It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ill equipped and badly let down

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I just had a surprise visitor this afternoon, from a friend of mine who I thought was in Iraq. In fact, he had just completed an operational tour of Afghanistan and was being redeployed to Iraq.

He told me 'stories' about how poorly equipped our lads are and just how badly they were being led by junior officers who seemed to be a 'bit out of their depth' and were simply not up to the job. In some cases, SNCOs were often taking over and in one case, a Major had been returned to the UK.

One of the stories he told me, was that often they went out on foot patrol with just 100 rounds each and 200 for the General. They had 1 GL with 3 rounds PER SECTION and not more than 1 autojet combopen of morphine each - when they should have had 3 - and on patrols at night, there was no General, night viewing devices or illumins for their use!

This has really got me thinking because some guys I know recently came back from Iraq and also said that ammunition was in serious short supply. Often blokes would go out on patrol with just 50 rounds, iron sights instead of SUSATs and no support weapons.

The good book says that 'ready ammunition' as issued, is 180 rounds in 6 x 30 rnd mags, a handful of tracer (Tgt Indication) 1 x smoke and 1 x A/Pers HE grenade. A qty of link for the General if carried (depending on role). Illuminants were issued at section and not individual level.

I read today in the Daily Express (Page 2) that Hoon the Loon is using Barclaycard to purchase arms and ammunition on a 'as and when' basis.

What do you think about this?




posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Its gotten pretty bad, i dont know why the gov thinks we can spend less on our forces when we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Welfare needs to be slashed in this country we have gone to far and the system is badly abused, no wonder we have no money for the forces



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
They should hire people on welfare to make more bullets. Kill two birds with one stone. (A stone because the bullet is to expensive)



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Hey UFO, that's pretty radical thinking.

I mean, next you'll be saying things like let's stop MPs demanding we all pay our Council Tax when they pass Bills that say if they own 2 or more houses and use them for 'Official' business, they don't have to pay Council Tax on any property they own or rent. Prezza take note!

Better yet, we could get HMQ to pay her own way. Then we could afford some £120Ms worth of ammo and if we can get Chas and Dave pay for their own wedding, reception and security, we might be able to scrape some dosh together and cobble up some more body armour.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I'm apalled. This sucks.

If it's not "by the book", does this mean that whoever issued order can be court-marshalled?

The last thing I'd want to be dealing with is being out of ammo in a firefight. Geez.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I'm sorry.. I know this is a serious topic but you guys are killing me.


This whole thing sounds like a bad Monty Python script.

Who's in command here?
Uhh, that would be Major Ballsup, sir.
Where is he then?
Well, he's feeling a little under the weather today sir.
My God, that man's dead..
Uhh, yes, well..

How much ammo do you have?
I've got a cracker and Davis has a pointy stick sir.
Well, that won't do. Have davis run over and ask those gentlemen in the sheets for some bullets.
Yes sir.

Sir...?
Yes.. Davis is it? Back already?
Uhh, no sir. I uhh... stepped on a mine sir.
And?
Well.. It's my leg sir.
Oh! I see.. What rotten luck. Better have someone bandage that stump.
Thank you sir.

What else do we have?
Uhh, we have some teaspoons sir.
Well that will have to do. Come on lads, fix teaspoons and CHAR...
Sir...
What IS it Davis?
I've only got a tablespoon sir...




[edit on 4/7/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]


[edit on 4/7/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Man, you guys should pressure your government into spending more $$$ for your troops. Over here if a congressman or senator doesn't approve a bill aimed at getting more money for the soldiers, their political career is done.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Westpoint, I know we've had our disagreements but I'm glad you guys can apply that kind of pressure to keep your men safe and sound.

For us poor bloody Brits, Hoon the Loon (Secretary of State for Defence [in case you don't know who he is]) has escaped serious censure over a Colour Sergeant who died because he was ordered to hand over his body armour to another guy going 'upcountry' because there was not enough to go round.

