is this worthy leadership?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The top brass should certainly be the most "knowledgable, most experienced and most insightful". This should come irrespective of trade.
To follow your argument in favour of aircrew exclusive top brass through, aircrew cannot then have the perspective or right to commit personnel other than aircrew to the fray - not having been out for the engine cx at 0230 how could they hope to commit the ginger beers to that, under poor lighting and with the potential for rocket attack etc. Alternatively, someone of exceptional talent who rose through the ranks in times of peace, or even just avoided warzone action by doing something important elsewhere would not, by your logic, be qualified to ever send the force into a warzone.
I don't think this is borne out at all. Much as the Prime Minister, President, Chancellor or any national leader you care to mention will never hope to know all and the intricate detail of all over which they hold influence, but take advice from those who do, pitting the mutually exclusive needs of one against another. A presumption that a leader/manager knows all is what gets you into trouble.
Being a fantastic adminner, engineer, supplier, pilot, nav, air trafficker or whatever has very little in common with being an exceptional leader of an entire Air Force. All cogs in the machine being important, not necessarily equally so, but all important, all must be considered at the highest level.
The highest level is there to provide strategic vision and leadership, not get stuck in the weeds.
I stand by my statement that a cross section of expertise and experience is needed.
To follow your argument in favour of aircrew exclusive top brass through, aircrew cannot then have the perspective or right to commit personnel other than aircrew to the fray - not having been out for the engine cx at 0230 how could they hope to commit the ginger beers to that, under poor lighting and with the potential for rocket attack etc. Alternatively, someone of exceptional talent who rose through the ranks in times of peace, or even just avoided warzone action by doing something important elsewhere would not, by your logic, be qualified to ever send the force into a warzone.
I don't think this is borne out at all. Much as the Prime Minister, President, Chancellor or any national leader you care to mention will never hope to know all and the intricate detail of all over which they hold influence, but take advice from those who do, pitting the mutually exclusive needs of one against another. A presumption that a leader/manager knows all is what gets you into trouble.
Being a fantastic adminner, engineer, supplier, pilot, nav, air trafficker or whatever has very little in common with being an exceptional leader of an entire Air Force. All cogs in the machine being important, not necessarily equally so, but all important, all must be considered at the highest level.
The highest level is there to provide strategic vision and leadership, not get stuck in the weeds.
I stand by my statement that a cross section of expertise and experience is needed.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming that you accept what the ultimate function of an Air Force is, and given that you affirm the ultimate qualities required, how can an Engineer/Admin wallah/Gnr ever be as 'knowledgable, most experienced and most insightful' about that Air Forces's function as someone who actually carries that ultimate function out?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Awaiting Redundancies
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know several officers of ground trades who know more about aeroplanes than some stick monkeys, but that is not the point here.
Everyone should have a fair crack at getting the top job, if they don't then the Air Force is not meeting its own equality standards.
To my mind running any large organisation is much like running any other. Personally I think there are much more talented people in civvy street who could run the military in a more efficient and effective manner. If it is so important that the current bigwigs know how to fly, then send them back to what they do best, and let the government outsource for a CDS.
....controversial
Everyone should have a fair crack at getting the top job, if they don't then the Air Force is not meeting its own equality standards.
To my mind running any large organisation is much like running any other. Personally I think there are much more talented people in civvy street who could run the military in a more efficient and effective manner. If it is so important that the current bigwigs know how to fly, then send them back to what they do best, and let the government outsource for a CDS.
....controversial
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having sat and listened to days of evidence in the Coroner's Court concerning the Hercules Inquest it seems clear to me that the single seat monkeys at the top of the RAF haven't a clue about the failures in their system to either recognise the risks taken by air transport crews or afford protection where it is recognised. This failure of the system over which they preside extends to procurement of latest generation tactical air transport aircraft; witness the failure to fund DAS for the A400M fleet. Their only response, to brief the Defence Minister that the Coroner was wrong to describe the failings as "systemic."
