Mastiff and shameless politicking

#1
David Cameron promises review of armoured vehicles after Afghanistan deaths - Telegraph

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Mr Cameron said he would look “carefully” at any measures to give troops even greater security.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I feel pretty disgusted by this. Bigger the protection, bigger the bomb - Cameron knows about as much as me about ballistic protection and making the above comment really grips my shit.

How about withdrawing now - that would give blokes some protection...

Discuss.
[/FONT]
 
#3
David Cameron promises review of armoured vehicles after Afghanistan deaths - Telegraph

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Mr Cameron said he would look “carefully” at any measures to give troops even greater security.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I feel pretty disgusted by this. Bigger the protection, bigger the bomb - Cameron knows about as much as me about ballistic protection and making the above comment really grips my shit.

How about withdrawing now - that would give blokes some protection...

Discuss.
[/FONT]
Er, because it takes time and planning to pull a mass of troops out of a conflict area; you can't just up sticks and run for the border!
Plus we will have to negotiate a ceasefire with the Taliban so that they don't use all those IEDS they are going to/ have seeded cos we are no longer doing GDA patrols when the CLPs move out.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#4
Presumably he was asked a question about whether British troops were safe after our 'heaviest armoured vehicle' was defeated and answered in the only way he could?

If he'd said that increasing armour was pointless and probably not all that practical with current technology it'd just have given the redtops and the spastics who read them the chance to get all spittle flecked about the Prime Minister not caring about Our Brave Boys.
 
#5
Well he has to say something. Saying our vehicles are good and sometimes the enemy get lucky sounds callous even if its true. Though it is true you can also ways build a bigger bomb. I'd rather the enemy have to work to get their vehicle kill than just go out in an unarmored vehicle.
You made me defend a tory good thing I've got plenty of 9mm to put down range today=-D
 
#6
Presumably he was asked a question about whether British troops were safe after our 'heaviest armoured vehicle' was defeated and answered in the only way he could?

If he'd said that increasing armour was pointless and probably not all that practical with current technology it'd just have given the redtops and the spastics who read them the chance to get all spittle flecked about the Prime Minister not caring about Our Brave Boys.
AOS and JBM. I know, I understand. It just smacks of Thatcher saying that she would not fight the 83 election on the back of the Falklands. Que flags of the union being waved left, right and centre. Cameron cares? Cynical me?
 
#7
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. The amount of HME or HE that can be placed is only really limited by logistics, time available and the ability to conceal and trigger it. A big enough charge and you can defeat any PMV, even if you do not compromise the integrity of its armour. It's a COIN/SY operation and there are people trying to kill our people. At times they will succeed. Any loss of life is regrettable and tragic for those touched by it, but our aversion to casualties is becoming a strategic weakness that is very easy to exploit.

We are soldiers and sometimes we are killed in the line of our duties. The MOD and government have a duty of care to provide us with serviceable, safe and affordable equipment that meets the operational requirement. Protection Vs mobility is always a trade-off but I really think we need to avoid another "Snatch" moment.

uqfegd

pp

PS. I really hope for their families' sakes that they were wearing their harnesses and full PPE.
 
#8
Maybe wrapping our troops in cotton wool will help.

As has already been said; on operations blokes sometimes die no matter what kit and equipment they have at their disposal.
 
#9
What Mr Cameron should have said is:

'A withdrawal will be carried out with measured expediency, which will allow the inhabitants of this fly-blown Biblical shithole the chance to return to their traditional and cultural ways of life - with an emphasis on internecine primeval savagery - within a realistic and acceptable timeframe. Six months. We are positively engaging with the opposition elements that are the most likely to form the mainframe of a future Afghan government in a proactive dialogue that will ensure security of coalition forces during the withdrawal phase from an operation which has yielded results that are significantly (but predictably) less than what was expected as an eventual outcome when operations initially commenced.'
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#10
What Mr Cameron should have said is:

'A withdrawal will be carried out with measured expediency, which will allow the inhabitants of this fly-blown Biblical shithole the chance to return to their traditional and cultural ways of life - with an emphasis on internecine primeval savagery - within a realistic and acceptable timeframe. Six months. We are positively engaging with the opposition elements that are the most likely to form the mainframe of a future Afghan government in a proactive dialogue that will ensure security of coalition forces during the withdrawal phase from an operation which has yielded results that are significantly (but predictably) less than what was expected as an eventual outcome when operations initially commenced.'
Which means "We've had enough. We're outta here because we've proved you can't polish a turd, and you can do what you want with your shithole of a country."
 
