@@koolyman naw the British army historically has always been run down and left with old work out antiquated equipment during peace time then when war comes they struggle to catch up. What usually gets them through is the quality of the soldier.
Not always, alot of the time they try to keep the budget up and will go for more expensive bidders. Not the mention the fact that arms manufacturers can most of the time just name a price and they will pay it.
Much Respect to his son. And all the sons and daughters that lost their lives due to stupid politicians and generals that couldn't change in 7 years. Typical British army..
@ More of the civil servants job though no? It's not reasonable to expect politicians to foresee every problem and address it before it happens. Seeing that the military has the right tools for the job is the responsibility of the bureaucracy. Politicians job is to pay for it. And in this case the politicians saw the problem when it occurred and sought out a solution.
Should have put Blair, Mandelson, Brown, and Cameron in a snatch, leave them in the middle of Afghanistan and let them get on with it... Pretty sure improvements would have happened quicker.
I remember on 16th July 2006, I was riding in the lead snatch in our convoy. We were contacted by an IED. To this day I have no idea how there were no fatalities on the day. However our driver, Dave Forshaw took his own life when we came home. I think about him everyday.
It IS damned unusual for a professional politician, even one who specializes in Defense issues, to personally helm a major procurement program solely because he identified a need. Now, I am an American. I have no real grasp of the politics of the British Ministry of Defense. Therefore, I make no comment about the system or its ability to outfit the British soldier. Undoubtedly there are complaints about it and just as undoubtedly those complaints will have some overblown hyperbole and some stone cold truth to them. You can say that about every bureaucracy ever devised. But that Paul Drayson was willing to put his name and stake his reputation on program to address an immediate need in an immediate time frame speaks volumes about the man's ethical courage. He'll never see or hear about it, but Lord Drayson has the respect of an old American cavalry corporal half a world away. Hopefully he also has the thanks of men and women who made it home because of the Mastiff program.
Nice vehicle. We in the U.S. obviously went through the same pain with the Humvee. But there's only so much you can do when you need light and fast transportation. Even the predecessor to the Bradley, the M113 (a dedicated armored personnel carrier) was a disaster. Our guys in Vietnam all rode on top because if you hit a mine and you were inside, you were gone. Even with those lessons the military didn't address mine resistance in the Bradley until a couple of years ago. There's definitely a reality gap between those who have to use the equipment and those who determine equipment requirements.
It doesn't matter how good the gear is, the incompetence at the top will always over rule it, just like in Vietnam. In this case the Incompetent George W. Bush, his skanky bureaucratic cronies and last but not least the incompetent sons of bitches from West Point! Special place in Hell for all of them.
5 років тому+10
Any MRAP predecessor would have been better than that Land Rover death trap. The politicians basically f'd over their own soldiers playing politics.
@@politicalsheepdog Heard the MRAPS was a slight disaster too, an army mechanic told me that they bolted so much add on armor that the suspension can no longer take the weight and as soon as someone gets the bright idea to take them off road the suspension will fail. The real kicker being you have to unbolt several armor panels to replace broken suspension components.
@@wetlettuce4768 I never had any experience with the MRAP vehicles. I know that happened to the HUMVEEs. Lots of armor kit bolted on that made the vehicle too heavy for the suspension. We gave a bunch to the Iraqis who put even more armor on them.
gjssjg this is BS Drayson was as guilty as Blair. In June, when this was first raised in the Lords, the defence procurement minister, Lord Drayson, insisted that these unarmoured Land Rovers provided "the level of protection we need". Asked why the British Army was not, like most other coalition troops in Iraq, equipped with mine-protected RG 31s, he replied that the Army had used them in Bosnia and found them wanting. He was later forced to admit, grudgingly, that the vehicles used in Bosnia were not RG 31s
bazacobb - Interesting that you think that. The chap doing the voiceover is eloquently expanding on what the interviewees have said... Could you be more specific?
Sad to know so many lives were lost from them in Iraq. Shameful in fact. What annoys me though is we were still also using bloody CVRT’s in Afghan and Iraq also. They were just as poorly protected. So were the warthogs and FV432’s. But the CVRT took the biscuit for being the worst protected tracked vehicle in service in this time of IED threat. Shameful to know we sent them out there anyway because it’s all we had.
Those snatches were a load of shit i never felt save in them i would rather sit in a back off a warrior with all the hatches shut and broken aircon than be in a snatch
worst part was that there where loads of opstion on the market that where cheap. Swden got the RG32M a land rover sized MRAPs and your new home of Canada got a lot of RG31s all for cheap and fast. MOD is the biggest enemy of a solder in the UK armed forces
I think one of the reasons the MOD were slow about this is due to the 'make do and mend' attitude that the army has had to adopt, due to the years of sub standard equipment we've had to deal with.
He has a good point to be fair, of course no excuses can be made for such lackluster thinking, the army previously thought this was best due to the initial stigma of not having the top of the line gear and equipment, then you have the whole gaggle of politicians going against the war which basically just kills soldiers day by day with them not giving and authorizing the things they need. A real shithouse of a situation.
