Revealed: Number of British soldiers suffering 'life-changing' injuries in Afghanista

Yes that only works when they are sent out with the best equipment which isnt always the case.

Also yes soldiers are there to be 'killed' to put it bluntly, but that doesnt mean (IMO) the government can cut corners in funding at the cost of soldiers lives. This is to a certain degree of course, but Ive heard of cases where soldiers have to buy their own body armour and own night vision goggles for example. Not to mention the after care which in some cases seems totally unnacceptable.
 
It's funny how the government have £50,000 lying around to dish out to terrorists living here, but are unable to buy proper equipment for our soldiers to fight them :rolleyes:
 
mattheman said:
You have bankers being bailed out and paying themselves large bonuses, these guys went in thinking of there fellow brits, and you still say "they choose" well they sign up not because of the government etc but to protect us here in the UK from a threat but were manipulated by the british gov.
Click to expand...

As I say above, it's a **** situation they're now in.

As you say, they sign up to protect us, but they're aware of the risks in doing so, not only from the enemy...however we don't live in a country with conscription.

They choose to sign up, and as such they're essentially a pawn in whatever atm, Brown, and before that Blair wishes.
 
Last edited:
slambo69 said:
but Ive heard of cases where soldiers have to buy their own body armour and own night vision goggles for example. Not to mention the after care which in some cases seems totally unnacceptable.
Click to expand...


Sorry but links or a source. Do you know much night vision goggles would cost?
 
teaboy5 said:
Sorry but links or a source. Do you know much night vision goggles would cost?
Click to expand...

They also drive about in normal landrovers whereas the US have 2 ton armour plated humvees. There was a female intelligence soldier killed in a roadside bomb attack not so long ago.
 
mattheman said:
You have bankers being bailed out and paying themselves large bonuses, these guys went in thinking of there fellow brits, and you still say "they choose" well they sign up not because of the government etc but to protect us here in the UK from a threat but were manipulated by the british gov.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the bankers but you are somewhat naive if you think that squaddies signed up to protect us, think of their fellow Brits or have the slightest idea what real warfare is about.

For many, it's a last resort because they can't get a job in civvy St and an oportunity to "learn a trade, see the world and have a good time" ....... unfortunately, actually being in a real war and seeing your mates ripped open by IEDs and other weapons is an enormous shock to the system (ask those who have done it) and nothing like the 'games' that they are used to.
Armed forces have a great life when not in a war zone but chances are that they will have to go and earn their pay at some point.
 
good ones are around 2k, but i have yet to hear a story about them buying them or were he got this information.
 
Last edited:
mattheman said:
You have bankers being bailed out and paying themselves large bonuses, these guys went in thinking of there fellow brits, and you still say "they choose" well they sign up not because of the government etc but to protect us here in the UK from a threat but were manipulated by the british gov.
Click to expand...

They weren't manipulated by the British government; they simply did the job they're paid to do.
 
megatron said:
They also drive about in normal landrovers whereas the US have 2 ton armour plated humvees. There was a female intelligence soldier killed in a roadside bomb attack not so long ago.
Click to expand...

They are not all armoured humvees. And again, some normal land rovers are used, but british stuff is mostly armoured as well.

Scout companies will use non armoured jeeps as they can move around faster.

Are just posting crap for the craic? Do some research into what is being used and what is currently being shipped over to replace.
 
I don't have a massive issue with our equipment but the lack of after care for severly injured soldiers is shocking, you could loose your arms and legs and get £250,000 and a war pension. Or you could be a secretery, get RSI and £2000000.....that doesn't seam right.

Many people donate to help for hero's but that just gets the government off its responsibility to look after its soldiers that it sent to war.

The government doesn't want us hurt, it looks bad in the media, we're difficult to replace and train. It wants us to kill the enemy and survive uninjured physically and mentally but even with the best of equipment there will be deaths.
 
I've heard stories about people buying armour and stuff as well.

Had a friend who joined the royal marines and they had all been told about it, having too choose if you want armour for the front or back as you only get one peice in some situations. Not saying its like that for everyone but it does happen and its quite shocking!

Sounds great conditions to me.

Agree they do sign up and know what could happen but surely they should be a lot better protected than they are?
Same friend said the UK forces are basically known as the borrowers by the US as they have crappy equipment and have to borrow stuff to survive.
 
Poor guy but, that is war sadly. I really support what our troops are trying to do over there. Iraq was a calculated risk and not a legitimate war by any means but Afganistan is another matter. Those poor people just want normal lives but they are not going to get peace until the extremists are marginalized and eradicated. As to how our guys are treated when they return injured, I dont know. I would want them to get the best healthcare and whatever support they need but is that realistically going to happen?
 
teaboy5 said:
They are not all armoured humvees. And again, some normal land rovers are used, but british stuff is mostly armoured as well.
Click to expand...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7703703.stm
Ok, here is some research to back up what I was saying. Show me a source for where "British stuff is mostly armoured".:) What was your point anyhow? To say that I am ill-informed, but that in itself is just trolling.
 
Last edited:
slambo69 said:
Why do you think one soldier is acceptable? I
Click to expand...


in war that's pretty much true though.

Most sieges and invasion (even modern ones) have all pretty much been based on, Throw enough men at them and they can;t shoot them all.

Sad but true.

Until we develop some suit which can withstand all bombs and bullets it will be the case, and then only until someone makes something that can get through the suit.
 
ants83 said:
The war in Afgan is different to that of WW2 for a start we were defending our own country
Click to expand...


actually we declared war on them. the Nazi's wanted to be on our side ;)

They probably would have turned on us but meh technicalities are fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom