Ballymurphy Inquest

Rasczak

It's a department of state actually.

The Government authorised the respective deployments with an expectation and anticipation that the MOD would re-align resources accordingly given the billions that are allocated to it.  MOD did not do that and instead certain individuals within launched a damaging funding campaign against the politicians.  That secured short term funding but completely undermined the long term interests.  Hence the mess we are in now.

It does - the National Security Strategy.  The Armed Forces then state their requirements in a SDR or SDSR.

Sonic67

It's a government department so if you want to look to blame anyone, it's the government. At some point you might wake up to that.

The government that seems to think it can do everything on the cheap but also still send people to conflicts.
1. First you seem to regard the MOD as a separate entity when it is a government department. 2. Wrong. "Billions" don't go far when you are talking about defence. 3. Your persistent need to try to blame the armed forces again.

Successive governments spent years preparing for a war in Northern Europe. No one foresaw we would get involved in a deployment to the South Atlantic until Argentina invaded it or to Liberate Kuwait when Saddam invaded it. And no one foresaw Russia annexing the Ukraine after years of a peace dividend.

For years we had a low leg boot that was fine for Northern Europe. Then we had the Falklands invaded and troops got immersion foot. A soldier is a casualty just as much from a pair of boots as if he'd been shot. He's still a casualty.

Post Falklands we had a high leg boot introduced, which was then unsuitable for use in a desert.

When you suddenly decide to send 30,000 to a desert they need suitable boots. Desert boots are lighter. Try running round in a desert in heavy boots that don't let your feet breathe. Also being lighter they wear out faster. And you can't just order 30,000 boots. Each guy needs a couple of pairs and people's feet are in different sizes. So you need to order around 100,000 desert boots and you need them quickly.

Now if a Government department orders 100,000 boots for fighting in a desert when the area of operations is Northern Europe then the press would have a field day with "government wastage."

Also try turning up at Altberg and saying you need 100,000 boots and you need them tomorrow.

I ended up issued with American Vietnam jungle boots as that was all that could be obtained rapidly.

And this is for giving people a pair of boots. A. Pair. Of. Boots.

How about the rest of the clothing? How about a sleeping bag designed to be warm in Northern Europe? How about vehicles?

Northern Ireland was different to the Falklands, which was different to the Gulf, which is different to peacekeeping in Bosnia. Peacekeeping in Bosnia is different to Cyprus. All of that is different to jungles and different to Norway.

If governments want to send people to war zones out of roles they said they wanted to do then they need to fund it.

Increase the budget in the first place or increase it once you deploy and buy UORs but either way the government needs to fund it.

People died from a lack of body armour and you had an issue with the cost.

Regarding body armour alone, the initial type I had was Vietnam style. Not good as it contained a fibre glass type inner that could be dragged into wounds.

Then it changed to a soft Kevlar but with no ballistic plates. Then Kevlar with plates but only covering the heart area. Then changed to Osprey and that alone has been through numerous revisions and is now changing again.

Trollslayer

The MOD is controlled by the Government including budget and applicable laws.
The people who design this should go out where it is being used.

Trollslayer

BTW, I have dealt with  the Home Office a few times and sadly this incompetence is not a surprise.

Sonic67

They actually do now. It used to be rubbish. After Iraq and Afghanistan there are question and answer sessions intended to find what works and what doesn't.

Some points. We complained the desert boots fell apart too quickly. We were told it was because they were lightweight. Better construction meant more weight. Then the complaint would be over their weight.

We were asked if we wanted crotch protection on the body armour. Some countries have it as a drop down part on the chest piece. And after an explosion the first thing checked by the squaddies was the crown jewels. The view was we didn't want heavier body armour.

One thing that apparently came up over and over. "We didn't want to look like the Americans."

Then there is Project Payne. Troops were carrying more and more kit and it was heavier and heavier. This was detrimental to performance.

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/overburdened-infantry-soldier/

Also years of people being shot and wearing body armour has increased knowledge of its design. It was thought it must be designed to not deform when hit. Now it's learned it can deform and you will survive, so it can be made thinner and thinner means lighter.

Hence why another revision.

Now onto war in Europe. Numerous lessons were learned from Russia and the Ukraine. Our tanks are no longer good enough and our comms equipment needs to be improved.

We could carry on with what we have. A tank is a tank and in a lot of theatres it will be fine. Against the best of the new Russian tanks it won't be good enough. Are we going to be fighting Russia? If not we can spend the money elsewhere. Or are we likely to face second tier Russian kit? Or do we accept the casualties?

British Army Is Planning to Upgrade Just 148 of Its 227 Challenger 2 Tanks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russias-superior-new-weapons/2016/08/05/e86334ec-08c5-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html?utm_term=.f9cc543e8dcd

In a perfunctory tone, the young intelligence briefer recited the details of the July 2014 Battle of Zelenopillya, in which a single Russian artillery “fire strike” almost destroyed two Ukrainian mechanized battalions in a few minutes.

I couldn’t help imagining a U.S. armored battalion subjected to a similar fire strike. I realized then that Ukraine had become Russia’s means for showcasing what might happen if we ever fought a firepower-intensive battle against it. “You know, guys,” I mused in the moment, “this is the first time since the beginning of the Cold War that an American war-fighting function has been bested by a foreign military.”

However, when someone says we need better tanks, give us the money, the view of the present government is, no money, and we aren't at war. We are getting some tanks done.

Pacifico

So why not apply that principle to all sides involved in the conflict?

Rasczak

Matters relating to operational capability are for the military officers to articulate who are empowered via the Defence Council.

They do.

Dony

Pretty damning testimony today from a former Para.

Ballymurphy soldiers 'out of control'

Trollslayer

Which is part of the MoD which is part of the Government which can control it directly or indirectly.
Defence Council of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

BobbyMac

The closed minds on here of some won't countenance or condemn that (or other) shameful inquest testimony

They're happy to turn a blind eye to collusion which ended up with non-combatants being murdered, planting ammo, shooting a survivor in the hospital dead, the British Security Forces picking a primary school as a target for loyalists to bomb (which even they baulked at) or condemn the macabre trophies and kill kitty culture for murdering UK citizens in cold blood

The rationale defending the above appears to be

a) The accused are pensioners enjoying their dotage and it's all a witchhunt

b) But what about the IRA (despite the victims of Ballymurphy/Bloody Sunday not being terrorists but ordinary civilians)

c) That IRA (and Loyalists) won't be held accountable for historical actions (which is untrue see below)

Why investigating Troubles soldiers doesn't count as a 'witch hunt'