Des Nebula they paid the price, the my had to spend millions before we deployed re role the old 432 and armour it up as a minister banned land rovers from Basra city. Op telic 9
Des Nebula no.. he is saying that the infrastructure they had in place to source a replacement for things that had become obsolete wasn’t able to handle how fast things were becoming obsolete
@@timmurphy5541 One and the same now, both countries being taken over by spear chucking marxists with predictable results for the Dutchy Boer pioneers who made SA and Rhodesia places where Blacks excelled as well as they where able to - as well.
Tungst In June, when this was first raised in the Lords, the defence procurement minister, Lord Drayson, insisted that these unarmoured Land Rovers provided "the level of protection we need". Asked why the British Army was not, like most other coalition troops in Iraq, equipped with mine-protected RG 31s, he replied that the Army had used them in Bosnia and found them wanting. He was later forced to admit, grudgingly, that the vehicles used in Bosnia were not RG 31s
Tungst this video is revisionist history. Lord Paul Drayson was not the man that solved the problem he and his government were the problem. Forces TV should not publish this BS propaganda. He, Blair and the rest of his cabinet are responsible for the MOD. They new they had a problem but they didn’t want to spend the money.
Tungst it’s deliberately misleading. Drayson is on record in Hansard as stating the snatch was fit for purpose. This while they were being killed in it.
was total madness... the Australian army didnt even think about deploying in land rovers... we went in to that war with Mine protected bushmaster PMV.s.. At a time when several of my friends lives had been saved by that vehicle the UK government was still refusing to protect its personnel
Nathan O'Malley the SASR deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 with the LRPV ( 6x6) Land Rover and SGT Andrew Russel got killed when his vehicle drove over a Mine . But your Correct the Bush master has been a blessing for the ADF . The Next problem is dealing with all the Soldiers who have been in them While a IED blast has rattled they’re brains and given the a TBI for their trouble . A mate of mine was in no less then 13 IED incidents and at only 39 he’s on A handful of meds every few hours has fits constantly and it has ruined his family life . He’s seen the top brain surgeons on the planet and none of them have an answer.
@@shanekonarson he should have been tested, and declared unfit if necessary, after every incident. repeated concussions are harmful and deadly. the NFL and Rugby have found out the hard way.
Tungst the video is BS Drayson was part of the problem. In June, when this was first raised in the Lords, the defence procurement minister, Lord Drayson, insisted that these unarmoured Land Rovers provided "the level of protection we need". Asked why the British Army was not, like most other coalition troops in Iraq, equipped with mine-protected RG 31s, he replied that the Army had used them in Bosnia and found them wanting. He was later forced to admit, grudgingly, that the vehicles used in Bosnia were not RG 31s
A good few years ago now I had the opportunity to build a new vehicle for our British army called the Foxhound. Was at a company called Ricardo. It felt good being able to be part of creating something that was going to help our troops. I'll never forget my time at that company. There was a real sense of pride in what we were doing. I'm glad I got to do my bit to help
I don't understand why people 'forgot' about v shaped hulls when basically every SDKFZ the Nazis used in ths 1930s and 40s had an 'explosive resistant' V hull.
Its not that they forgot, but its that caused issues with top weight. Th components that could otherwise be beneath the vehicle floor now has to be moved up because the V shape limits available space. South African vehicles had top weight issues. Germany just had relatively large vehicles compared to the jeeps and light trucks in use today for patrols. Those German halftracks would struggle in narrow streets the light trucks are designed for.
I know about the Sdkfz 221 but that's a 3 man crew armored car. Light trucks and jeeps are meant to have more carrying capacity sufficient for a fireteam and stretcher roles. The Sdkfz narrow bottom wouldn't accommodate something like that.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 There are more than just the sdkfz 221 you absolute plonker, all vehicles used in the wehrmacht in WW2 were designated with the "sdkfz" name.
Unless you're British. V-shaped hull transport vehicules have been around since the 80's in most countries, but British waited 3 decades to understand that. However it does not surprise me. British have always had the worst land vehicules of all the modern armies. Just look at WW2, what a perfect example ! Horrendous tanks, useless transporters, outdated cannons, blatantly stupid troop helmets (only helmet in ww2 with no shrapnel protection, too wide and too short, it didn't fit on most heads, hence why most British didn't even wear them, and many more flaws, like the helmet obstructing the crosshair when you needed to shoot the rifle), also, the ugliest ww2 uniforms of all the armies, and least practical as the dumb designers forgot the importance of pockets on army uniforms, can you believe how dumb can one be to not include enough pockets and larger pockets for a solider... It's shoking how utterly obviously flawed the British equipment is and was, and how nobody seems to notice or care. British are very good at naval and areal warfare but surprisingly terrible on land warfare.
@@hounslowparks2469 Your statement is true as a general rule, war makes technology and techniques leap foward, but regarding post-WW Britain, it wasn't a leap foward if the Kit you came back with is a copy of what South Africa used in their 70s. That "leap" is a mere catch-up to to all the accumulated delay.
