The lack of flack jackets, hard vehicles and now the appalling Nimrod disaster, not to mention pointed criticisms from senior officers. Are such problems really limited to our forces among the western democracies in the EEC and NATO? As a civilian I am angry, but well aware I have no knowledge other than press reports. And that is always a very poor basis for opinion.
2007-12-05 21:42:57 · 9 answers · asked by fred35 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Other western countries will have similar problems in post cold war budgets. However they are not deployed to the same level that we are, so there problems can be made good, resources more easily moved around when a larger proportion of them are at home. Equipment gets used up more quickly when on operations, the government has been slow to release the money to pay for the new kit. Large 'ticket' item such as the new nimrod has always been pushed to the right ie delayed. This aircraft has been on operations in Iraq and Afghan since 9/11, this has eaten into the aircraft's hours quicker, which means that it needs to be replaced faster. The government only gives money for operations at the last minute that's why they are getting hammered in the press. There is also clauses in the money e.g. the government bought several dozen new land rovers, however they lasted more than 3 years on operation, so Gordon Brown, when chancellor, said they didn't need them for operations so it would have to come from the core defence budget. So they had to be sold off to cover the bill from the Treasury.
2007-12-05 23:48:33 · answer #1 · answered by Group Captain Lionel Mandrake 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. I've had experience dealing with other nations forces outside of the West. And shortages do occur. The problem is not one which is new. In World War Two we designed a bomber called the B-17. One problem with the early models. It had no tail gun. So, the Luftwaffe quickly learned to climb up behind the plane and shoot it out of the skies. We then added the tail gun. During the Battle of Midway the newly installed automatic bomb release switches on our Naval aircraft malfunctioned. A lot of bombs fell harmlessly into the Pacific Ocean.
The amount of personal involvement in the contracting and procurement process for military equipment by Members of Congress is appalling and always has been. That shows up in the delivery of shoddy equipment and material. Senator Harry Truman rose to national prominence in World War Two as the chairman of a Senate Committee investigating war profiteering and fiddling with contracts, Those senior officers, now on the retired list, are never held to account by the media for being "asleep at the switch" on this issue while they were on active duty. And the electronic media are driven by a commercial compulsion to report something which can draw a crowd, so the sponsors can sell something to the viewer.
In every war there are lessons learned. That doesn't change either. Equipment is improved to counter the loss of life which happened using earlier models of the equipment. And the enemy is hard at work developing measures to counter those improvements. That doesn't change either.
2007-12-06 05:01:38 · answer #2 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No they are not and in some of the other countries it is much worse. Russia used to run live chem warfare exercises and would lose a few hundred troops out of a few thousand and when they would run jump exercises it would be at night as well as day and in not very safe conditions and would result in a high number of injured and even a few deaths. I have personally seen the equipment that other countries have used in fighting the US, NATO and coalition forces as well as served in combat areas and I can tell you they have it much worse. Their pay, benefits, living conditions, and treatment is something that most westerners could not or would not endure. Most of your countries now do not have a large standing military because it is too costly and that is one of the reasons why small flareups and terrorism are going to be with us for some time to come. That has literally become the new, cheaper way to fight a war that most of these countries or political regimes can afford. One of the other big differences is that if you speak out or go against the regime you have a very short career and in some cases a very short life.
2007-12-06 01:20:06 · answer #3 · answered by samuraiwarrior_98 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Logistics especially foreign logistics is and always has been an issue during war. There are some issues that need to be addressed with regard to equipment availability which need not necessarily be as a result of shortage, things break and they sometimes break permanently.
The press is over emphasising the problems but they do exist in some respects.
We are not the only country with equipment issues, US and Canadian guys suffer some too despite spending huge amounts of money on stuff.
2007-12-06 15:01:23 · answer #4 · answered by Kevin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No other military in the world has as much personal protective equipment as the US. If before the war you tried to buy 100,000 up armored Hummers congress would have laughed at you. The military did not want them because the use more fuel, are harder to get in and out of, and did not have as great of cross country capability(they get stuck in the mud), and they get very hot inside do to poor ventilation. I was in a Brigade S4, we had the chance to get up-armored trucks before the war in 2001. I was told that the Brigade did not want them.
We all had flack jackets. Before the war the ones we had where bought under Regan. No one wanted us to get new ones until we start to deploy. For Kosovo the government bought us more, but they where just for Kosovo. When your unit left there you left them in Kosovo for the next unit. Once Iraq hit people where in a rush to get the newest ones. Before the war their was no request by the Army for new body armor.
Do not feel to bad. The majority of the worlds arms have a simple type of body armor, they call it a shirt.
2007-12-05 23:12:54 · answer #5 · answered by Chris 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The US Army is the best Trained and equipped Army in the world, Period.
I have never seen the problems they speak of.
We set the priority of armoring vehicles (every truck that leaves a base is armored)
I have never seen a US Soldier go to combat without body armor (not always the best body armor early in the war but that problem is solved now)
I have worked with European and mid east Army's and stand by my statement.
2007-12-06 01:25:08 · answer #6 · answered by MP US Army 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
my brother in law is a seargent in the army and says the press is over emphasising the need for equipment, in some places there is a need for updated equipment but why waste brand new equipment on a war that is over and the gear they have is actually as effective as is needed. the thing to remember is that the press will pick up on part of an issue and make it sound worse that things actually are. our men and women are dying but its not fully down to the equipment used, its war thats what happens unfortuatley
2007-12-05 21:57:14 · answer #7 · answered by loubylou 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
These press reports and open discussions on our armies frailities should be stopped. Mayweathers team wouldnt tell Hatton that he had a physical weakness...it just encourages the opposition.
2007-12-06 00:47:43 · answer #8 · answered by biscuit 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Congress holding up funding is not helping our military get what they need, how about drop them a line! Harry Reid, and the rest of those surrender monkeys are hell bent on making this war a disaster...
2007-12-05 22:29:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