol vehicles aren't designed to offer protection.

The Challenger as I understand it, was recently exposed to being vunerable to IEDs possibily because insurgents planned to target Prince Harry was being sent to Iraq to operate from one.

Everything is vulnerable to IEDs. The Iraqis are daisy chaining sometimes in excess of 100 155mm artillery shells together to form an IED. There's IEDs that will flip an AAV on it's roof - that's a 22 tonne armoured vehicle.

The Challenger 2 has a pretty good record in Basra. On one incident a tank took eight RPG rounds at close range and a MILAN anti-tank rocket, as well as hours of continuous heavy small arms fire. The tank withdrew, received minor repairs, and was back in combat six hours later.

Another tank reportedly survived 70 RPG hits without taking serious damage.

As far as I know there's only three instances of a Challenger 2 suffering serious damage:

One friendly fire incident in which a Challenger 2 shot at and destroyed another Challenger 2.

And:

August 2006 - the driver of a Challenger, Trooper Sean Chance, lost three of his toes when an RPG-29 penetrated the frontal armour during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq.

April 6, 2007 - in Basra, Iraq, an IED shaped charge penetrated the underside of the tank, resulting in the driver losing a leg and causing minor injuries to another soldier.

Again not something I argued.

Well you said they had inferior transport. You didn't specify what type of transport so I covered all bases.

Went, past tense. Okay I'm not a military boffin, but I am Irish and spent a fairly substantial part of childhood in NI in the 80s. I'm no military expert but I do talk to journalists who have been in Iraq over the course of the conflict, and the situation in Iraq is infinitely worse.

True. But the situation in Basra is infinitely better than the situation in Baghdad or Mosul. One of the reasons is the British are more experienced in this type of warfare.

As an Irishman, it's difficult to say this, but by the 80s the British army had done an effective job.

Take for example the modification to a range rover

[qimg]http://irelandsown.net/RUCLandRover.jpg[/qimg]

Its RUC but I can remember watching as one drove down the street, back roof open and two soldiers covering either side of the street.

It's design (this is an old one) means its effective aganist rioting, and it's got a grid at the front, that can come down to protect aganist projectiles, gratting and leather mudflaps surrond the vechile, so debry cannot get at it)

The British army adopted it's NI tactics, (foot patrol, no helmets etc) and once things got bad, went back to business as usual. The total death toil from the "troubles" was 3,000. Thats a month in Iraq, the British army quickly dropped its "Its like Belfast but hotter" policy, when the conflict escalted. Speaking to colleague recently back from Basra the other day, was the report that British troops are confined to one base, and only patrol in heavily armed convoys, transportation in and out, is done by helicopter late at night.

I have no doubt the situation in Basra is far worse than what they dealt with in Northern Ireland, but it's the same urban insurgency warfare. The key to success in that sort of warfare is how you treat the locals. The British seem to have a much better grasp on it than the Americans. Of course it could just be the British are a nicer bunch.

I don't think I can match you on military know how, and I don't doubt the British army are an effective fighting force. But whether the are as good as the should be, or as well served by the powers that be. For example how can a billion pounds be found to line the pockets of a prince, but theres none to keep open the last military hospitial in the UK. I said this before, not to mention the appalling triage time for wounded troops. Both armies are struggling to provide body for their troops which is shocking considering the military budgets of the US and UK armies.

I think it's pretty much a given that no western military is as good as they should be, and that no western military is as well served by the powers that be as it should be.

We westerners are thoroughly anti-war. Maintaining an army is a necessary evil, and we reluctantly pay for as little as we have to. Furthermore politicians and the public are all too willing to use the military as a political tool.

Warfare is expensive - hideously so. The military could comfortably consume 100% of GDP without blinking. Even the USA - with its multi billion dollar military - is constantly struggling to afford the necessities.

-Gumboot

 

[8den]

Have you talked to any US soldiers from Iraq? The humvees - even with their extra armour - offer useless protection. Light patrol vehicles aren't designed to offer protection.

No just journalists back from Iraq having been imbedded in UK army bases. Its horrendous, no transport by day, only 3am helicopter jaunts, it means brutally long shifts to report live during the day, to rude middle of the nights awakings to hitch a ride with a helicopter. And the lattes! God the horror (just kidding I imagine the stress and strain of serving military members is infintely worse than some reporter embeded for a month)

Well you said they had inferior transport. You didn't specify what type of transport so I covered all bases.

Well yes you did mate and covered all the bases, as you do. Look hand on heart we both know a determinded creative enemy can pierce any armour. But a hummer afford some protection from a sniper trying his luck, a landrover does not. It's about reducing risks and the landrover doesn't do it.

True. But the situation in Basra is infinitely better than the situation in Baghdad or Mosul. One of the reasons is the British are more experienced in this type of warfare.