Jack Sadler didnt die in a Snatch, I was there, he died when he was thrown from a WMIK which is a different land rover platform. Terrible nonetheless but the role we were in required small agile reconnaissance vehicles and that's all the brits had at the time. RIP mate.
@@MrManning95 Hello mate, I'd been on leave 2 days when Darryl was killed. He was a cracking bloke and it hit the unit hard. Always a top bloke to talk to.
anth2154 He was my cousin, I grew up with him around. Hearing this randomly was very strange, I appreciate you saying the kind words about him, he really was all the above. I’ve got selection next week - I’ll be lucky to be half a good a soldier as Jack and Daz.
Lost many a friend in these vehicles. Too little too late, though I’m glad the MOD has somewhat learned to keep up with kit and equipment to protect our soldiers. During the early days of op telic our lads were being deployed with body armour with one plate to protect against shrapnel and rounds. Fast forward to now and we had osprey now virtus, And the L85 has been upgraded beyond recognition to better help our guys and girls when they come into contact.
My friends in the British Army were warning the Brass that the Snatch Land-rover were dangerous in 1990 and nobody seemed to interested in getting it sorted, one short wheel base Land-rover was 40 years old, had multiple electrical fires and had been wrapped around trees and Light Poles and deliberately crashed in the hope of getting rid of it and Still they sent it back to the Unit repaired, I'm sorry you lost friends in the Snatch Land-rover, I know that it's hard to deal with because I've had to deal with the grief of losing friends in similar circumstances and some that are even more senseless as you will have, I hope time will bring you some healing and let your family and friends help you bear the load...
The same problem we had on the US Military HMMWV(Humvee). Even the US Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Shinseki protested that some of the US Military Vehicles were poorly protected. He was ignored and thousands of US Soldiers and Marines died because of the arrogance on the Commander In Chief. Like they say funerals are cheaper than building a new equipment. Meaning Soldiers are expendable.
I am an American of Irish, Scot, and Welsh descent, and proud of it. This is why I try to keep up with news and information about everything UK, especially the Military. I was overjoyed to hear about the new Foxhound. (MY Eldest Grandson was in-country for 2 years in that Hellhole.) Broke my heart to hear about Jack Sadler and all the rest of your Mother's and Father's Sons! Much Love and Respect from America.
Many of us knew the snatch limitations years before Iraq. Very limited off road capability due to wieght..gearbox weekness due to wieght. But more importantly even the ira had the means to pierce snatch armour with improvised weapons. It was nothing more than a placebo to improve morale..it was a cheap implementation driven by mod purse holders with shares in land rover.
Exactly, they were great adventure, civilian vehicles, but not suitable for these conditions. So heartbreaking listening to the guys dad in this video :(
I find this just as unforgivable just as the Hummer. Neither the Hummer nor the Landy had any protection yet the South African Defense Force had mine proof vehicles since the late 70's and 80's and battle proven. It is unforgivable that stupidity and lack of focus caused all these deaths.
the Technology existed. this was a political(= Big Business) decision. when the MoD finally dropped the Land Rover the production of the Vehicle was stopped shortly after. coincidence ?! Soldiers were killed and injured unnecessarily to prolong the production, and the Profits that go with that, of an unfit-for-purpose Vehicle ! this is a national disgrace ! Heads should roll ! responsible persons must go to Prison !
When we say the Land Rover had been in service since the Second World War we mean in the years after it ended - not during. This should have been more clear. For more information on the Foxhound please visit our website: bit.ly/2TSOvdI
Forces TV revisionist history. This is BS propaganda. Shame on you for putting this out. You aren’t a soldier obviously. Our troops were not equipped property because of politicians like Blair and brown.
Manic Mute tell that to the wife of sergeant Steve Roberts who was killed by friendly fire after he was ordered to give up his body armor due to shortages. Or tell it to the parents of the Red Caps that we’re slaughtered because they didn’t have enough bullets to defend themselves because of shortages. Ask Reg Keys who stood against Blair in 2005 because his son died because of shortages caused by politicians like Blair and Brown who refused to fund our troops at war. The snatch land rover scandal is one story of many.
V-hulls were used even earlier than Rhodesia. The British Army themselves had pioneered them in Aden with mine protected trucks and land rovers. They had roll cages, v hulls, mine strike belly plates, additional armour, sacrificial wheels and wheel arches. The Army had also used the RG-31 in Bosnia to equip Engineer units who were doing route proving, they'd even replaced it with an even more capable MRAP called Tempest. The people who built Tempest took the lessons from that to build the US Cougar, which in turn was bought by the British Army in Wolfhound, Ridgback and Mastiff versions....
Soldiers worst enemies are civil servants. You sometimes think they are working for the other side. A form on expenditure of ammunition. A form for equipment blown up on active service. There really is a form for rations that states (a)"unfit for human consumption". (b) "unfit for issue to troops". So far form MOD F1182A is a myth "permission to be killed on active service". But wait for it.