It would appear that a willingness to work expediently within cultural expectations in the fast jet centric air force is far more important. I am singularly unimpressed by either the leadership or management skills on offer from the current crop of "Top Brass".
Time for a change?
It would appear that a willingness to work expediently within cultural expectations in the fast jet centric air force is far more important. I am singularly unimpressed by either the leadership or management skills on offer from the current crop of "Top Brass".
Time for a change?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Frozen South
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it any wonder that the majority of the top brass are fast jet pilots? Wouldn't the mental capacity and fortitude (good things for a leader) which enabled them to survive fast jet training early in their career indicate a natural advantage over aircrew who wanted FJ but lacked the ability. Generally speaking, of course.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I made the point earlier, that being just aircrew wasn't enough in itself. Yes, there are some complete twonks who fly aeroplanes and that badge alone isn't a prerequisite for the job but all that means is that you have to be more discerning about how you choose that person. And of course, there are some complete twonks who get promoted from other branches too, so that rules out many of the variables. Which leads us back to the principle.. you are either able to lead by example or you don't.
I don't give much time either, to any of that 'equality standards' malarkey, sorry. Who said warfighting was fair? And no one has yet told me how a stacker, admin wallah, gnr or spanner monkey is going to build up suitable command experience at junior/mid level? Or will running PMS count as an equiv tick in the box to running a FJ flt? Or will anyone be given command of a flying sqn (in the interests of 'equality' that is), or if suitability and experience isn't an issue, are we also suggesting that anyone can do anyone's job? Perhaps in the interests of 'equality' we should allow a Provo officer to run Engineering Wing?
And finally, sorry.. if the general response to mundane things like fitness tests here is anything to go by when it comes to discussing leadership, best we hand the whole shooting match over to the army asap. Bottom line is, this isn't a democracy - you knew the craic when you joined up and you either had the bollocks to go for the best job because you wanted it that badly.. or you didn't. If you didn't, why should you suddenly decide later on to sneak in through the back door around men and women who did have the gumption and determination to put themselves through years of hell when you were happy with learning how to count paper clips/sleeping bags/boxes in some attendance course? To the victor etc. And if you were just medically unsuitable then life's a bitch.. get over it, sorry.
I don't give much time either, to any of that 'equality standards' malarkey, sorry. Who said warfighting was fair? And no one has yet told me how a stacker, admin wallah, gnr or spanner monkey is going to build up suitable command experience at junior/mid level? Or will running PMS count as an equiv tick in the box to running a FJ flt? Or will anyone be given command of a flying sqn (in the interests of 'equality' that is), or if suitability and experience isn't an issue, are we also suggesting that anyone can do anyone's job? Perhaps in the interests of 'equality' we should allow a Provo officer to run Engineering Wing?
And finally, sorry.. if the general response to mundane things like fitness tests here is anything to go by when it comes to discussing leadership, best we hand the whole shooting match over to the army asap. Bottom line is, this isn't a democracy - you knew the craic when you joined up and you either had the bollocks to go for the best job because you wanted it that badly.. or you didn't. If you didn't, why should you suddenly decide later on to sneak in through the back door around men and women who did have the gumption and determination to put themselves through years of hell when you were happy with learning how to count paper clips/sleeping bags/boxes in some attendance course? To the victor etc. And if you were just medically unsuitable then life's a bitch.. get over it, sorry.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guessing that by 'junior/mid level' you might mean Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr, then I'd suggest that most engineering and supply officers have had far greater command experience than their FJ brethren of equivalent rank and seniority - who are of course, at that point concentrating on flying! SEngo vs Flt Cdr on a Harrier sqn for example?
I'm neither a pilot or eng/supply...just pointing out the flaw in your argument
I'm neither a pilot or eng/supply...just pointing out the flaw in your argument
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a good point, thanks. In fairness, I mentioned earlier too, that AT and SHF pilots have greater 'management' experience also, than FJ.
