Would Gordon Brown feel safe in a Snatch Land Rover

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Thun, Nov 12, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. This from the TaxPayers' Alliance - not a bad suggestion!

    Would Gordon Brown and John Hutton feel safe in a Snatch Land Rover?

    Defence Secretary John Hutton took part in an interview on the Today Programme this morning that I personally found pretty outrageous, particularly given that like many members of my generation I have a decent number of friends either in, recently in or about to go to Afghanistan or Iraq.

    When asked about the frankly appalling standard of kit and vehicles that British soldiers had been given, he said that he could assure the families of soldiers serving in Afghanistan that their equipment was now good enough, and that having good equipment was "the thing we worry about the most".

    All that is rather at odds with the fact that British soldiers are still in many cases having to use the "deathtrap" Snatch Land Rover, which is extremely vulnerable to Improvised Explosive Devices. Even his comment that Ministers worry about good equipment most of all is rather at odds with the recent comments of Defence Minister Quentin Davies MP who, when asked about the resignation statement of an SAS Major who had resigned his commission because of the appalling kit problems, refused to accept the officer's concerns and tried to blame commanders in the field for soldiers' deaths.

    I can't help but think that if Gordon Brown, John Hutton and Quentin Davies are so confident that our troops are safe in the lightly armoured Snatch Land Rovers, then surely they would be happy to use them as their official transport from now on? Or is it different when you're protecting an MP rather than a soldier on less than the minimum wage?
  2. Not more drivel about Snatch?!?!
  3. No, he wouldn't feel safe.

    I'd volunteer to drive.

    Then, if that wasn't enough, I'd take him to see some of those awfully nice Mr Taliban men and introduce him.

    We'd soon see if my Snatch held up under AK fire.

  4. Well said that man.......If there is room I'll sit by the back door just to make sure the cnut doesn't try and get out....Some sacrifices are worth it......
  5. I don't think "Gordy" would feel safe in a snatch nor a long wheel base Lanny witht the fuel tank under the drivers seat,
  6. God, yes I'd forgotten my first exercise when a driver lifted the seat cushion and said "petrol guage is on the blink in this one" then opened a red-painted lid and I found myself staring at petrol sloshing about!

    Things get better. What's the correct way to invite an MP to visit a warzone? Ta, Wevers, but you're not expendable. Gaffer tape will do nicely.
  7. Very truthful but soldiers are not on below minimum wage...might aswell be tho!
  8. The only snatch Broon knows anything about,is how to Snatch more pounds from your pocket! The only Snatch his pal knows about is how to snatch kit money to give back to Broon!
  9. They would not be allowed to travel by Snatch Land Rover.

    Civil servants in war zones are banned from travelling in Snatch Land Rovers. Government chiefs issued the order three years ago because the unarmoured vehicles offer no protection against roadside bombs.

    Hundreds of pen-pushers working for the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development in Iraq got 50 bombproof Toyota Land Cruisers costing £3.2million to protect them.

    Private contractors working for both departments were also told not to travel in the Land Rovers.

    An MoD spokesperson said the rules for civil servants were a matter for the Foreign Office and added: “Assessments of which vehicles are used depend on the threat level and decisions must be taken by commanders on the ground.”
  10. I think you'll find that the Land Cruisers aren't 'bomb-proof' at all. What they are is armored/bullet proof, the same as the Snatch is supposed to be. Certainly the chap I spoke to (not in any professional sense I hasten to add) last year who was in an IED incident with one of the Land Cruisers didn't think it was bomb-proof....
  11. I am not suggesting for a moment that they are.

    The point was to illustrate the fact that civil servants and government ministers would not travel by Snatch Land Rover pursuant to an edict over three years ago that they are not suitable and that they were allocated different vehicles.
  12. From the indi.

    "The armed forces were to be brought into the minimum wage structure by the incoming Labour Government in 1997. But the idea was dropped after pressure from the then Defence Secretary, George Robertson, who claimed it would put the military into a financial and legal straitjacket."

    How would the Armed Forces be in a financial and legal strait jacket? Or is that code for... "we would have to pay them more than we want to"!
  13. The reason FCO don't travel in Snatch is because they are a different government department. They dont operate snatch normally, but do use 4x4's in more difficult areas. Why add to a more complex J4 chain when you don't have too? Surely that is a waste of resources? There is no reason for FCO to use Snatch, and I think that the FCO and DFID would have concerns about how their partiality is seen if they were seen to use military vehicles. Part of their influence depends on not being seen as military to locals.
  14. As far as I can see (and having been in both) the Snatch and Land Cruiser are very similar vehicles in terms of having similar levels of protection. The snatch is more military and the LC is more civilian in appearance and perhaps (only perhaps, they're very distinctive and obvious once you've seen one) more able to disappear in a crowd of other vehicles.

    Snatch is NOT unarmoured and your comment about the CS being banned from Snatch as it's un-armoured doesn't follow.