The situation in Basra is, in my opinion better because of a variety of reasons. Essentially to this is the British determination to keep infrastructure working, something they rarly had to worry about in NI because the IRA's infrastructure attacks focused on the UK mainland, because they didn't want to alienate their base. I think the UK have been much more willing to adapt, partially because, unlike the uk, their army has been fighting an urban insurgency for 30 years (and thankfully over ten years of peace) and have had to adapt quickly, making horrendous mistakes (bloody sunday) and effective policing (theres a humourous story involving my dad, forgeting to dim his headlights at a checkpoint and 8 screaming paras that wasn't funny, more downright terrifying when I was 9). But in the end of the day, the UK have been forced to adapt US policies in Iraq.

I have no doubt the situation in Basra is far worse than what they dealt with in Northern Ireland, but it's the same urban insurgency warfare. The key to success in that sort of warfare is how you treat the locals. The British seem to have a much better grasp on it than the Americans. Of course it could just be the British are a nicer bunch.

Mixed feelings on that one. Again, I can remember the polite smiling lads petting my dog through the window as a child, at the heavily armed checkpoints. I can also remember the brutality friends living under the army felt. Racial and sexual slurs from British soldiers. And the repeated reminders. Neil Kinock when as labour leader had christmas dinner with a group of soldiers who had recently shot and killed a kid for joyrider, and a banner glorifying this was on display in the background.

Warfare is expensive - hideously so. The military could comfortably consume 100% of GDP without blinking. Even the USA - with its multi billion dollar military - is constantly struggling to afford the necessities.

-Gumboot

And profoundly wasteful and prone to corruption as this episode proves.

 

[gumboot]

No just journalists back from Iraq having been imbedded in UK army bases. Its horrendous, no transport by day, only 3am helicopter jaunts, it means brutally long shifts to report live during the day, to rude middle of the nights awakings to hitch a ride with a helicopter. And the lattes! God the horror (just kidding I imagine the stress and strain of serving military members is infintely worse than some reporter embeded for a month)

Heh... well, I struggle to ever say anything nice about journalists. And the more politically charged the subject, the less reliable anything they say is.

Well yes you did mate and covered all the bases, as you do. Look hand on heart we both know a determinded creative enemy can pierce any armour. But a hummer afford some protection from a sniper trying his luck, a landrover does not. It's about reducing risks and the landrover doesn't do it.

Heh. You should read a book called "Kill Generation". It's written by a writer for Rolling Stone magazine who was embedded with the 1st Recon Marines during the invasion of Iraq. While the enormous armoured columns headed into the desert, this force rode right up the most densly populated part of the country with the sole purpose of stirring up a hornet's nest and drawing the Iraqi forces away from the main attack. The platoon had only humvees, and most of them didn't even have a roof, let alone armour. None of them were killed. War's a funny thing.

The situation in Basra is, in my opinion better because of a variety of reasons.

You (obviously) have a far better grasp of the "troubles" than I do, and my comparison is certainly of very limited value. But in the military any experience is helpful. The British army have been trying to occupy territory in the face of an unhappy populace for longer than the USA has existed. Heck - that's exactly how the USA was formed. The USA, by contrast, hasn't. Even in Vietnam, the US never really made it to the "occupation" stage. Where they found themselves occupying nations, it was normally after they had bombed the bajeesus out of the population first.

All of that British experience might not be directly 100% parallel to what they have to deal with in Iraq, but it certainly helps.

And profoundly wasteful and prone to corruption as this episode proves.

Well, I was thinking more the armed forces itself, rather than private companies in the arms industry. I certainly think wastefulness and corruption are problematic features of the arms industry, but less so features of the armed forces.

-Gumboot

 

[8den]

Heh... well, I struggle to ever say anything nice about journalists. And the more politically charged the subject, the less reliable anything they say is.

Please don't even get me started.

Heh. You should read a book called "Kill Generation". It's written by a writer for Rolling Stone magazine who was embedded with the 1st Recon Marines during the invasion of Iraq. While the enormous armoured columns headed into the desert, this force rode right up the most densly populated part of the country with the sole purpose of stirring up a hornet's nest and drawing the Iraqi forces away from the main attack. The platoon had only humvees, and most of them didn't even have a roof, let alone armour. None of them were killed. War's a funny thing.

Okay thats on my amazon list. Theres also the highly entertaining "War reporting for cowards" written by the UK times' correspondent, who really didn't want to be there, and got stuck with the forward recon unit for a marine artillery battery, who's commander boasted "pound for pound we are the most effective killing machine in the theatre of war.

You (obviously) have a far better grasp of the "troubles" than I do, and my comparison is certainly of very limited value.

