Troops used to the easy life, say officers
 

So now you know. It's your own fault you weren't born in a dustbowl, with only a camel for entertainment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...911039,00.html

S U L,

Your point is...?.....

I can't blame them for griping about American catering. Those Americans can't make a proper cup of tea you know.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

The troops claimed their weapons, clothing and rations are so inadequate that their American counterparts have dubbed them "The Flintstones" and "The Borrowers".

The senior military officer said "They expect hot showers, the internet and televisions. That's fine for peacekeeping support, but this is expeditionary warfighting."

What about the weapons, clothing and rations that are needed for expeditionary warfighting?

Prat!

Will good food, enhanced, more easily available, cheap or free phone comms with home, and a supply chain which delivers sufficient bog roll and adequate kit and weapons actually degrade combat efficiency? Would hot showers, TV and internet access somehow damage combat capability?

Are the US Marines (et al) actually being so badly 'spoiled' that their combat capability will be compromised?

Or is it that UK troops are unique in requiring unnecessarily harsh and ill-managed support in order to fight to the best of their ability? Is it the British way to keep its troops disgruntled and uncomfortable in order to keep them champing at the bit and eager to 'go'? Is this particularly valuable when public support is so lacking? Or is this the usual 'cock-up not conspiracy'. I don't even support invasion of Iraq without a second resolution, but if British forces are doing anything then I want them to be looked after as well as is possible, and to be treated with the care, concern and consideration they deserve.

Just asking....

PS: Is British kit really so inadequate that soldiers need to buy and supply their own alternative kit, or is it only considered inadequate by a minority of very 'choosey' perfectionist soldiers (military 'anoraks', or 'kit geeks' as it were)? If issued kit really is inadequate (as I suspect is the case), then it's a scandalous way to treat those who we're asking to go and fight in our name.

Precisely, Jacko. How long ago was Options for Change, which envisaged a predominantly expeditionary role for our armed forces? We've had years to get this right and yet we're still living in $hite order in the desert, while our cousins from across the pond live in relative comfort.

I fully appreciate that everyone in forward locations (including the Americans) is living in necessarily spartan conditions, but, further back, the expectation of basic hygiene facilities and other morale-sustaining comforts is not unreasonable.

The UK is one of the richest nations in the world. Is it expecting too much for our guys and girls to live in conditions approaching those of the Americans? Okay, so that's a pipe dream, but we certainly don't need our senior officers to rub it in. For our own brass to deride the people on the ground in this way, is cowardly and unjust.

The supply of decent kit by the military has always fallen behind the availability of equivalent civilian equipment. GORTEX was designed for the mountaineer/hillwalker in the mid-80's, it was issued to specialist in NI in 1990 and on general issue in 1995/6. The Army had the 58 pattern large pack on geenral issue through most of the 80's, civilian pattern bergans (in green) were bought by my battalion in the late 80's to go to NI. Just 2 examples - the logistic organisation tends to work on long lead times, cheap products and requirements set by a customer 1 who sits in Puzzle Palace.

I can see that procuring, say, 'Giant Viper' was rocket science. I can appreciate that when buying very high cost equipment items which are expected to have a long service life, the long-lead procurement cycle is difficult to avoid. I can even half understand that when buying, say, a new rifle, there's plenty opf scope for buying the wrong one, or for ending up with a weapon whose development does not go quite as planned.

But why does it have to be so difficult to buy a Squaddie the best possible boots or a decent rucksack?

I wonder how many of the shortages of essential items as opposed to luxury items is due to a very late political decision to deploy. The Americans had much more time.

I think yer probably right. After all, they have been pourin' concrete and pitchin' tents around the Gulf for many months..for example, as far back as July last year..link