How can we convince the command to administer our soldiers the appropriate equipment?
Z-train, I think the being asking the question is British, not American.
We know your guys are well equipped but ours aren't. Richard Dannatt and Michael Rose, both outstandingly regarded generals (present and past) have both said that more helicopters are required contained by Afghanistan, as are Mastiff trucks.
The problem is that Gordon is refusing to acknowledge any shortfall as to do so would be to admit liability. It be him who cut the Army's helicopter budget after all.
If you want to do something do the online petitions on yougov, write to your MP and get a petition together to stir with it, write to David Cameron, write to Gordon Brown. I doubt very much whether he'll listen though. He have a tendency not to.
I would be curious to learn what you believe is the proper equipment. I've be a Soldier for more than 20 years, serving in combat both as an Army Ranger with the 3rd Ranger Battalion, and as an Army Aviator. I've never have anything but the best equipment when compared to every other military I’ve witnessed.
Given that our casualty rates have improved to the topmost rate in recorded history, I would be curious to know of late where you get your information and what qualifies you to make such a statement that our Soldiers seize anything BUT appropriate equipment. Do you have personal experience that justifies your arraignment or are you parroting someone else’s concern? Please provide specific examples of the fielding and trialling process with which you have experience. Most of what I’ve hear reference this topic is opinion base, usually on inaccurate facts. Source(s): 20 years of combat unit experience and numerous combat deployments starting beside Panama, Op Desert Storm, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Also worked the equipment acquisitions side of the house to field "appropriate" equipment to our warfare forces.
There is an e-petition on the 10 Downing Street site, please sign it if you feel strongly about this. The correlation is:-
MFSG, Military Families Support Group are trying to highlight it.
For them, lately like for you and me, it's a trade off. The money have to come from somewhere and that somewhere is you and me. We pay our taxes and we expect certain services. Personally, I would be relieved to see millions trimmed from some items of public expenditure and redirected to providing our brave troops with the equipment they entail but the problem is deciding which budgets to cut. What is acceptable to some family would not be acceptable to others.
My suggestion is the close all state final gross pension schemes, to seriously slash the number of civil servants, to shut useless quangos, to remove great swathes of bureaucratic regulations and their enforcers and to embezzle a long, hard look at the grant/subsidy/charity arrangements that do so little for the bulk of the population.
unfortunately we can't!!
the elected representatives are twats and always will be, :(
I think they want to give them the right equipment, it's simply that things are a little tight at this moment. Also it isn't just as simple s getting some paraphernalia and giving it to the boys. Think about helicopters, you don't just necessitate a helicopter you need pilots, support crew, etc. all requiring closely of training and time and money spent. As far as I am aware the British Army is the most highly equipped than at any point in history, prominently they could always do with better guns etc. but I wont believe that any establishment would willingly deny the boys what they need.