But we're talking about leadership as well as management and my point remains. How do the engineers/stackers etc get proper management experience at Wing level? Unless, as I suggested, we will assume that running an Supply & Eng Wing is as suitable as having experience as running a flying sqn? Or do we put engineers in charge of a flying sqn? The single best leader I can remember was a crap manager, in fact, a tankie I once worked with was a superb leader but couldn't manage to wipe his arse with his SSM.
But we're talking about leadership as well as management and my point remains. How do the engineers/stackers etc get proper management experience at Wing level? Unless, as I suggested, we will assume that running an Supply & Eng Wing is as suitable as having experience as running a flying sqn? Or do we put engineers in charge of a flying sqn? The single best leader I can remember was a crap manager, in fact, a tankie I once worked with was a superb leader but couldn't manage to wipe his arse with his SSM.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a more serious note, there has been a great deal of unfounded, unfair and misleading comment and criticism on this thread about the remuneration and commitment of senior officers and, in particular, of the Service Chiefs of Staff. It has been whipped up, as ever, by scandal mongering journalists who know the square root of FA about the Armed Services, their ethos and how they function. Tragically the grieving relatives of some casualties have been cynically misled and dragged into the argument to support the journalistic hype. Chappie, though I have great admiration for you and what you have achieved, you too have been misled.
There has been a lot of fair comment too, helping to redress the balance and injecting common sense and fact for those with an open mind who will recognise and accept it.
The Chiefs of Staff are in an invidious position. During the tenure of the current Labour government the politicians and civil servants have over centralised the MoD and undermined the authority and effectiveness of the top uniformed layers. The individual Service Chiefs no longer have control of their own budgets. They have massive responsibility but very little executive authority and power. The power lies in the hands of politicians and civil servants who have little real responsibility and whose priorities put the welfare of servicemen, women and families well down their list. Targets tend to be budgetary. Success is measured by staying within budget. The advice and warnings of those in uniform is devalued and disregarded and, while still serving, they cannot go public to explain.
The military ethos is to serve, to lead, to take responsibility, to do our duty, and to put our subordinates’ welfare first. I have seen no indication that the Chiefs of Staff are really wanting in this, despite the flak they take. But the civil servants and politicians who actually control the MoD? What are their motives and values? Where do their loyalties lie? Who holds them to account?
I agree that there is currently a lot wrong at the top of the Defence pyramid that needs to be put right, but before engaging mouth and pen, try brain and intellect and select your targets wisely.
There has been a lot of fair comment too, helping to redress the balance and injecting common sense and fact for those with an open mind who will recognise and accept it.
The Chiefs of Staff are in an invidious position. During the tenure of the current Labour government the politicians and civil servants have over centralised the MoD and undermined the authority and effectiveness of the top uniformed layers. The individual Service Chiefs no longer have control of their own budgets. They have massive responsibility but very little executive authority and power. The power lies in the hands of politicians and civil servants who have little real responsibility and whose priorities put the welfare of servicemen, women and families well down their list. Targets tend to be budgetary. Success is measured by staying within budget. The advice and warnings of those in uniform is devalued and disregarded and, while still serving, they cannot go public to explain.
The military ethos is to serve, to lead, to take responsibility, to do our duty, and to put our subordinates’ welfare first. I have seen no indication that the Chiefs of Staff are really wanting in this, despite the flak they take. But the civil servants and politicians who actually control the MoD? What are their motives and values? Where do their loyalties lie? Who holds them to account?
I agree that there is currently a lot wrong at the top of the Defence pyramid that needs to be put right, but before engaging mouth and pen, try brain and intellect and select your targets wisely.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM sorry to shatter your illusions but on the subject of Chappie and the Inquest you are so far wide of the mark it is almost funny.
Firstly, a bit of advice, don't ever talk down to Chappie and suggest she has been misled by the wicked press, she will have you for breakfast. I have gotten to know her during the course of the Inquest and believe me she was very active and keen to understand everything that happened. In doing so she wasn't afraid to ask awkward questions, her instinct as to who was being economical with the truth on stand was very sharp.