The problem is the political game playing that goes on with procurement that distorts the process and shifts the skill set in the staff. The procurement side of MOD has been allowed to move further and further away from the military. Getting anything out of the system is a bureaucratic nightmare and huge political game. Instead of people on the staff with technical knowledge and judgement, you get military politicians, playing short term games and generally avoiding the issue. The only equipment programmes that get any mileage are high profile blue chip programmes that will gain kudos for whoever happen to be in charge at the time.. The normal day to day equipment procurement is so painfully slow as to be largely irrelevant once it gets into service.. Look at the cluster that is the procurement of the communications system.. thank god most folk had mobile phones to cover the gaps.. but this would never have worked had a major punchup broken out!
That seems to be an issue in many places, I thought it were especially bad here in Germany but as it seems, the more I read about internarional forces, the more I come to the conclusion that without an enemy it's really hard to maintain an army (army in the general not specific sense)
No this is heavily inaccurate. I was 2LI/3 rifles and on tour as ROBG at SLB over 06/07, i was seriously injured by a 45kg EFP on the 25th of February 07 resulting in me having my eyes removed. I don’t care about my injuries as it’s a possibility that comes with the job, what I don’t accept is that mastiffs were in theatre in 06 and were not allowed to use them, I have photos from November 06 from camp 4 SLB of 6 to 8 mastiffs sat ready for us on patrols company to use. I went on r and r in November and did cat c for my first week of r and r so we could use them on our return, when we did return we were told we were not going to use them as they were returning to the uk to get differant turrets! There was nothing wrong with the GPMG mount ones they had. The vehicles were there but we were denied their desperate needed use by some stroaker back at land command and as a result blokes died and many of us were left with life changing injuries. Also the minister said there was no medium vehicle known.....yes there was! The yanks had used mastiff from very early on, i know this as i was based at BIAP in Baghdad for a while and saw them every day and yanks I spoke to swore by them as life savers and theirs were out the box configurations. Also as far as I know these are South African made vehicles and had been around for a good period
The Alvis Saracen was a good vehicle once the final marks came out only the wheel units would be blown off by an explosion. Though any sizeable amount of explosives will destroy any heavily armoured vehicle.
I served with the British Army in Aden and the Oman in 1966 and obviously nothing had changed regarding soldier safety since then. We patrolled in Mk 9 Rovers and the only safety feature we had was wire mesh sides and tops to defeat grenades thrown into the vehicle. In Oman we had mine plated Mk 9's with a 1/4 inch of plating and a belly plate with a roll bar over the top behind the drivers seat, When other armies had body armour we had starched smart looking bush shirts. We didn't even have helmets on when patrolling. We knew that we were cheaper to replace than expensive equipment.
@ Jorge Shaft I agree, the army bureaucrazy has a way of making changes painfully slow. But as it has been shown here, politicians actually _can_ change things, provided they actually give a shit and are not afraid to lose some of their own benefits on the way. And the fact how rarely that actually happens is telling enough.
I remember using SNACH during my time in NI, you felt safe but they were never really tested against anything more than petrol bombs and stones in NI, fast forward to 2003 onwards and they were found out to be wanting against ied’s. They were great in Belfast but shit in Basra..
I was in charge of 6 snatch land rovers in Bosnia and they were hit a number of times by small arms, on one occasion one had it's wheel blown up by what we think was a anti personnel mine and another had it's whole engine bay blown off by an anti tank mine, in all instances the occupants only had bruises. If someone is making a IED to take out an armoured car and they have the kit to make it then you know it's going to be made of something bigger than a few ounces or kilos of HE so any new vehicle you put into services will eventually get blown up and your going to have to start designing all over again.......How far do you go.
As others have said, the problem runs deeper than slow defence procurement. If our/my DMO (Defence Material Organisation - Australia) was clever enough to realise, in 1991, that mine protected vehicles were worth spending precious pennies on and the MOD didn't, then I pity the poor Brits who serve in your army. Our DMO is full blown down syndrome at the best of times, so the MOD must really be something else.
2:30 "Less intimidating" is another way to say, "More likely to be attacked." A a war, less intimidating is very bad thing. If your enemy will only attack you if he thinks he has a chance of hurting you. If you seem invulnerable, your enemy won't attack, not even if such an attack means sacrificing his own life. You don't even need to actually be invulnerable (though it helps) so long as your enemy thinks he can't hurt you, you will not be attacked. There is no place for hippy nonsense like being nice on the battlefield. Only when your enemy is dead or utterly defeated can you start being nice. Once your enemy is defeated, then you start working on avoiding another war.
Eric Taylor if you knew anything about the Iraq war, you would know a great deal of the Army’s job was community outreach and building trust with the locals. This requires less intimidating vehicles. Was the same story in Afghanistan and Syria...