Thankfully my grasp is second hand on the most part. Although some family have been seriously injuried in bombings. My dad, before he was born, decided that he would not bring up his children in that environment, after watching a child being brought out in a belfast bar, to sing IRA athemns, classic indocturination of the young. He's seen his fair share of the crap, he was in Derry for bloody sunday (not involved) and during the UWC strike he was hold up with a B special (paramilitary police force, with strong ties to the Unionists), and he's a catholic!

But in the military any experience is helpful. The British army have been trying to occupy territory in the face of an unhappy populace for longer than the USA has existed. Heck - that's exactly how the USA was formed. The USA, by contrast, hasn't. Even in Vietnam, the US never really made it to the "occupation" stage. Where they found themselves occupying nations, it was normally after they had bombed the bajeesus out of the population first.

From my understanding, ironically, the UK forces have been forced to adapt to US tactics, out of necessity, because the insurgency in Iraq are far more brutal and extreme than the IRA ever where. For all their henious and brutality, the IRA never engaged in sucide bombings, and attacks on religious or social gatherings backfired dramatically, both sides quickly saw there was no merit in them, as they appalled the public. Michael Stone, the amialbe sociopath who attacked stormont last year, in the 80s attacked the funeral of an IRA hunger striker with grenades and shooting, at the funeral of one of his victims, two british soldiers drove into the crowd in an unmarked car, and were beaten and dragged to a lot, and shot. The five men convicted of their death, had the convictions overturned as unsafe. The sicking cycle of violence is almost unending

But in the end of the day, the total death toil over thirty years is a ,surprisingly, under 3,500. That includes civilians, army, and police, north and south, victims of the army and police, victims of terrorism, by both unionists and catholics.

3,500 is just a bad month in Iraq, I'm sorry to say. It's why I cannot equate the British experience in NI to Iraq.

Well, I was thinking more the armed forces itself, rather than private companies in the arms industry. I certainly think wastefulness and corruption are problematic features of the arms industry, but less so features of the armed forces.

-Gumboot

Coming from one of those "oppressed nations" I guess I have a odd feeling about the British Army, and it's reason for existance.

 

[gumboot]

From my understanding, ironically, the UK forces have been forced to adapt to US tactics, out of necessity, because the insurgency in Iraq are far more brutal and extreme than the IRA ever where.

Actually I'm not sure of that. The US forces made crucial mistakes in the invasion and first weeks of the occupation. Without the British expertise, they quite simply totally screwed up the crucial first weeks of the occupation. Those first weeks are when the major part of the population decide if they like you or not.

By the time the US had learned how to occupy a hostile country, it was too late, and everything was falling apart.

The Lieutenant commanding the platoon featured in Kill Generation has also written a book One Bullet Away, and within days of arriving in Baghdad and beginning the occupation - when Iraqis were still greeting them with smiles and flags - he had already predicted the outcome perfectly, based not on what the civilians were doing, but what the Americans were doing.

An excellent example:

Prior to the invasion, the Iraqi government issued literally millions of firearms to civilians. When the Americans occupied they immediately called for these weapons to be handed in. Those friendly to the coalition did so. Those with nasty intentions refused, instantly giving them an advantage over their fellow citizens. What ensued was uncontrollable looting, murders, and so forth - against the pro-coalition Iraqis. The Americans couldn't protect them because the war strategy didn't allow for it, and the demands from Washington prevented it. It doesn't take long for a citizenry to turn against their protectors if those protectors simultaneously take away the citizenry's own ability to defend itself, and also fail to offer protection.

Lt Fick recounts how in the first weeks in Baghdad, they would move into a neighbourhood, remain there just long enough to establish a relationship with the locals, and then they'd be moved some place new. And this continued over and over. Every few days they moved.

Command wouldn't let them go out on patrols when there was chaos in the streets. Quite aside from the fact that they are required under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions to provide security to the civilian population, it was a totally flawed move because it doomed them to failure. When they did go out, it'd be for a specific objective or mission, which might include popping into several villages to say hello before moving on. But there was no flexability.

At one village, the soldiers were told by the civilians that there was unexploded ordnance in someone's backyard. Against orders, Fick stayed at the village and disposed of it. The entire village gathered to watch, and instantly they saw Fick's platoon as a bunch of heroes. He was told off for doing it, and within days they had been moved again, so the villagers had a new American unit to deal with.

Having read some detailed accounts now, having seen the media reports, having a bit of a grasp of warfare, I am now convinced, had the US government given the military commanders the number of troops they requested, and had the military focused in those first crucial weeks on establishing law and order and embedding military units into neighbourhoods, Iraq would be a peaceful stable nation today.

That, of course, is what the British did in Basra. And it worked well. But it cannot be maintained unless it's happening all over the country. The failure of US forces in Baghdad and elsewhere undermined the success of the British troops in Basra. And the rest, as they say, is history.

-Gumboot