Secondly, way back in Jan 2006 I assumed that the penny pinching mandarins at the MoD were solely to blame for the Crew not having fuel tank protection. As we learned during the Inquest this was far from the case. The TAT reports were sent to senior RAF officers for staffing. Senior RAF officers at Strike, PJHQ and 2 Gp did absolutely nothing. Not even warning the frontline crews of the danger they were in.
You might want to ask yourself about the culture that allowed that to happen.
No, the basic facts at the heart of the tragedy are that the RAF failed its own men. Say what you like about the Chiefs of Staff, those of us who witnessed some of the senior personnel, unrepentant, robust, unapologetic, unable to recall key facts, quick to deny responsibility, will never forget it.
It was something John Reid alluded to on the final day and I have great respect for him for doing so.
Finally a word about the press, for whom some of you have a pathological hatred for. A handful were in Court for the whole of the Inquest. Again, I got to know them quite well. They held very balanced views about what had happened but were truly shocked by the circumstances of the tragedy. It has been reported that they too wept in Court in the latter stages. Their integrity impressed me a great deal. Oh, and you would be surprised how many of the Broadsheet Defence Journos have served either as regulars or reservists.
Contrast that with the "off the record" MoD briefings given to a key journalist.
I was seething with anger when I heard what was being said.
CM the world is not black and white, I hope you learn that lesson soon.
Firstly, a bit of advice, don't ever talk down to Chappie and suggest she has been misled by the wicked press, she will have you for breakfast. I have gotten to know her during the course of the Inquest and believe me she was very active and keen to understand everything that happened. In doing so she wasn't afraid to ask awkward questions, her instinct as to who was being economical with the truth on stand was very sharp.
Secondly, way back in Jan 2006 I assumed that the penny pinching mandarins at the MoD were solely to blame for the Crew not having fuel tank protection. As we learned during the Inquest this was far from the case. The TAT reports were sent to senior RAF officers for staffing. Senior RAF officers at Strike, PJHQ and 2 Gp did absolutely nothing. Not even warning the frontline crews of the danger they were in.
You might want to ask yourself about the culture that allowed that to happen.
No, the basic facts at the heart of the tragedy are that the RAF failed its own men. Say what you like about the Chiefs of Staff, those of us who witnessed some of the senior personnel, unrepentant, robust, unapologetic, unable to recall key facts, quick to deny responsibility, will never forget it.
It was something John Reid alluded to on the final day and I have great respect for him for doing so.
Finally a word about the press, for whom some of you have a pathological hatred for. A handful were in Court for the whole of the Inquest. Again, I got to know them quite well. They held very balanced views about what had happened but were truly shocked by the circumstances of the tragedy. It has been reported that they too wept in Court in the latter stages. Their integrity impressed me a great deal. Oh, and you would be surprised how many of the Broadsheet Defence Journos have served either as regulars or reservists.
Contrast that with the "off the record" MoD briefings given to a key journalist.
I was seething with anger when I heard what was being said.
CM the world is not black and white, I hope you learn that lesson soon.
Last edited by nigegilb; 31st Oct 2008 at 23:31.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your defence of Chappie does you credit. However, before you offer me advice, be sure of your facts. You are wrong in ascribing any illusions about the inquest to me. I have not referred to the inquest or to Chappie's part in it.
And in respect to her statements in the first two posts of this thread, which she started, including her personal comments about the motives of Sir Jock Stirrup, I'm afraid she is well wide of the mark and has been misled into believing what the Independant report said and implied.
I reaffirm my admiration for her. However, in this particular area her instinct has failed her.
And in respect to her statements in the first two posts of this thread, which she started, including her personal comments about the motives of Sir Jock Stirrup, I'm afraid she is well wide of the mark and has been misled into believing what the Independant report said and implied.
I reaffirm my admiration for her. However, in this particular area her instinct has failed her.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I see what you mean, I have just re-read her posts.