@@Zebedee777 How does this contradict my comment. "The enemy" in Iraq was *NOT* the civilian populous. Destruction of the civilian populace was not the goal of the Army in Iraq. Their goal was the destruction of the Iraqi military. The United States has a long history of taking care not to harm the civilians, even if such action places military personnel at greater risk. Many many people have died because the military was unable to strike a target when that target was to near something (like a hospital or school) that might cause civilian casualties. One absolutely infuriating things done in Vietnam was people accepting the propaganda of "indiscriminate bombing" by American pilots. In fact, surface to air missiles (like the SA-2 used in Vietnam) are usually equipped youth a self destruct that will blow up the missile if it doesn't hit anything. This is done because you don't want the missile coming back down and hitting the city. The North Vietnamese removed these devises because when the missiles came back down they might crash into the city. The missiles carried large warheads, over 200 lbs, so if the hit a building it could do substantial damage. They especially liked it when one of the missiles hit a school or a hospital.
@@erictaylor5462 You mention "A long history of taking care not to harm civilians" this shows you are either delusional or very misinformed. You bring up Vietnam. Lets talk about the My Lai Massacre or the widespread use of firebombing which is never precise and always indiscriminate, or even the bombing of civilian cities and towns. More recently in Afghanistan most sources agree the US and its allies killed more of the 10,000 dead Afghan citizens than the Taliban did. Not to mention Wikileaks footage of US pilots knowingly attacking civilians (including children) and ambulances. Going all the way back to WW2 the US participated in the firebombing of Dresden and nuked two civilian cities. Not so sure about this "history of not harming civilians". In these conflicts, and pretty much all modern wars, killing civilians is detrimental to your success in a region. It only builds support for the insurgency or leaders who you are trying to destroy. The best way to stop an organisation like the Taliban, ISIS or Iraqi government from recruiting more civilians and the best way to break down guerrilla networks is by being seen as a positive, peacekeeping force who builds a relationship, polices and helps the local communities. It's not 'hippy nonsense', its strategy.
@@erictaylor5462 lol , that is not how the Russian SAM in Vietnam worked , they reached a certain height then explode and create a net like structures of fragments that would trap and take down planes , the Pilot can dodge it by flying low at the risk of anti aircraft guns , or does a steep dive as the missile climb up before it explode . NVA 's SAM are not like heat seeking missiles or other more advanced artificial intelligent seek and destroy missiles, even if the Russians had it at the times , they were still sending the NVA their pretty out dated missiles , but were still effective due to the mass quantity, so were US bombs during Vietnam war , they didnt have " brains " or " eyes " back then , just drop and land.
my dad served in Aden in the 1960's they were using Land Rovers at the time and he said they were totally inadequate for the job even then providing little or no protection for the troops, he was surprised and quite shocked to see them in service in Iraq and Afghanistan forty years later, he always said they were fine for Northern Ireland against small arms fire and petrol bombs but not much else. He said that the quality of the British Army top brass was still as incompetent now as it was back in his day. Wolves led by sheep.
The armoured Landy was shocking, it was top heavy and would topple over if you went round a corner faster than slow. As I found to my cost! Outdated 20yrs ago!
When I was in Iraq, in 2003, we noticed that when our hummers, got hit, some if not all of the crew burned with the vehicle due to a plastic fuel tank. Even with belly armor on later models, the fuel tanks remained plastic!
Very, very difficult to watch Mr Sadler. My heart goes out to him. I live in Belfast. I grew up through The Troubles. I remember the Snatches on virtually every road. A LOT of people here can never be grateful enough for the soldiers' service and sacrifice. It is disgusting that May's government are hanging out to dry the former soldier involved in Bloody Sunday. Utter disgrace.
South Africa was using a v shaped hull on their armoured vehicles decades ago. The problem with the MOD is,they equate cost verses risk and when the risk is too high,they still drag their feet in order to save money.
The army does not have the ability to increase their budget they were underfunded in the beginning. those men died due to government policy. this politician is passing the blame
Rogal Dorn kinda sounds like it. If the military had gone to the politicians and said, hey this is what we need, does anyone really think the politicians would have approved it in a timely manner? Hell no, they would insist on lengthy trials, contract bidding to see who could make it for the least amount of money.... typical bureaucracy would have taken place. It's never up to the military as to what they get- it's the bean counters who tell them this is what you get, make do with it and don't ask for anything else. Heard this was what happened with the SA-80 and Merlin. Not what the military wanted but were told this is what you're getting, make it work.
I spent time working with the Brits in Al Muthanna province as part of the Australian TG. While we operated out of ASLAV, Bushmaster and Unimogs with armoured cabs the Brits where operating the Snatch . Watching this made me feel sick thinking back to the number of British deaths reported from the region at a time when we had none.
