British Deaths In Afghanistan

Keltik THC said:
well; imo they signed up for the Army, they made the choice to fight for no reason at all aside from Anglo-American hegemony.

i wonder how many innocent Afghani's that had no choice in war have died?

oh, i guess im not supposed to talk about 'those' people.....
Click to expand...

Some may have died in the war, however you have to take into account how many the taliban would have killed, and weather the lives of the afgan people are better (or will be in the near future) from our actions..

also do they want us there..

I dont know the answer to any of these points..
 
It makes me sad seeing all those faces.

My opinion is this government doesn't deserve to have command over such an amazing group of people, then when they come home injured they try to take compensation back off them.
 
Nitefly said:
You would have to be mad to believe the war in Afghanistan is either flawlessly good or without redemption. War is terrible - we can only hope for the best outcome.
Click to expand...

The primary issue I have with the war in Afghanistan is a lack of defined mission. What exactly are we there to acheive and how are we going to do it?
 
Manlove is my forte said:
I find both your attitudes naive and frankly disgusting, The justification for the wars may be in question but the soldiers loyalty to this country can never be disputed. I for one am glad we have people in this country that have the loyalty, dedication, training and balls to fight and die for this country, even if the benefit of such a war is as tenuous as the support for the war.

I'm also glad that people like you are in the minority in this country.
Click to expand...

I didn't speak of their loyalty or dispute it? I said they have the choice to leave and haven't got a moral duty or obligation to their nation to stay.

I find your ignorance quite frankly annoying.
 
durruti said:
Care to point it out?
Click to expand...

You keep asserting that the soldiers are in a position to determine that the war is illegitimate. I personally do not think any civilian is in the position to make that assertion and it is very unlikely the soldiers on the ground have that ability either. Let me remind you the invasion of Afghanistan is UN Sanctioned, therefore legitimate in the international community.

Secondly To my understanding as a member of the Armed forces you can not simply wake up one morning and say "Sorry I quite." I think the post I quote below best explains this, and I'm sure many of the members on this forum that either currently serve or served in the past can elaborate further on the law regarding military personnel refusing to obey orders.

I_M_Weasel said:
You can't just quit the army, it takes at least a year assuming you've done your minimum period and you can still be sent anywhere in the 1st part of that last year.

Some deployments are very short notice, you could arrive back at work monday morning and fly tuesday, that doesn't give you much time to object your way out of doing the job you agreed to do.

Its never implied when you join that you can pick and choose the wars you want to fight, you just fight where your told. You trust that the British people will choose the right government that will send you to fight wars for the right reasons. Don't blame a soldier for fighting a right or wrong war - the people chose the government and the government chose to fight, the responsibility remains with the public.

Most of the UK public do support soldiers (they might not support the war) and their support is greatly appreciated.

If you feel the need to speak poorly of our soldiers try to remember that if we were been invaded it would be the same soldiers you speak ill of defending you in spite of what you may have said.
Click to expand...
 
I was reading an article the other day about the poppy fields in Afghanistan and the effects that they have on the world with regards to heroin.
If the war over there is to stop this vile drug getting on to the streets then I support it fully.

I wish to god that the soldiers that fought in this war didnt die I really do but unfortuntly when your job involves carrying a gun and wearing body armor then thats the risk that you have to take.

Being a soldier is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world and I just wish that they would be given better support and equipment to make their jobs safer.
 
vintage-x said:
I was reading an article the other day about the poppy fields in Afghanistan and the effects that they have on the world with regards to heroin.
If the war over there is to stop this vile drug getting on to the streets then I support it fully.

I wish to god that the soldiers that fought in this war didnt die I really do but unfortuntly when your job involves carrying a gun and wearing body armor then thats the risk that you have to take.

Being a soldier is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world and I just wish that they would be given better support and equipment to make their jobs safer.
Click to expand...
Thing is, though, most of the deaths are avoidable if they had better protection.

Look at the challenger 2, no deaths and no losses in combat action ever (okay someone's toes). Then look at Snatch, Jackal etc....... tens of deaths.
 
meghatronic said:
Thing is, though, most of the deaths are avoidable if they had better protection.