I ask you one question. As you so admire those who lead the RAF why is it, that in time of war and war that will be on-going for many years to come, have the "leaders" procured a tactical air transporter with DAS kit worked out on a theoretical capability requirement for humanitarian airlift only? leaving well over half the fleet unprotected?
Search me, because I haven't the faintest idea.
I suspect Chappie was raging about the obvious failure of the "leaders" to stand up for their men. Whilst the executive enjoy the fruits of their "risk free" existence...
I ask you one question. As you so admire those who lead the RAF why is it, that in time of war and war that will be on-going for many years to come, have the "leaders" procured a tactical air transporter with DAS kit worked out on a theoretical capability requirement for humanitarian airlift only? leaving well over half the fleet unprotected?
Search me, because I haven't the faintest idea.
I suspect Chappie was raging about the obvious failure of the "leaders" to stand up for their men. Whilst the executive enjoy the fruits of their "risk free" existence...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, you ascribe opinions to me which I have not expressed. Nowhere do I show admiration of the current leadership of the RAF. Being a retired Pongo, I have relatively little knowledge of or aquaintance with the current RAF top brass, despite my son being in the RAF and my wife being an ex. And I probably know as much about the need for DAS in the tactical AT fleet as you know about FIBUA. However, I fail to see what effect that has on the price of fish.
Finally, thank you for your generous though misplaced "bit of advice". As you suggest I shall check to see if my vision of the world is really as black and white as you say it is. In return perhaps you will engage your brain before you write a comment and try to be a bit less condescending.
I also have a high opinion of you, based on your many admirable posts in other threads. As I do not wish to endanger that high opinion, I do not intend to post any more on this particular thread.
My best wishes to you.
Finally, thank you for your generous though misplaced "bit of advice". As you suggest I shall check to see if my vision of the world is really as black and white as you say it is. In return perhaps you will engage your brain before you write a comment and try to be a bit less condescending.
I also have a high opinion of you, based on your many admirable posts in other threads. As I do not wish to endanger that high opinion, I do not intend to post any more on this particular thread.
My best wishes to you.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM, I am sorry if I have misrepresented your views; line drawn under here as well. If you feel I have been condascending to you, I confess it was deliberate. Please do not assume grieving families members are so easily led, for that too is condascending. You would have approved of the stoicism and dignity on show at Trowbridge. One tradition that most definitely lives on.
I think Chappie is allowed a show of emotion after everything she has been through.
Regards,
Nige
I think Chappie is allowed a show of emotion after everything she has been through.
Regards,
Nige
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't take my word for the failure of "Brass" to stand up for their men, take his;
Exclusive: SAS chief quits over 'negligence that killed his troops'
The commander of SAS troops in Afghanistan has resigned in disgust, accusing the Government of "gross negligence" over the deaths of four of his soldiers.
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 10:06PM GMT 31 Oct 2008
Previous
1 of 3 Images
Next
Cpl Sarah Bryant, the first female soldier to die in Afghanistan, and her husband Carl Photo: North News
L/Cpl Richard larkin, Cpl Sean Reeve and Paul Stout died in the Snatch Land Rover along with Cpl Bryant Photo: PA
A Snatch Land Rover in Afghanistan Photo: AFP/Getty
Major Sebastian Morley claims that Whitehall officials and military commanders repeatedly ignored his warnings that people would be killed if they continued to allow troops to be transported in the vulnerable Snatch Land Rovers.
As a result, he says Cpl Sarah Bryant – the first female soldier to die in Afghanistan – and three male colleagues, the SAS soldiers, Cpl Sean Reeve, L/Cpl Richard Larkin and Paul Stout were killed needlessly.
All four died when their lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover split apart after hitting a landmine in Helmand province in June.
In his resignation letter, Major Morley, the commander of D Squadron, 23 SAS, said "chronic underinvestment" in equipment by the Ministry of Defence was to blame for their deaths.