On another occaision, he was severely wrapped on the knuckles by our Defence Select Committe about lack of equipment reaching front line troops.

The article in the Daily Express for me, sums it up: "They [MOD] use it [Barclaycard] to spend millions on everything from spare parts to missiles - in other words a "shoot now, pay later" is the apparent cost of this Labour government's money-saving policy of keeping military stocks to a minimum which resulted in massive orders being rushed through with very little time being given for the slack to be taken up, especially in the build up to the war.

This was illustrated by 2 major supply problems - BOOTS and BODY ARMOUR! Surely, somebody in the MOD procurement must have thought that almost every other desert boot required by fighting men in the Gulf should have been the venerable Size 10 Large!

Yet Hoon the Loon appears on TV stressing that all is being done to equipe our guys with the best money can buy.

Just another very big lie this Labour Government have told the British people. For God's sake, help me get rid of him - but only in the ballot box!



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Over here senators and congressman have elections every 2 years, if they oppose bills that are aimed at supporting our troops they will have hard time getting reelected. The Pentagon always asks for money for the troops so that it can put the pressure on congress rather than themselves, and congress has no choice but to pass it.

How do the procedures work over in the UK. Does the MoD make all of the choices, does your equivalent of congress have any say in what the military does?



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
hey at leat you brits have some decent equipment. try the canuk forces, well trained but have to borrow everything. yes lets go to the desert in forrest green cammo, "don't worry jim you have cammo no one will see ya."



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Hey UFO, that's pretty radical thinking.

I mean, next you'll be saying things like let's stop MPs demanding we all pay our Council Tax when they pass Bills that say if they own 2 or more houses and use them for 'Official' business, they don't have to pay Council Tax on any property they own or rent. Prezza take note!

Better yet, we could get HMQ to pay her own way. Then we could afford some £120Ms worth of ammo and if we can get Chas and Dave pay for their own wedding, reception and security, we might be able to scrape some dosh together and cobble up some more body armour.



Its very true though, i work in a low paid job and pay my way so why should others just be able to sit at home and get paid for it? There are plenty of low paying jobs that are available and it makes me mad when people say they are on the dole because they cannot find work

What if everybody had that attitude? And then there are single mothers that have kids just for the purpose of getting a free house and not having to work either, they get it all paid for them by the state. We all know it goes on and i hear others getting p***ed about this too, i dont think we should have no welfare at all i just want a system that rewards work and not the other way around!!
I am sure many Americans will agree with me on this, please comment.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I have heard these stories before....its sad isnt it....reduced to levels like these....



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Unfortunantly, a lot of the money 'for the troops' ends up going to gold plated, hyped up weapon systems that don't work as advertised (ie Stryker...). So while the corporate fat cats get rich, the grunt on the ground (any armed forces most valuable asset) gets screwed.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   

i dont think we should have no welfare at all i just want a system that rewards work and not the other way around!!
I am sure many Americans will agree with me on this, please comment.


Here in the U.S. welfare is not enough to support you and your family, so you either have to get a job or your screwed. And if you just lost your job the government will only pay you for one year, after that your on your own. I don think welfare should be eliminated it should only be for those that truly need it because they have real reason why they need it.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Its the duty of our nation to look after us especially in times of need..



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Hmmm someone mentions a few procurement problems and suddenly there's a daft raving about the UK supposedly cushy 'welfare state'?!


Firstly I suggest anyone who thinks the UK welfare state is such a breeze try it, it isn't, young single people or young couples without kids might manage it for a while (especially if they can back up the woeful state assistance with a little cash-in-hand work) but not when you have a family and a home to support......

.....and for those who imagine the high-spending US doesn't have these kind of problems then all I can say is that you surely missed the 'body armour' row they have had where the families of servicemen have been protesting because they have been funding their relatives body armour.

The facts are
1) all military organisations have c*ck-ups with supply.
(Jayzuss it's legendary, didn't any of you guys grow up on Bilko?)

2) anti-Labour 'newspapers' probably aren't the best source for the truth of what is going on and why.

