This thread is arguing over 2 separate issues;
1. Procurement and deployment of equipment that is not 'Fit for Purpose'.
2. The effectiveness of local command decisions during operations.
Both may ultimately be subject to legal scrutiny, but it's much easier to prove that complacency and needless bean counting delivered inappropriate equipment to the field, rather than prove a command decision taken in the heat of battle was negligent in nature.
All the lawyer haters out there are guilty of a failure of imagination if they can't see the day when MoD malfeasance or negligence could hurt them or their colleagues. Accountability isn't some new fashion driven by the Daily Mail and the Human Rights Act - it's the basic tenet of an effective military organisation.