The Old Etonian officer, a cousin to the late Diana, Princess of Wales, is understood to have described the MoD's failure to buy better equipment as "cavalier at best, criminal at worst". The resignation of Major Morley, the grandson of the newspaper tycoon Lord Beaverbrook, follows those of Col Stuart Tootal, Brig Ed Butler and a commanding officer of 22 SAS.
"We highlighted this issue saying people are going to die and now they have died," said a soldier who served with Major Morley. "Our commanding officer and RSM (Regimental Sergeant Major) tried everything in their power to stop us using Snatch. The point of failure here lies squarely with the MoD.
"The boys nicknamed Snatch the mobile coffin."
The resignation of Major Morley will reignite the debate on the standard of equipment for troops, with many front line soldiers believing that their lives are being put at risk.
In recent weeks the MoD has been criticised by coroners who said the right equipment could have saved lives.
The frailties of Snatch Land Rovers have been responsible for 34 British fatalities – or one in eight of the total killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are only now being replaced.
The reservists of 23 SAS were first asked to send a squadron of about 100 men to Helmand in Afghanistan because the regular soldiers of 22 SAS were severely stretched in Iraq. Their mission was to supervise elite elements of the Afghan police.
But the men were aghast when they were told during pre-deployment training that only Snatch Land Rovers – designed to withstand rioters in Northern Ireland – were available.
Emails were sent to Whitehall planners in the MoD, but they were told to "get on with it".
"We said this was dangerous and unacceptable," an SAS trooper said. "Snatch was highlighted as lethal and useless for two reasons – the armour does not work as rounds go through it like butter and it has no cross-country capability, denying us the element of surprise."
The soldiers also arrived in Afghanistan with a "desperate shortage" of night vision sights despite a coroner castigating the MoD over the lack of night-time goggles blamed for the death of the first British soldier to die in Helmand, Capt Jim Phillipson.
One in 10 of the SAS soldiers had to go without night sights despite many operations in the dark. The Special Forces troops are understood to have resorted to hitching lifts with the infantry in the bombproof Mastiff vehicles or march to missions.
Politicians and senior officers, were told of the SAS fears over the lack of equipment but still nothing was done, officers allege. When the SAS squadron learnt of the deaths of Cpl Bryant and her three colleagues on June 17 there was immense anger. "We thought we could muddle through and that luck was with us," one officer said. "It happened because we could not drive across country."
In a statement the MoD said: "Equipping our personnel is a clear priority and we are absolutely focused on providing them with a range of vehicles that will protect them from the ever-shifting threats posed by the enemy."
And before anyone starts slating Thomas Harding, he has done time with the Paras.
Exclusive: SAS chief quits over 'negligence that killed his troops'
The commander of SAS troops in Afghanistan has resigned in disgust, accusing the Government of "gross negligence" over the deaths of four of his soldiers.
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 10:06PM GMT 31 Oct 2008
Previous
1 of 3 Images
Next
Cpl Sarah Bryant, the first female soldier to die in Afghanistan, and her husband Carl Photo: North News L/Cpl Richard larkin, Cpl Sean Reeve and Paul Stout died in the Snatch Land Rover along with Cpl Bryant Photo: PA A Snatch Land Rover in Afghanistan Photo: AFP/Getty Major Sebastian Morley claims that Whitehall officials and military commanders repeatedly ignored his warnings that people would be killed if they continued to allow troops to be transported in the vulnerable Snatch Land Rovers.
As a result, he says Cpl Sarah Bryant – the first female soldier to die in Afghanistan – and three male colleagues, the SAS soldiers, Cpl Sean Reeve, L/Cpl Richard Larkin and Paul Stout were killed needlessly.
All four died when their lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover split apart after hitting a landmine in Helmand province in June.
In his resignation letter, Major Morley, the commander of D Squadron, 23 SAS, said "chronic underinvestment" in equipment by the Ministry of Defence was to blame for their deaths.