Look at the challenger 2, no deaths and no losses in combat action ever (okay someone's toes). Then look at Snatch, Jackal etc....... tens of deaths.
Click to expand...

Just reading about the challenger 2 and the fact that it has a hot water boiler for making tea ect :)
 
vintage-x said:
Just reading about the challenger 2 and the fact that it has a hot water boiler for making tea ect :)
Click to expand...
EVERY UK military vehicle has a BV as far as I'm aware. We're British! Must always have tea.

The most interesting thing about Challenger 2 is:

In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after the repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.
Click to expand...
 
You just couldn't use a CR2 in afghan, its too close you'd have to have dismounted infantry supporting a tank. You could use it as fire support or a show of force but its not as valuble once you're in the compounds and the ground closes around you

CR2 does have great protection but nothings unbeatable, its easy for insurgents to beat any vehicle you just use a bigger bomb and wait for the vehicle to get close enough, then detonate.

The army is probably better equipped than its ever been, we'd always like more of course.

CR2s have been destroyed there was a tragically fatal friendly fire (CR2 v CR2) in Iraq, so it can certainly be defeated.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by meghatronic
Thing is, though, most of the deaths are avoidable if they had better protection.

Look at the challenger 2, no deaths and no losses in combat action ever (okay someone's toes). Then look at Snatch, Jackal etc....... tens of deaths.


WRONG A challenger 2 was knocked out in Iraq (blue on blue) 1 or 2 crewman killed. Was hit by a shell from another challenger 2.
 
fadetoblack said:
WRONG A challenger 2 was knocked out in Iraq (blue on blue) 1 or 2 crewman killed. Was hit by a shell from another challenger 2.
Click to expand...
Not WRONG at all I said in combat action, i.e. at the hands of enemy. I should've been more explicit.

I_M_Weasel said:
You just couldn't use a CR2 in afghan, its too close you'd have to have dismounted infantry supporting a tank. You could use it as fire support or a show of force but its not as valuble once you're in the compounds and the ground closes around you

CR2 does have great protection but nothings unbeatable, its easy for insurgents to beat any vehicle you just use a bigger bomb and wait for the vehicle to get close enough, then detonate.

The army is probably better equipped than its ever been, we'd always like more of course.

CR2s have been destroyed there was a tragically fatal friendly fire (CR2 v CR2) in Iraq, so it can certainly be defeated.
Click to expand...
I meant the technology that went into CR2 (and protection) perhaps might also have applications in smaller more appropriate vehicles.
 
If the vehicle is smaller it will have less armour CR2 is so strong because the armour is very thick (and heavy) especially at the front the weakest points are top and bottom and roadside bombs (often in the road buried) like to come through the bottom.

The tech is shared between vehicle types but as always its a trade off between size, protection, manouverability and firepower.
 
meghatronic said:
Not WRONG at all I said in combat action, i.e. at the hands of enemy. I should've been more explicit.


I meant the technology that went into CR2 (and protection) perhaps might also have applications in smaller more appropriate vehicles.
Click to expand...

It was being used in combat at the time it was knocked out

blue-on-blue") incident on 25 March 2003 in Basra in which one Challenger 2 of the Black Watch Battlegroup (2nd Royal Tank Regiment) mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers after detecting what was believed to be an enemy flanking manoeuvre on thermal equipment. The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL Tank sending hot fragments into the turret that caused an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank and killing two crew members. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be completely destroyed on operations.
 
fadetoblack said:
It was being used in combat at the time it was knocked out

blue-on-blue") incident on 25 March 2003 in Basra in which one Challenger 2 of the Black Watch Battlegroup (2nd Royal Tank Regiment) mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers after detecting what was believed to be an enemy flanking manoeuvre on thermal equipment. The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL Tank sending hot fragments into the turret that caused an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank and killing two crew members. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be completely destroyed on operations.
Click to expand...
I know - I clarified "at enemy hands". Again, apologies for the confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom