Stop complaning about the kit!!

D

Deleted 20555

Guest
#1
MOD statement.....

"The success of our forces against the Taleban shows that they are not only among the best in the world, but also among the best equipped," he said.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6614255.stm

Why do they think that frantically spinning the positive on bloody everything means that everyone believes them?
 
#2
If that's what passes for logic in Downing Street these days, no wonder the country is in the state it is. A 4th Year school pupil could poke holes in that argument.
 
#3
I think the quote is ' we have managed to succeed in all our wars and conflicts in spite of the logistics and equipt, not because of them!'
 
#4
Stolen from the same thread on PPrune:

"That's the spirit, George. If nothing else works, then a
total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face
will see us through..."
 
#5
Seeing most soldiers buy there own kit is it any wonder that they are getting less complaints about it. There was a time that if you used any thing but what was issued to you you would quickly wind up in cells. Now if you want some thing that is practical and long lasting you go and buy it your self.
 
#7
SelfLoadingRifle said:
Even back in the bronze age, when I was in, we had to buy our own kit because what was issued was cr@p.

SLR (Not to be confused with SLR Boy).
Seconded: on my last NI tour, 4yrs before Combat '95 uniforms, I did a rough estimate on the lads in my COmpany.

I reckon most of them were traipsing around South Armagh wearing about £300 of kit bought from civvy suppliers: Danner boots, Barbour smocks, Norwegian shirts, etc. etc.

On the other hand, in those days, the stitching on your smock pockets used to give way if you put anything in them, so wearing issue kit meant you'd return from a foot patrol looking like Wurzel Gummidge.
 
#8
Stonker said:
SelfLoadingRifle said:
Even back in the bronze age, when I was in, we had to buy our own kit because what was issued was cr@p.

SLR (Not to be confused with SLR Boy).
Seconded: on my last NI tour, 4yrs before Combat '95 uniforms, I did a rough estimate on the lads in my COmpany.

I reckon most of them were traipsing around South Armagh wearing about £300 of kit bought from civvy suppliers: Danner boots, Barbour smocks, Norwegian shirts, etc. etc.

On the other hand, in those days, the stitching on your smock pockets used to give way if you put anything in them, so wearing issue kit meant you'd return from a foot patrol looking like Wurzel Gummidge.
lord knows how much we have all spent, one of the things i always thought was good about the american system was that they got an allowance towards uniform.

However im sure if Neu Arbeit did anything with that it would become a crock quicker than you can say 'Spin to win'
 
#9
so does this mean that the MOD are going to reimburse our soldiers for the kit they bought from civvy suppliers .

If the mod did a survey in to how much our much soldiers paid for their own kit out of there wages Joe public would have a shock .

The thing is how do they expect soldiers to pay for their kit when they have lots of other expenses to pay out especially when they also have family's etc to look after

there was this reply from no 10 regarding equipment in march
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11273.asp
 
#10
Stonker said:
...4yrs before Combat '95 uniforms ... Barbour smocks
I heard about the terrible pockets on the '85patt jacket, but what was a Barbour smock like?

Was it DPM-lookalike, or just green waxed cotton like an anglers overcoat?

Forgive my youth - this isn't a Wah.
 
#11
smiffy_the_ferret said:
Stonker said:
...4yrs before Combat '95 uniforms ... Barbour smocks
I heard about the terrible pockets on the '85patt jacket, but what was a Barbour smock like?

Was it DPM-lookalike, or just green waxed cotton like an anglers overcoat?

Forgive my youth - this isn't a Wah.
I believe that there was a Barbour 'Combat' in DPM. Barbours in general were the height of fashion in the eighties, especially for WO2s and above.

Among us low-lives there were a few who used the Barbour 'Thornproof Dressing' (wax) on a spare combat jacket. I don't know how well it worked, but it looked gash.

T_T
 
#12
Lt Col Charlie Mayo, the military spokesman in Helmand, said: "We have over 300 vehicles in the task force, which has just completed two major operations and for both we have enough vehicles for those that need them.

"Our achievements against the Taliban show that British troops are not only among the best in the world but also among the best equipped."


See here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/03/wafghan03.xml
[hr]TT is correct about the DPM Barbour - very popular among ill-equipped lads hacking through S Armagh thorn hedges in the rain, not just WO2s and up (although I did see Gen Inge in one once, at Catterick - just after his staff had baned the wearing of Barbours in uniform!) :D
 
#14
BBC correspondent Alastair Leithead said a lack of heavily armed Land Rovers was a particular problem.