The Old Etonian officer, a cousin to the late Diana, Princess of Wales, is understood to have described the MoD's failure to buy better equipment as "cavalier at best, criminal at worst". The resignation of Major Morley, the grandson of the newspaper tycoon Lord Beaverbrook, follows those of Col Stuart Tootal, Brig Ed Butler and a commanding officer of 22 SAS.
"We highlighted this issue saying people are going to die and now they have died," said a soldier who served with Major Morley. "Our commanding officer and RSM (Regimental Sergeant Major) tried everything in their power to stop us using Snatch. The point of failure here lies squarely with the MoD.
"The boys nicknamed Snatch the mobile coffin."
The resignation of Major Morley will reignite the debate on the standard of equipment for troops, with many front line soldiers believing that their lives are being put at risk.
In recent weeks the MoD has been criticised by coroners who said the right equipment could have saved lives.
The frailties of Snatch Land Rovers have been responsible for 34 British fatalities – or one in eight of the total killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are only now being replaced.
The reservists of 23 SAS were first asked to send a squadron of about 100 men to Helmand in Afghanistan because the regular soldiers of 22 SAS were severely stretched in Iraq. Their mission was to supervise elite elements of the Afghan police.
But the men were aghast when they were told during pre-deployment training that only Snatch Land Rovers – designed to withstand rioters in Northern Ireland – were available.
Emails were sent to Whitehall planners in the MoD, but they were told to "get on with it".
"We said this was dangerous and unacceptable," an SAS trooper said. "Snatch was highlighted as lethal and useless for two reasons – the armour does not work as rounds go through it like butter and it has no cross-country capability, denying us the element of surprise."
The soldiers also arrived in Afghanistan with a "desperate shortage" of night vision sights despite a coroner castigating the MoD over the lack of night-time goggles blamed for the death of the first British soldier to die in Helmand, Capt Jim Phillipson.
One in 10 of the SAS soldiers had to go without night sights despite many operations in the dark. The Special Forces troops are understood to have resorted to hitching lifts with the infantry in the bombproof Mastiff vehicles or march to missions.
Politicians and senior officers, were told of the SAS fears over the lack of equipment but still nothing was done, officers allege. When the SAS squadron learnt of the deaths of Cpl Bryant and her three colleagues on June 17 there was immense anger. "We thought we could muddle through and that luck was with us," one officer said. "It happened because we could not drive across country."
In a statement the MoD said: "Equipping our personnel is a clear priority and we are absolutely focused on providing them with a range of vehicles that will protect them from the ever-shifting threats posed by the enemy."
And before anyone starts slating Thomas Harding, he has done time with the Paras.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People have been aware of the situation for longer than the major lost men. Sorry Nige, but I have little time for stuff like that. These things take time and reacting to quickly changing enemy threats is never an instant process.
MoD to order £500 million worth of armoured vehicles for Afghanistan troops - Times Online
BBC NEWS | UK | £700m for British troop vehicles
MoD to order £500 million worth of armoured vehicles for Afghanistan troops - Times Online
BBC NEWS | UK | £700m for British troop vehicles
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have lost track of the amount of times I have heard investment announcements about vehicles, this latest one is short on detail. Appreciate your point A1 but I first landed in Afg in Jan 2002, that is longer in duration than 2nd world war. Soldiers were being blown up in Iraq in 2004. It doesn't take that long fella. These people were deployed when the threat was widely known and all they were offered was "snatch."
Top Brass knowingly deployed into Afg in 2006 with lack of kit, equipment and support. And still they committed troops.
"Can do" became the way to promotion and also the achilles heel. I hope our campaign might have shifted the debate somewhat, but how do you change a culture? A culture of making do and relying on luck.
Strikes me that the wrong person resigned here.
Top Brass knowingly deployed into Afg in 2006 with lack of kit, equipment and support. And still they committed troops.
"Can do" became the way to promotion and also the achilles heel. I hope our campaign might have shifted the debate somewhat, but how do you change a culture? A culture of making do and relying on luck.
Strikes me that the wrong person resigned here.
Last edited by nigegilb; 1st Nov 2008 at 00:24.