G'day Simon, I'm ex-Air Force and a military historian now. Thank you for your interesting but ever so sad video. The story of the 'mobile coffins' actually is the historical reverse of what usually happens as new wars develop. Usually it is the technology of war that is way out in front of tactics and strategy. This is clearly seen in the development of new, huge, rapid firing artillery which did the greatest damage of all during WW1 along with the advanced machine guns. There, the 'approved' tactic was for soldiers to walk slowly into the teeth of murderous machine gun nests with overlapping ranges of fire. In WW2 the technological development in aircraft, tanks, armoured cars etc. greatly outstripped high commanders' knowledge of how best to deploy tanks, for example. Of all countries, the UK and the MOD should have learned hard and fast lessons from WW2; that to win you need the latest most innovative technology and weapons systems on your side. That is why I'm so gobsmacked and angry that someone at the MOD and/or Army refused to react instantly to the IED threat. This brought about the needless deaths of way too many UK soldiers, simply because they were using old technology that could not, or would not, be improved to meet new threats. The new vehicles were fantastic but, as you say, 'Too little, too late'. If this is your first or second video I strongly suggest you keep making them because you are very good at it. You told a fair, well balanced story and you let your interviewees tell the nuts and bolts of your story themselves. I wish you every luck in your career as a video maker. I've subscribed, via Forces TV. I looked for a channel called 'INTEL' but all I got were computer channels. Cheers, BH
These people knew the LR platform was inadequate. They knew. When you right an enemy that operates asymmetrically they will use different strategies than an enemy operating a symmetrically. You will get more IED's, more Mines, more "assassination" type hits. They will strike, kill, then drop their weapons and blend into the crowd of civilians. You don't get that with a symmetrical force. So, they knew. They knew and still did nothing for years.
British Army bought variants of South African mine protected vehicles made in UK by Alvis for use in the Balkans - and once we finished there sold them off ! There is even more thins boggling incompetence to this story than described here. Also now We have the super modular Foxhound, are we going to use variants of it for MRV-P Phase 1? Nope, we will buy another new vehicle.....
Becuase there is such thing as national security and contracts for sensitive areas are only allowed withing certain allies groups or national company's. It's like the US or Russia. We all sort our own gaffe alot of the time. All so we don't need to rely on one another if a big fight came out
I spent some time with technical guys who are part of the MOD. They needed Wheel based tanks and they recommended that the South African Vehicles were technically very good. Nothing happened as you have politics and big business involved.
IED's? ie Land mines? V-shaped hull technology in Africa first saw the light of day in the Rhodesian Bush War 1965 -1979. The Rhodesian armed forces and civilian industries developed a whole series of home grown vehicles, (Funnies) designed to protect crews primarily from small arms fire, RPG's & Kalashnikovs etc and the infamous Soviet derived Land Mines, using V-Shaped hulls. High ground clearances, over sized wheels & tyres, mounted on outriggers. The crews inside, seated in bucket seats, with full body harnesses. Standardising components for quick repairs, to keep these vehicles operational and doing their job. The old SADF was fighting it's own border war in Northern South West Africa / Southern Angola and was quick to adopt this technology, developing their own unique range of troop carriers and transporters not only for the SADF but also the various South African Police, anti-terrorist elite special forces. These vehicles, Buffels, Casspirs, Mambas etc were used in their thousands from the early 1970's up to the end of the conflict in 1989. Africa's southern desert terrain doesn't lend itself to tracked vehicles, but rather vehicles with balloon tyres, to give speed and maneuvrability but more importantly protection for the crews. These vehicles weren't perfect. They were bloody hot, noisy and uncomfortable. But, better sweaty, rather than dead. And many came short, during those long war years. South Africas own home grown arms manufacturer Armscor (Armaments Corporation of South Africa) together with the private sector developed and continues to develope a bewildering range of anti-mine Armoured Personal Carriers. Many variants are battle tested and exported all over the World, to this day. I think sadly, the British were complacent that their own vehicles, (Snatch Land Rovers etc) despite the technology and sophistication would do the job, of protecting troops from IEDs. Hindsight is still a wonderful thing. Bureaucrats and bean counters don't win wars, but cost countless precious lives.
Hearing Jack's father speak is heart breaking. I cannot believe the Brits used these paper skinned vehicles for so long. Thank you to all the brothers and sisters from across the pond.
“We like the land rovers because they’re less intimidating to locals.” How sad is that? Your soldiers lives are more important than the sense of security of the people who want to kill them.
Not every Afghan or Iraqui citizen is an enemy, and you want to have those on your side. How else do you build up a country that can govern itself? I don't want to defend their argument, but your line of reasoning is not any better
@@89DerChristian That is exactly what the Americans meant by their "Hearts and minds" doctrine. It was a bit simplified, because it needed to be communicated and understood across all parts of the troop, but it did touch on a very important principle: As the bigger force in an asymmetric war you will never win with bullets. There are only two ways to win: Genocide or converison to your cause. Or put differently: You need to either kill them all or make them like you.
filo4590 I feel in a 45 year lifespan piece of equipment 3 years is )*&( all . Perhaps they would have been better served by stating since its SERVICE IN the Korean war .Then nit picky bastards like you and DC wouldn't be able to post about how they didn't enter service until '48. Perhaps you should concentrate on the meaning (ie [in this case]Land rovers had been in service a very long time) behind commentaries rather than getting tied up in the literal meaning of the words used,( "Since the second world war" not in the Second world war).,
The UK military didnt purchase Land Rovers until a trial batch was purchased in 1949 to be evaluated against the Austin Champ. Production didnt start until the 50,s
The landrovers at the start of the film were apv far more heavily armoured to stop rpgs they were used in west belfast and the bogside far superior to the snatch these vehicles were donated to the iraqi police ?