Armed Land Rovers - or WMIKs (weapons-mounted installation kits) - are used to protect soldiers while out on patrol or operations.
......................................................................................
Another vehicle, a Pinzgauer, has been fitted with extra armour to try to cover the shortfall, but there is a limit to the number of men and the amount of equipment they can carry, our correspondent said.

I found some of that a bit confusing...

WMIK is heavily ARMED

and yet they talk about putting ARMOUR on pinz gaur's as a replacement.

I know the words sound the same but they mean two completely different things.

another hole the 4th year could poke in the argument?

(edited to include the quotes)
 
#15
glasseye said:
Armed Land Rovers - or WMIKs (weapons-mounted installation kits) - are used to protect soldiers while out on patrol or operations.
......................................................................................
Another vehicle, a Pinzgauer, has been fitted with extra armour to try to cover the shortfall, but there is a limit to the number of men and the amount of equipment they can carry, our correspondent said.
I found some of that a bit confusing...

WMIK is heavily ARMED

and yet they talk about putting ARMOUR on pinz gaur's as a replacement.

I know the words sound the same but they mean two completely different things.
The answer seems to be in here somewhere:
The Torygraph said:
The British have been losing an average of one Wimik per week in Helmand. The Daily Telegraph was with the Marines of 42 Commando when they lost four vehicles in a single day during an advance on Sangin last month.

All were the victims of mine strikes. One of the Wimiks blew up directly in front of our vehicle, sending a plume of black smoke rolling skyward and pieces of vehicle and equipment 50 yard into the air.

Though three men were injured and the top gunner landed 15 yards away, the reinforced armour on the vehicle's underside saved their lives.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/03/wafghan03.xml
WMIKs (in the current config), are Lannies with guns - and an armoured underbelly.

So you armour the underbelly of yr PG, transfer the Weapons Mounting Installation Kit from Clapped out Lannie to Ganz Neu Pinzgauer, and rock on: heavily armed, heavily armoured (underneath) and still in short supply, (I expect).
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#16
I got a DPM Barbour back in the 80's in Ulster - great for OPs, VCPs, etc - until it got dirty (i.e. very quickly indeed) as it then turned so dark as to be nearly black - therefore not much use as Cam!
 
#17
The Army shouldn't dish all this crap kit out to everyone just for it to sit in a sausage bag on top of everyones locker going unused.
They should tell us what we're entitled to and then we could sign for what we think we're gonna use and not bother with the rest.
That way they could save a bit of money on the shit stuff and put it to better use elsewhere on decent kit.
Half of my 1157 I haven't touched for years.
As for the tour issue kit I think they're actually getting closer to the mark, apart from the rushed mass produced stuff we got a few years back when stuff like the camel backs just fell apart or leaked before you'd even used it
 
#18
Tartan_Terrier said:
smiffy_the_ferret said:
Stonker said:
...4yrs before Combat '95 uniforms ... Barbour smocks
I heard about the terrible pockets on the '85patt jacket, but what was a Barbour smock like?

Was it DPM-lookalike, or just green waxed cotton like an anglers overcoat?

Forgive my youth - this isn't a Wah.
I believe that there was a Barbour 'Combat' in DPM. Barbours in general were the height of fashion in the eighties, especially for WO2s and above.

Among us low-lives there were a few who used the Barbour 'Thornproof Dressing' (wax) on a spare combat jacket. I don't know how well it worked, but it looked gash.

T_T
Does anybody have any pictures of a DPM Barbour jacket they could post here?
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
#19
Deleted 20555 said:
MOD statement.....

"The success of our forces against the Taleban shows that they are not only among the best in the world, but also among the best equipped," he said. ?
Aren't our troops in the Sandpits in among the Septics? See? What he is saying is that our troops are among Septics and implying that THEY are the best in the world, and the best-equipped, and making it LOOK like he is saying our troops are some of the best and best-equipped in the world.

This is how spin works. Say something that looks like you are saying the right thing, then if, unfortunately, anyone rightly doubts the truth of it, you can fall back on "What you think you heard me say wasn't necessarily what I meant."

Of can that assumes that the Greatest PM Of All Time (close the door on your way out) believes that the Septics are the best troops in the world. That's a whole new can of worms. But they do seem to me, from a desk in Southern England, to be very well-equipped.
 
#20
US kit does rock, everytime I blink there's a new piece on general issue. If I were a kind fellow I might add that this is why US soldiers aren't as good as Brits, because they have to spend half their training time learning how to use the laser range finder bolted to the side of their M4, or how they at squad level know how to CFF or use one of three anti-armour weapons at Pte level, or how to comm with Apache's in support. But I'm not in that kind of mood, so I won't.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top