A Snatch in Afghanistan has been attacked with a rocket-propelled grenade

On or around Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:02:51 +0100, Mother enlightened us thusly:

but there's no guarantee that having joined up you're not going to have to go into a high-risk situation where you may be shot at and if unlucky killed. That is, IMHO, par for the course.

And the ordinary soldier on the ground never did get any say in where and what he did, he obeys orders from his superiors.

I thought a war was just a conflict that took place between lots of people on a large scale and often involved weapons?

I didnt say that killing other people was part of the job, but being killed by someone else is one of the risks of being in the army.

I mean that if you become a soldier you might expect to be involved in armed fights that may end in you getting shot or killed.. in the same way that if you become an IT techie you might expect to get RSI or develop a liking for beards and sandals.. One of the expected risks of the job i'd have said.

I'm definately not against reporting it!, just the way that it is done. Dont want to get shot at by someone in a conflict then stay away from the conflicts (so dont become a soldier!)

if everybody had the same opinion then we wouldnt be fighting in the first place! ;-)

Thats what i was trying to say! :)

I don't think anyone's arguing with that Austin, it was just that someone was saying that he didn't think that we needed to be told that soldiers were being killed as that's what they were there for, which isn't really agreeable. Even in the last two wars, casualty figures were regularly posted, after heavy massaging of course.

There's also the local "political" dimension - British[1] forces have always tried to give a "soft" impression to the locals, hence tanks (except some Centurion bulldozer conversions) were never used in NI. I've repeatedly seen commanders in Iraq and all the other peace-keeping roles being very keen on the "soft" approach (bush hats rather than helmets, Land Rovers rather than tanks - an armoured car is a tank to most people, etc). I've not yet seen an actual solider on the ground complaining - just the press and some minor politicians trying to make a name for themselves which makes me very suspicous of their motives.

Richard

On or around Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:34:13 +0100, beamendsltd enlightened us thusly:

hmmm. you could have a point there. The soft approach seems to work most of the time, too. and if you have to defend against RPGs you need serious armour; ditto if you're talking about landmines boosted with 10Kg of semtex. Typical light armoured vehicles, ISTR, are good for up to 7.62 rounds and the like.

Travelling around in heavy armour is apt to be seen as a threat/challenge, and if you're in a "policing" action that's not at all helpful.

On an offshoot - watching the guards doing their bit at HMQ's birthday bash, is trikes me that it'd be a damned sight better spectacle if they'd kept a few dozen Lee-Enfields for display purposes. The current infantry weapon just isn't as good for doing ceremonial displays with, and looks silly. Mind, I gather that it *is* silly, as well, what with feeble littel bullets and so forth :-)

'cept these feeble little bullets penetrate armour.

AJH

On the other hand, I remember, about 1985, an American acquaintance noticing a lot of the King's Troop wearing the same medal, and wondering what it was.

South Atlantic Medal, I explained.

You're quite right Austin, but the troops killed in Afghanistan weren't SAS and normal grunts don't get the degree of training needed to be effective in (what is euphemistically called)a pink panther.

You're right there, Richard. The British methodology is a hearts and minds approach which contrasts starkly with the American "kick ass" philosophy. The average British soldier is much happier wearing his beret than a kevlar helmet.

There was a move by the top brass to keep several hundred SLR's for ceremonial purposes when the SA80 was first introduced but the idea was squashed by the politicians.

Don't be fooled by the small calibre of the SA80. It may only be 5.56mm but it packs the same punch as the 7.62 from an SLR due to it's significantly higher muzzle velocity. You'll know when you're hit by one :-)

No better than anything else.

I think his point was that armour plated, blast-proof vehicles aren't what the army need all of the time, most of the time it's a disadvantage because the vehicle is then slow, cumbersome and large.

It has to be said that while there are casualties in Iraq, British casualties are very low, although I think they've now overtaken the number of British soldiers killed by the Americans ;-)

SG: Right now, anyone who joins any of the armed forces thinking he/she won't see active service is either blind, deaf, stupid or from Mars ... or all of the above. It has always been the case that soldiers are infantrymen first and foremost irrespective of the arm of the service or corps/regiment.

SG: Too bl00dy true! There is more leeway these days to refuse illegal orders though.

Indeed, hence the use of unarmoured land rovers, rather than sodding great big tanks crawling through the towns. The British army has armoured vehicles, I'd imagine they're not using them for a very good reason that's not got much to do with our sometimes rather inept government.

Oops (hastily removes sandals and looks for trainers)

I've no experience of being on the sending or receiving end, nor have I ever wished to be, but I did work on the range at Beckingham. The LA81 cartridge fires a "semi-armour piercing" round. Whether it works in the field or not is another matter but the little rods in the slug do get through kevlar vests and light armour, whereas ak47 bullets do not.

AJH

I've seen test results from LA81 firings with AP heads but it isn't standard issue AFAIK - something to do with the Geneva convention and how much damage it can inflict on casualties.