2:32 Kind of says a lot about the MOD's interest level in the safety of its military "It gets you from A to B and no ones scared of you when you're in it, in enemy-held territory"
The fault was not with the Land Rover. The fault was with the British bureaucracy staffed by members of the super rich and nobility. This is also a problem with the US and Canadian Forces but less so because the bureaucracy is more likely to be staffed by people selected for their education, experience and technical qualifications, not because they came off a good family.
Across the pond they did the same thing to us with the humvees. They were initially under armored, and even after they armored them up the wide flat bottom meant even relativley small IEDs flipped them. They also tended to eject the turret gunner. Of course the solution was very american, they dumped a ludicrous amount of money into building even more ludicrously huge MRAPs. Don't get me wrong, I survived 3 IED blasts in MRAPs, but those sow bellied pigs are so big and slow that we just traded fighting capability for IED survival. They couldnt move for shit, the only thing they did well was not kill you when they exploded. The turret sat so high off the ground that as a gunner moving from humvees to MRAPs I felt like we just traded being ejected for becoming a bullet magnet.
@@Mmjk_12 Deoends on the mine. Some are designed to M (mobility) kill the tank, I.e. blow off tracks so that it cant move and become an obsticle. Others are designed to K kill (kill or destroy) the tank or crew.
That goes both ways.. when the USMC entered Sangin they didn’t want to use our Vallon mine detectors in case it slowed their advance, and they didn’t have ECM. It wasn’t a wise choice.
I was an American soldier during Iraq. I did 3 tours over there and I was a Bradley mechanic and recovery operator. I personally call the Hummers Coffins on Wheels as well. My thumbnail pic is of me moving destroyed Hummv's that were damaged and destroyed by IED's with a M88a1. I moved 8 trucks that were destroyed by IED's that day. And what I saw in Kuwait of the bone yards there filled with destroyed vehicles from IED's and RPG's. The Hummv yard was just huge and nearly every one was a visual story of how soldiers died or were severely injured. I have seen the up armored versions shredded by nuts and bolts that were strapped to 155 shells like a giant claymore mine. When the MRAP's finally started to come out they helped allot. But also the fighting had slowed down by then as well. I will always carry the sights and destruction I witness as I had to go out and recover all those destroyed tanks and trucks. Our vehicles simply weren't designed to have something bigger than a land mine go off under them. And definitely not a anti tank mine. I know full well what other friendly forces went through in Iraq and I can only say I wish none of us had ever been there. It all ended with nothing gained and just lives thrown away.
Should not have happened, as the UK had no right and gained no benefit from, its presence in Iraq/Afghanistan! You would think that Britain above all countries, would have stayed a way from Afghanistan?
conflicting requirements. if you need light and fast, that means less armor protection and more vulnerability to IEDs it just goes with the territory. the only answer is knowing your situation and not getting blown up in the first place. otherwise you have lost the advantage of mobility. the bad guys know this perfectly well!
What all those soldiers in afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and Yemen making the world a safer place, RAF bombing Libya, causing migrants to flood into Europe, opium production is up due to the watchful eye of our armed forces.... Making the world a safer place. No I'm not some lefty I look at the whole picture.
@@jules151968 They're not protecting us then, are they? Nothing against the military, but they're not helping me killing random Afghanis on the other side of the world.
In 2006, before we deployed to Basra palace we had to re role to armoured infantry as the snatch was banned from the city. The retrofitted the 432 it was ok, they had to modify mid tour with commander protection because a few our guys decapitated by IEDs
V shaped hulls aren't a new thing, the US M48-M60 series of MBT had a V shaped hull for better mine resistance and they date back to the 50's, the South African army also had a 'light' vehicle called the Buffalo that incorporated a V shape chassis back in the 80's. I do understand that forces are always forced to react to situations on the ground, for instance it would have been thought rather strange if Land Rovers had always had a V shaped hull, one cannot be pre-emptive but it should be possible to quickly cobble together an answer to the newly discovered threat, after all, there is no new technology involved in the Foxhound, it was all existant.
Those snatches were a load of shit i never felt save in them i would rather sit in a back off a warrior with all the hatches shut and broken aircon than be in a snatch
the funny thing is..... half of the pictures of burning and destroyed land rover's wern't actually shot by the enemy........ they just broke down on their own.....
It reminds of the gun debate they're having in the US. Except from with guns you have points for and against the ban;with this you only have points against them.
