Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Steve T is right, many of the guys do have to buy their own kit as the standard issue stuff is such poor quality. For example, my husband is issued with boots that retail at around ?15. Bearing in mind they spend 99% of their time in these boots, tabbing, on exercise etc. If he wore what was issued he'd have endless foot, ankle, problems etc which would require costly medical treatment and physio.


Rather than cut TA spending, in my view the MOD should slash the amount of civil service staff they employ, many of whom can't do the job they were employed to do. A few weeks ago I found myself whole heartedly agreeing with Liam Fox who said that we have an army of around 99,000 who are 'supported' by approx 85,000 civil servants. In Nelson's day, he had an army of far greater numbers, with a handful of staff at Horseguards.

David Carnell wrote:- Villagers tend to object to tanks driving through their market squares.



Is that the only option, a foot patrol or a tank?


Perhaps an investment into armoured cars ...........covered in Disney characters,

just for the sensitivities of some poor old villagers.


I don't think I would be greatly influenced by village life if I were in charge, my men and their safety would be my soul concern.

I think my wider point referred to hearts and minds, Steve. Are you trying to be obtuse?


If you rampaging through towns/villages in armour clad tanks or APVs or even a Land Rover what happens is you fail to engage with the local populace. Through them you can gain valuable HUMINT and build bonds with the communities we are meant to be helping. Hide behind 6-inch steel plate, talk to no-one and shoot anything that moves and you'll soon find the local population turns against you.


And then things are a whole lot worse than they were before....

Well there's two ways to explore that safety issue I guess. Yours, SteveT is an escalation in weaponry, but the guys on the ground clearly feel that reducing the local's inclination to attack could also contribute.


History would have it that conciliation is usually the most successful path. But hey, some people just like to shoot guns and be threatening.

The safety and security of your men and women is the paramount concern of any commander.


However, the need to keep onside the local static population is essential so you do all possible to lower the impact of operations on them


Human Terrain Mapping is how it is achieved and HTT's are deployed with frontline troops.


Tactical patience is also being used...this reduces the impact of local actions at the strategic level.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...