Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brown to send 500 more troops?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Brown to send 500 more troops?

    There's sort of a mismatch between the title of the article and its actual content, but a good development, nonetheless. The part at the end, however: "would happen only if troops had the equipment and training necessary to perform the tasks asked of them." How many troops is the UK capable of maintaining in the field? 500 isn't an awful lot, how are they running into possible equipment and training difficulties?
    UK sends 500 more to Afghanistan

    Gordon Brown says the UK will send 500 more forces personnel to Afghanistan - but only if key conditions are met.

    They will be sent as long as they have the necessary equipment, if other Nato allies boost their troop numbers and more Afghan soldiers are trained.

    There are currently about 9,000 UK personnel in Afghanistan.

    The US is expected to announce a substantial increase in its troops next week, the BBC's Newsnight reports. The US says no decision has been made.

    Newsnight says the Obama administration has already told the UK government it will soon announce a substantial increase to its military forces in Afghanistan.

    The programme understands an announcement could come next week, in time for a Nato defence ministers meeting in Bratislava.

    But White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the report, saying President Barack Obama had not yet made a decision on troop numbers.

    As well as the 9,000 UK personnel, there are 150 reserve troops in the country which the Ministry of Defence said would be available for further temporary deployments.

    Military chiefs welcomed the UK troop reinforcement, insisting their requests had been fully met but opposition parties said more details about the timing of the deployment were needed.

    Speaking in the Commons, Mr Brown paid tribute to each of the 37 British service personnel killed in Afghanistan since the end of July when Parliament began its summer recess.

    Describing it as a "solemn moment", he said their sacrifices would not be forgotten.

    While nothing could "erase the pain" of bereaved families, Mr Brown added that they could be proud of the actions of their loved ones and know that their "influence" would live on.

    Mr Brown said he was prepared, in principle, to send an extra 500 troops to Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan - where Nato troops are fighting fierce battles with the Taliban - in response to military advice.

    He said the reinforcements, which would increase overall UK numbers to 9,500, would happen only if troops had the equipment and training necessary to perform the tasks asked of them.
    BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | UK sends 500 more to Afghanistan
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    I believe he is covering his rear. For to long now people have been blaming the government for not providing adequate equipment for the troops on the ground. They do have the equipment. Remember we had Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time; if I am correct we had 4,500 during draw down in Iraq, all of those guys were equiped.

    He is just giving the MoD some KPIs' to work with.

    Comment


    • #3
      UK sources are reporting that Obama has decided to "surge" 40K-45K more troops to Afghanistan, apparently based on MoD leaks:

      BBC NEWS | South Asia | Obama 'may unveil Afghan surge'

      United States to send 'up to 45,000 more troops to Afghanistan' - Telegraph

      The White House is denying that a decision has been made.
      Last edited by Kasmir; 15 Oct 09,, 07:54.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Chaobam Armour View Post
        I believe he is covering his rear. For to long now people have been blaming the government for not providing adequate equipment for the troops on the ground. They do have the equipment. Remember we had Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time; if I am correct we had 4,500 during draw down in Iraq, all of those guys were equiped.

        He is just giving the MoD some KPIs' to work with.

        My uncle and cousin are in Afghanistan. They reckon the body armour they are provided with is rubbish. They even offered to buy their own armour (they said they wanted 'interceptor jackets'), but the army wouldn't let them for some bizzare reason.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hope your relations stay safe. I suppose people in the Armed Forces will complain about equipment and some people won't. I know that the Body Armour they are using now has saved the lives of many a Squaddy, so can't be that bad. I know it is heavy and cumbersome etc. But they now have new armour.

          When I was in the biggest thing we used to complain about was footwear and used to buy our own. However, if you had an accident you would not be compensated because it was not Army issue, which makes sense, because you wouldn't be able to prove if the said Army issue equipment would have prevented such injuries. Bit like modifying your car without informing the insurance company.