3) guys there and on the ground (of whom I also know a few) aren't always any more informed about the truth of exactly what is going on and why anymore than anyone else.

4) If there is one place where umteen rumours run rife it is 'at the front'.

By all means of course we should look after the troops and see them equipped properly but when this is hijacked into a dig at the 'welfare state' I get mightily suspicious......

.....and given that the USA outspends the UK so enormously on 'defence' - and still has these kind of problems themselves - just how much and how high do you imagine UK spending would have to be to completely avoid such difficulties, hmmm?

(.....and given the general unpopularity of the war do you really think the wider UK public would 'go' for such increased spending in such an area - at the expense of other things?)



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

.....and for those who imagine the high-spending US doesn't have these kind of problems then all I can say is that you surely missed the 'body armour' row they have had where the families of servicemen have been protesting because they have been funding their relatives body armour.


Yeah.. we have problems but we fix them, I guess you don't know about the 87B passed last summer to equip our troops with more vests and equipment due to shortages.
Lets just say someone who did not vote for the 87B lost the election in November.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Sminkey, i dont think the welfare system should be totally abolished but it is obvious to see that at the moment it is being badly abused by bogus claimants on disability benefits, and in many other areas too. I dont know why u insist on defending it when the money could be better spent on our boys at the front line. BTW i am not trying to hijack the thread ''for a dig at the welfare state'' i just believe that it is the place that needs to be cut down on first unless u think hospitals and schools should go? I have a perfectly legitimate reason for my views which i cannot fathom why u would be at all ''suspicious'' of.





[edit on 9-4-2005 by ufo3]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Hmm,

I apologise but I won't let any one say that the current crop of British Officers are lacking, with any armed forces you will always get officers that just don't cut the mustard, no matter how much training you give them or how much operation experience that you allow them to see, you will always see one officer that your brick wouldn't follow into a class room never mind an armed conflict. Officers some times do go to the front for operational training, at no point at these new officers throw into the deep end, they have experenced officers watching their moves and orders. Its called "Operational Experence" It means that the next time they go into combat, they won't have their brick blown to hell and back.

Supply in the UK armed forces is a joke, troops trading their Bergans because the QMs don't have the required numbers, training using the "BANG BANG, ok MARKs YOUR Dead!" system and some of the reported items of troops having their family buying US armor for the brit troops.

Things need to change and they need to change now, or more troops are going to be coming home in boxes.

- Phil



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufo3
Sminkey, i dont think the welfare system should be totally abolished


- Glad to hear it, you earlier rantings had me wondering.


but it is obvious to see that at the moment it is being badly abused by bogus claimants on disability benefits


- Sorry but I don't believe this for one moment.
For a start disability benefit is not the biggest sector of the UK benefit bill.

Do you have the slightest idea how hard disability benefit is to get.....and stay on? How easy do you think the medical reviews are to con, hmmm?


I dont know why u insist on defending it


- I'll not just go along with ridiculous characterisations of it, that's all.
Too many (of our) people need it and use it to 'colour' (and basically knock) the whole thing with these inaccurate daft cartoon sketches of it.


when the money could be better spent on our boys at the front line.


- Well the point I was attempting to make was that there will always be mistakes, inefficiencies and wastage - even a little fraud - one can point to but no 'system' is perfect and there will never be perfection in any human persuit. We are fallible.


BTW i am not trying to hijack the thread ''for a dig at the welfare state'' i just believe that it is the place that needs to be cut down on first unless u think hospitals and schools should go?


- I don't see anything as needing to "go".


I have a perfectly legitimate reason for my views which i cannot fathom why u would be at all ''suspicious'' of.


- I am suspicious of those who start on about "single mothers" (and in a country with such a low birth rate how come children have no intrinsic value in themsleves to you, hmmm?) and attempt to make a mountain out of the relatively minor flaws in the UK benefits system.

The UK benefits are meagre, mean and hardly easy to obtain - for anybody.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join