Another Resignation over Afghan shambles

#2
It's very hard to tell from that article how much of it is spin. eg. "having to 'borrow' ammunition from the canadians." Could that be that we are simply sharing resources?

Some words from those in the know to balance things out would be useful.

SC.
 
#3
The article seems a little too tabloidy for me. I think its junk reporting.One of those cases where if you sneeze they say you have pneumonia.

It can't be that bad.Or is it? :?
 
#5
SkiCarver said:
It's very hard to tell from that article how much of it is spin. eg. "having to 'borrow' ammunition from the canadians." Could that be that we are simply sharing resources?
Unfortunately, this borrowing incident is not a first. When I served in 2000-2001 the name of the "borrowers" was widespread for us "Brits" amongst our US allies. I borrowed numerous resources due to "dues out" supply responses. Some of these resources I would deem as mission critical. I am sure that many people have been placed in this embarrasing situation.

Resource sharing amonst allied nations in Afghanistan is not part of the logistical process, and I fail to see how "sharing" involves a reliance on another countries military supplies as we do not have the funding/logistical lines of communication to support the mission objectives and are never in a position to reciprocate.

I hope this reporting is a mistake, but personally I am inclined to believe it happened. I am grateful to the US for "bailing" me out on many occasions, and am dissappointed that planning military operations on a "shoestring budget" still seems to continue.
 
#6
AndyPipkin said:
The Mirror is tabloid trash... sounds like more of 'a reliable source' type story, which often means, but not always, the Editor has had his briefing meeting and said 'Give me a story on AFG that's juicy'... having had a brother who was a Sun journo and a sister in law who was a Mirror journo, they're capable of great feats of tripe (that conjures an interesting image!)
 
#7
BoomShackerLacker said:
AndyPipkin said:
The Mirror is tabloid trash... sounds like more of 'a reliable source' type story, which often means, but not always, the Editor has had his briefing meeting and said 'Give me a story on AFG that's juicy'... having had a brother who was a Sun journo and a sister in law who was a Mirror journo, they're capable of great feats of tripe (that conjures an interesting image!)
Poor man.How are you coping?
 

Ventress

LE
Moderator
#8
SkiCarver said:
It's very hard to tell from that article how much of it is spin. eg. "having to 'borrow' ammunition from the canadians." Could that be that we are simply sharing resources?

Some words from those in the know to balance things out would be useful.

SC.
They must mean we are knicking their camp cots again, just like GW1!
 
#9
Ventress said:
They must mean we are knicking their camp cots again, just like GW1!
30,000 Brits in theatre, 30,000 American Camp Cots missing!!!! Is this coincidental or what??
 
#10
mad_mac said:
SkiCarver said:
It's very hard to tell from that article how much of it is spin. eg. "having to 'borrow' ammunition from the canadians." Could that be that we are simply sharing resources?
Unfortunately, this borrowing incident is not a first. When I served in 2000-2001 the name of the "borrowers" was widespread for us "Brits" amongst our US allies. I borrowed numerous resources due to "dues out" supply responses. Some of these resources I would deem as mission critical. I am sure that many people have been placed in this embarrasing situation.

Resource sharing amonst allied nations in Afghanistan is not part of the logistical process, and I fail to see how "sharing" involves a reliance on another countries military supplies as we do not have the funding/logistical lines of communication to support the mission objectives and are never in a position to reciprocate.

I hope this reporting is a mistake, but personally I am inclined to believe it happened. I am grateful to the US for "bailing" me out on many occasions, and am dissappointed that planning military operations on a "shoestring budget" still seems to continue.
Ammo is not borrowed from another country, but bought from them. Why? Well the UK does not make the quantity of NATO approved 12.7mm ammo. In order to meet stock requirements, and to meet NATO requirements, UK plc buys its 12.7mm natures from differing sources. In this case Canada. Sorry to upset any troops on the ground with this news, but all the 12.7mm rounds they have been firing up until now have come from either Canada, Belgium, Brazil, etc... so buying more of it from them isn't really borrowing!

I hope who ever wrote that report doesn't get into a panic when he finds out our pistol ammo is NATO approved and from IMI!!!! and not from Moss side :wink:
 
#11
Picatinny_Rail said:
Ammo is not borrowed from another country, but bought from them. Why? Well the UK does not make the quantity of NATO approved 12.7mm ammo. In order to meet stock requirements, and to meet NATO requirements, UK plc buys its 12.7mm natures from differing sources. In this case Canada. Sorry to upset any troops on the ground with this news, but all the 12.7mm rounds they have been firing up until now have come from either Canada, Belgium, Brazil, etc... so buying more of it from them isn't really borrowing!

I hope who ever wrote that report doesn't get into a panic when he finds out our pistol ammo is NATO approved and from IMI!!!! and not from Moss side :wink:
He told how during a ferocious daytime battle with Taliban fighters British troops realised their ammunition in 50 Calibre machine guns was not working properly. Canadian troops had to lend the desperate British soldiers 5,000 rounds. "It really hit the morale of our troops," he said.
I believe this article is explaining that ammunition was borrowed from other nationalities, and not borrowed on the provision of an in lieu pre arranged procurement deal.

I am aware that most ammunition is procured from foreign governments, but this ammunition is then shipped to the troops by the MOD along the supply chain lines of communication.

I don`t think there would have been a monetary exchange for ammunition purchased between nations occurring at Infantry Company level. This article has merely been highlighting the "alledged" inadequacies in current "ad hoc" operational planning.
 
#12
Obviously I was not there on the ground when this took place, so I can not say it is rubbish or true. If that was the case, I stand corrected. :oops:

However, I do know that all the 12.7mm rounds being used, and that are purchased (both FNB and SNC), are NATO approved. The Canadian SNC 4 bit ammo would be identical to our SNC 4 bit ammo, and comparable to our FNB 4 bit ammo. Borrowing theirs because ours doesn't work seems a bit pointless when it's all the same.
I am not doubting the officer has had concerns over logistics and the way he has been treated, and I do not doubt his unit used a quanity of ammo from the Canadians, but I think the newspaper report is way off kilter with this one.
 
#13
Picatinny_Rail said:
Obviously I was not there on the ground when this took place, so I can not say it is rubbish or true. If that was the case, I stand corrected. :oops:

However, I do know that all the 12.7mm rounds being used, and that are purchased (both FNB and SNC), are NATO approved. The Canadian SNC 4 bit ammo would be identical to our SNC 4 bit ammo, and comparable to our FNB 4 bit ammo. Borrowing theirs because ours doesn't work seems a bit pointless when it's all the same.
I am not doubting the officer has had concerns over logistics and the way he has been treated, and I do not doubt his unit used a quanity of ammo from the Canadians, but I think the newspaper report is way off kilter with this one.
Could be a faulty BKI due to a manufacturing error. Whilst ammunition quality control standards ensure ammunition consistency, errors do occur. Might be interesting to look at "ammunition bans and incidents reports" in the future regarding this ammunition nature.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top