          People complain about the SA-80, damn fine weapon since it has been modified etc.

          People complain about CR II not being armoured enough, geeeeeeeeeeeez, how more armoured can you be!!!!!!!

          Some people like BMWs', others like Subarus', the list goes on.

          A matter of taste I suppose. What would happen if the Army allowed these guys to purchase said 'Interceptor Jackets' and they got killed because they were inferior. The MoD would have to answer to Parliament and the families with the response that they choose not to wear Army issue Body Armour and decided to buy their own!!!!!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Chaobam Armour View Post
            Hope your relations stay safe. I suppose people in the Armed Forces will complain about equipment and some people won't. I know that the Body Armour they are using now has saved the lives of many a Squaddy, so can't be that bad. I know it is heavy and cumbersome etc. But they now have new armour.

            When I was in the biggest thing we used to complain about was footwear and used to buy our own. However, if you had an accident you would not be compensated because it was not Army issue, which makes sense, because you wouldn't be able to prove if the said Army issue equipment would have prevented such injuries. Bit like modifying your car without informing the insurance company.

            People complain about the SA-80, damn fine weapon since it has been modified etc.

            People complain about CR II not being armoured enough, geeeeeeeeeeeez, how more armoured can you be!!!!!!!

            Some people like BMWs', others like Subarus', the list goes on.

            A matter of taste I suppose. What would happen if the Army allowed these guys to purchase said 'Interceptor Jackets' and they got killed because they were inferior. The MoD would have to answer to Parliament and the families with the response that they choose not to wear Army issue Body Armour and decided to buy their own!!!!!!!

            Thank you, i hope they do too.
            Well apparently the Americans use the interceptor jackets - and they have proper armoured cars and stuff.

            An old friend of mine is engaged to a british soldier who was in Iraq - she had to post him out pots and pans because the army wouldnt provide it!

            It just seems that British soldiers are treated with contempt compared to American soldiers - Really how much would it cost to provide them with proper equipment? Raise taxes by a tenner a year?

            If those useless MPs can have duck ponds and porn films, surely the soldiers can have body armour?

            Comment


            • #7
              I can't see where the Tommy is being treated with contempt here. They have some of the best equipment money can buy.

              P226 SIG Pistol, P229A2 SIG Pistol, Browning 9mm, HK MP5 (Damn fine weapon), Diemaco C8 Carbine, SA-80 L85A2 with SUSAT, L86A2 (Uunderslung Grenade Launcher), SA-80 LSP, Minimi (Damn fine weapon), GPMG, HMG (.50), L115A3 Sniper Rifle, 40mm Grenade Machine Gun, Hi Frag Grenades, Posphorous Grenades, Smoke, Illum, Shotgun Combat, 51mm, 60mm AND 81mm Mortars, LAW 80, Javalin, Mk 7 Helmet, Osprey Body Armour with removable neck and shoulders, Version 3. Thats just the small arms. As for Armoured vehicles, have a looksie at the Jackal (it carries a GPMG a .50 or the 40mm Grenade Machine Gun (I think the US would like this baby), Mastiff, a real brut of a vehicle, Panther (The Americans like going out in these vehicles, Warrior, Scimitar. The Apache, better than the US version I'm led to believe.

              As for pots and pans, I can't see why he needed pots and pans. If you are in Bastion you are catered for. If you are out on Ops, you cater for yourself using the tried, tested and faithfull Mess Tins. I wouldn't be lugging pots and pans in my Burgen adding unnecessary weight that we already have to carry. Oh and they each have a Personal Role Radio. I missed out the knee pads.

              Because the US use 'Interceptor Jackets doesn't mean they are any good. The US are currently complaining about there Rifle.

              Oh yes and provide the boys with Porn too.
              Last edited by Kernow; 16 Oct 09,, 00:29.

