Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/29/2006 8:13:26 AM EDT

How much of this is normal equipment breakdowns and how much of it is civilian reporter misunderstanding of how militaries work?
.............................................................................

Revealed: true scale of army kit failures
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=144792006

by BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR

BRITISH troops serving in Iraq have suffered more than 2,500 failures of weapons and vehicles in the past two years, scores of which could have proved fatal, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

Even the army's troublesome SA80 rifle - supposedly fixed at a cost of almost £100m - failed on at least 100 occasions in Iraq since 2003, according to the MoD's own figures.


The latest revelations about sub-standard equipment issued to British forces are all the more shocking coming shortly before the deployment of thousands more troops to Afghanistan.

British troops have complained for years about the suitability of the equipment with which they are issued. Last night, there was outrage that little appeared to have improved, despite the UK's growing military commitments in some of the world's most hostile territories.

The MoD's revelations list 2,581 Equipment Failure Reports (EFRs) in Iraq and Kuwait between March 21 2003 and December 15 2005, which covers most of the operation to remove Saddam Hussein and maintain order afterwards.

A further 90 incidents, involving equipment including Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks, Land Rovers, rifles and machine guns are listed as "serious equipment failures" (SEFs).

Such incidents are defined as "a failure or suspected failure that results in, or has the potential to result in, personal injury, loss of life or serious damage".

The Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks failed 399 times, Land Rovers 967 times, and the Warrior armoured personnel carriers 419 times. All variants of the SA80 failed 148 times, despite the £92m refit less than four years ago. Three of the failures are listed as potentially fatal.

The MoD estimates that more than half of the 98 British deaths during the Iraq campaign have been caused by accidents.

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Michael Moore countered: "There are ongoing doubts about the quality of the equipment our troops are being given, and this is a time for the government to reassure us that they are providing the best.

"At a time of huge concern about our troops being sent into an incredibly hostile environment, it is deeply worrying that we find that they cannot always rely on the equipment they have been given to protect them."

The British taskforce is heading out to southern Afghanistan's lawless Helmand province, a notorious stronghold of drugs barons and Taliban insurgents.

The taskforce will include a battlegroup from the 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment supported by eight Apache attack helicopters, which will be deployed for the first time.

A group of 850 engineers, soldiers and marines will go to Afghanistan shortly to establish the British base in the Helmand capital of Lashkar Gah.

The larger group of 3,300 do not yet know when they will go but it is hoped that British forces will be operational by July.

It will form part of a new, 9,000-strong Nato multi-national brigade taking over from the US in south-east Afghanistan.

The deployment will last three years at a cost of £1bn to the British taxpayer.

Some 8,500 British troops remain in Iraq with little immediate prospect of a reduction in numbers until the security situation significantly improves.

Related topics

British armed forces
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1034
Geoff Hoon body-armour row
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=90
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:43:50 AM EDT
Yeah no shit. Ever owned a British car?
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:45:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By clutchsmoke:
Yeah no shit. Ever owned a British car?



Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:48:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:49:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 8:50:48 AM EDT by Beleg]
Why would somebody quote Michael Moore in an article about military equipment?

But there's no liberal media bias!! NOOOOOO Way!

ETA: After a second read, maybe this is a different Michael Moore. Maybe when you name your child Michael Moore, he instantaneously becomes "a Liberal Democrat."
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:58:27 AM EDT
what kind of "failures" were they did the chalanger tank "run out of fuel" and fail to move any more? did the door handle fall off of their armored vehicle?

I mean come on! what kind of failures are we talking about here?

everything mechanical made by man will fail at some point, come to think of it everything biological will fail as well.

I swear these idiots who live in this perfect world in their minds actually believe that the world , it's people and it's machines will operate perfectly 100% of the time is pure fantasy.

like the perfect woman/wife or man/husband.......it just doesn't exist, everything must be constantly worked on and will usually fail at some critical moment at sometime.

IT'S CALLED LIFE! nobody sain ever said it would be perfect.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 9:01:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 9:02:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Beleg:
Why would somebody quote Michael Moore in an article about military equipment?

But there's no liberal media bias!! NOOOOOO Way!

ETA: After a second read, maybe this is a different Michael Moore. Maybe when you name your child Michael Moore, he instantaneously becomes "a Liberal Democrat."


Yep, that fellow is not the USA's Michael Moore but the Brit version.

I wonder how much of their equipment failure is actually wear and tear. Things do wear out. This story is written by a general news media writer, and not a person with a military or engineering background, so there are probably factual errors in the story.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:56:32 AM EDT
The Michael Moore referenced is a British politician.

976 Land Rover failures? Probably includes flat tyres or the windshield washer fluid running out.

The only negatives I perpetually hear about are the chain-gun coaxes on the Challengers and Warriors. They have a very bad rep for reliability amongst British troops. (They also have a great rep for effectiveness on the occasions that they work)

Check out ARRSE.co.uk for the horse's mouth.

NTM
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:10:19 AM EDT
Sounds like more Marxist BS to me.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:17:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 11:32:50 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:30:34 AM EDT
Here's the ARRSE thread on the issue.

www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=30918.html

Not many comments on it right now.

NTM
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:31:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
I have to submit an EFR if the light bulb im my office blows...
ANdy



So it sounds like an EFR is the same as writing a 'fault' on a US Army 2404/5988E

When's the last time you ever PMCSd anything and not written something on a 2404?

NTM
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:38:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 11:39:38 AM EDT by vito113]
Top Top