#11
The only way to prevent this would be to move everything by helicopter, something that's not practical in Afghanistan for a whole number of reasons.

In 1981, a couple of friends among others, one of them a really good mate of mine were killed in a Saracen in NI. The kit isn't comparable but the circumstances are and the fact is that while the Army conducts operations in a war zone, the enemy will find ways to attack and kill our troops regardless of how well protected they are.

Of course Cameron has to say something about it, he is the Prime Minister and of course during the investigation, Mastiff will be looked at but the best way to prevent further casualties is to leave. That's something that a timetable is in place for and whether that can or should be accelerated is a matter for Ministers and senior officers to decide.

That doesn't make this incident any less awful for the families and friends of those who lost their lives. My thoughts are with them.

Casting back all those years to 1981. Baggie and especially you Winnie. Rest in Peace muckers.
 
#12
What Mr Cameron should have said is:

'A withdrawal will be carried out with measured expediency, which will allow the inhabitants of this fly-blown Biblical shithole the chance to return to their traditional and cultural ways of life - with an emphasis on internecine primeval savagery - within a realistic and acceptable timeframe. Six months. We are positively engaging with the opposition elements that are the most likely to form the mainframe of a future Afghan government in a proactive dialogue that will ensure security of coalition forces during the withdrawal phase from an operation which has yielded results that are significantly (but predictably) less than what was expected as an eventual outcome when operations initially commenced.'
I'd suggest

"'A withdrawal will be carried out with measured expediency, which will allow us to test every spare nuke we find, just to show how much we give a f**k about this shitehole...."
 
#13
Maybe CMD should be asking the rather more obvious question, why are we still over a decade on so reliant on road transport compared to the helicopter rich Americans?
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#14
Maybe CMD should be asking the rather more obvious question, why are we still over a decade on so reliant on road transport compared to the helicopter rich Americans?
And whilst they have not shot down a British helicopter, with loss of life, yet, they will keep on trying and they would keep on trying. Agree with earlier comments we are in a conflict, soldiers die, the enemy will, as ever, make all attempts to kill our troops.
 
#16
I think sometimes these statements have to be made - in the sense that someone (the press) asks the question.

I probably put the story up in the wrong place yesterday - the RIP thread - but the Telegraph was fast out of the blocks with a story about how the UK's 'best protected' armoured vehicle has been 'defeated for the first time'.

'Best protected'? 'Heaviest'? Mastiff is neither. C2 would take that title in many respects, I'd suggest. Mastiff is the best of that type of vehicle which we currently have. But the bloody reporter from the Telegraph probably doesn't know that - that, or there's a story to wrung out of the incident.

To be fair, the MOD response in the story (to paraphrase: that there's no such thing as 'enough' protection and the guys could've been killed because the vehicle was turned over, not penetrated) was as good a response as we should expect. But an honest, pragmatic response was still wormed around a story which had an agenda.

Cameron's statement, if you really look at it, is an obvious one: something happened, and we'll look at what happened. Well of course we bloody will. We'd be remiss if we didn't. But that's not to say that great changes will occur or that Mastiff, with one incident, is suddenly unfit for purpose.

Of course, they could've gone and asked Broon if in his expert opinion the military has enough helicopters...
 

Command_doh

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
Er, because it takes time and planning to pull a mass of troops out of a conflict area; you can't just up sticks and run for the border!
Why can't we do exactly that? Casualties would be high, of course, but what price this 'war' of attrition? Why not just plod off in a column to Pakistan. Whilst obviously reminiscience of the first hiding we got in Afghanistan in the C.19th, it might be less costly than staying put with our thumbs up our arses and achieving nothing.

Plus we will have to negotiate a ceasefire with the Taliban
You mean pay them to not take pot shots at us whilst we surrender? In line with our 'timed capitulation/withdrawal' timetable.
 
#18
Maybe CMD should be asking the rather more obvious question, why are we still over a decade on so reliant on road transport compared to the helicopter rich Americans?
Cos the answer is so blindingly obvious that the Opposition would whinge that they were being bullied by the nasty man for a different Big boy's mistakes.....?
 
#19
Not being callous here but im sure they penetrated a challenger tank a couple of years back as well,didnt hear them all going mental at the government then.
sometimes they get lucky,

sooner the troops are back the better, then cameroen and his mob can prepare the next overseas jaunt for his personal shooting club.....
 
#20
I suppose this is also the significant down side of lauding a bit of kit as never been defeated as the mastiff was, kind of setting yourself up for some questions from the public if/when it is.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top