              Comment


              • #8
                The 'Interceptor' looks very similar to the 'Osprey'. Have a read of this article below, the US are replacing Interceptor!!!!!!!!

                A Marine Corps forensic study obtained by DefenseWatch slams the Interceptor OTV body armor system, claiming "as many as 42% of the Marine casualties who died from isolated torso injuries could have been prevented with improved protection in the areas surrounding the plated areas of the vest. Nearly 23% might have benefited from protection along the mid-axillary line of the lateral chest. Another 15% died from impacts through the unprotected shoulder and upper arm," the report says. Side armor has been sent to Iraq in increasing amounts, but many troops don't want to wear it because it adds 10 lb to 16 lb to the vest and they say the added weight could decrease mobility and get them killed in certain combat scenarios.

                On May 10th, 2006, the Army announced it was holding an open competition for companies to design an entire new generation of body armor "to improve on and replace" the Interceptor.

                Comment


                • #9
                  An excerpt by a British Soldier on Osprey:

                  "We were coming under sporadic fire from insurgents to our rear as our section moved back to the Company RV [rendezvous point] at the end of the day's clearance operation.

                  "I knelt down in an irrigation ditch in partial cover as the rest of the FSG re-grouped along it when I was hit in the back by a single shot. It must have been from about two- to three-hundred metres away.

                  "The round knocked me down in an instant, it felt like being hit by a sledgehammer at full swing. I slammed into the dirt face down.

                  "I shouted to the FSG Platoon Sergeant, Grant Lewis, 'I've been shot in the back'. He replied somewhat in disbelief 'yer what?' So I said again, 'seriously Grant, I've been shot in the back'.

                  "At this point everybody was on their belt buckles in the ditch, the shot had initiated very accurate machine gun and small arms fire onto our position. We were pinned down."

                  Use the link below to see photos.

                  Ministry of Defence | Defence News | People In Defence | Osprey armour saves British soldier from Taliban bullet
                  Last edited by Kernow; 16 Oct 09,, 00:44.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And this is Osprey version 2.

                    Osprey Body Armour, 9 August 2008:

                    Royal Marine Lee High miraculously survived a firefight with Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan despite being hit three times by enemy gunfire. Thankfully Lee was wearing Osprey body armour (made by NP Aerospace of Coventry) at the time, which undoubtedly saved his life. Lee was hit twice in the chest and once in the leg but was able to get up and walk for help.

                    Defence Matters News

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not on body armor

                      This conversation moved well past the original post, but I want to commend Gordon Brown for at least moving towards more troops in Afghanistan. I understand no NATO country really wants to increase our troop presence, but if every country could pony up an additional 500 men and a few million more dollars we would do a lot of good. A temporary boost in armed soldiers would increase violence in the short term but give a great shot at ending it in the long term.
                      Michael C

                      On Violence Twitter

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I was trying to explain to the Gentleman as to what type of equipment the Tommies have in Afghanistan, as he is under the assumption that the Boys on the ground are being treated with contempt.

                        Its good to see that the Army is sending extra Infantry Battalions.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Chaobam,

                          I meant no disrespect, I just wanted to acknowledge the conversation was changing tones and I wanted to respond to the original point.

                          As for how US boys are treated, and I was there, if anything we waste money on silly things like ice cream and steaks to eat. That money could be put to better use. As for our body armor, once the Army realized the problem they fixed it, it just took a while to see the problem.
                          Michael C

                          On Violence Twitter

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It always amazed me when ever I came across US Troops in theatre, you would see 'Burger Kings, Subway, Coffee Shops (Star Bucks), just amazing.

                            With regards equipment, wouldn't it be wiser for the US and UK to co-fund such projects and have the same sorts of body armour, your thoughts. Cost would be reduced also.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Have to agree that working together would be the smarter policy. We probably just don't because each bureaucracy is slow on its own, combining efforts would make fielding equipment just slower still.
                              Michael C

                              On Violence Twitter

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X