We in the US had a similar crisis with unarmored HMMVVs. Protection was improvised, and there was a wholesale employment of MRAP vehicles. The US military's newest JLTV is engineered around the mine/IED threat
@@CancerGaming56 Yep. The danger from mines/IEDs has been evident for decades, but their use has been fairly minor in the past, and more easily ignored.
What I mean is that in the UK, there was the debate of should we keep the Land Rover because people are dying and in the US its Should we keep our gun laws because people are dying.
in WWII, British / US tanks used tree logs fastened to the sides & backs of their vehicles to help absorb German RPG's & shells. A crude, but useful type of 'reactive armor'. The Australians also had its own 'Bushmaster' armored vehicle for Afghanistan / Iraq
It’s a shame that the Army doesn’t employ a ‘continuous improvement’ cycle. More a reactive approach. The opening title captured it well; Landrover been in service since the 1950’s or words to that affect. We need to continually review and adapt our equipment to meet future threats. Let’s not to do these reviews as a lessons learned.
the Army does have such a process. it is called the Blue Team Red Team Exercise. this was a political/financial/profit decision. at the unnecessary cost of Soldier's Injuries and Lifes !
Matthias Doppenschmied Red teaming is a nice concept and more of a ‘buzz word’. I have seen very little Red Teaming unless this is something that the Procurement team pretend to do. If the Army was a business, it would fail.
I'm american we did not have mine resistant Hummvers in 2003 deployment. It took some time to get armor made for our wheeled vehicles and longer before the Mrap was designed.
I see due to political correctness history has started to be rewritten. This what happens when you have a terrorist supporter leading the Labour Party.
@@stanrobinson3838 "Insurgents" are guerrilla outfits who may/may not have a just cause, terrorists are urban revolutionaries that don't. That's the difference - clown.
@@Horizon344 "Insurgent: noun. A person fighting against a government or invading force; a rebel or revolutionary." "Terrorist: noun. A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Dude sort out your semantics, an insurgent fighting against a government or other ruling force is by definition using unlawful violence to acheive the political aim of victory or self-governance from that entity. The terms are essentially synonymous.
a common issue between european country, was the same for us italian army, with the good old VM90, and we also find a solution called VTML "Lince" actually works really well and provide to keep safe from death our soldier in at least 3 situation during last year
The British stopped keeping the British army updated with modern equipment in the late 80s/early 90s. Iraq was a real eye opener tgat showed them up.
How about Canada, we showed up in the desert in GREEN!!
@@JohnHill-qo3hb everybody did that from the British army to the US marines.
*cough* Socialist commies and labour *cough*
Perhaps the British were merely maintaining the Army on the basis nuclear weapons would deter any meaningful conflict
@@koolyman naw the British army historically has always been run down and left with old work out antiquated equipment during peace time then when war comes they struggle to catch up. What usually gets them through is the quality of the soldier.
"Remember. Your kit is always made by the lowest bidder."
Not always, alot of the time they try to keep the budget up and will go for more expensive bidders.
Not the mention the fact that arms manufacturers can most of the time just name a price and they will pay it.
40 years old, cant even rejoin
@@lonestar2779 they were screaming for ex-bods to join up not so long g ago for people in their 50's.
Unless you are in a cool guy unit
Thanks to Maggie Thatcher.
Heartbreaking listening to that lads dad 😢
Much Respect to his son. And all the sons and daughters that lost their lives due to stupid politicians and generals that couldn't change in 7 years. Typical British army..
Don't think I've ever heard a more descriptive explanation for grief in my life
@Pasdar It's called double standards and it's the foundation of all western culture.
The loss on both sides is horrific of course I care we are all human I blame the politicians not the soldiers
@ More of the civil servants job though no? It's not reasonable to expect politicians to foresee every problem and address it before it happens. Seeing that the military has the right tools for the job is the responsibility of the bureaucracy. Politicians job is to pay for it. And in this case the politicians saw the problem when it occurred and sought out a solution.
Should have put Blair, Mandelson, Brown, and Cameron in a snatch, leave them in the middle of Afghanistan and let them get on with it... Pretty sure improvements would have happened quicker.
Would not have half and more of the wars we have if our leaders had to be at the front
The Taliban would have given Blair, Mandelson, Brown and Cameron a free pass out of professional courtesy. They're all terrorists!
Blunket driving!?
Put some of the defence staff in land rovers and let them do a few patrols.
Can we do that anyway?
I remember on 16th July 2006, I was riding in the lead snatch in our convoy. We were contacted by an IED.
To this day I have no idea how there were no fatalities on the day. However our driver, Dave Forshaw took his own life when we came home.
I think about him everyday.
RIP Jack Sadler
Thankyou for your service and sacrifice
what service and what sacrifice?? irak war is a fake war, RIP the iraqi soldiers and all the people who fought the invasion back
Very sad, Rip JACK SADLER 💙💙🙏🙏
😭😭😭😭
😢😢😢😢
💕💕💕💕
ALICE FROM MANCHESTER UK 🇬🇧
Oliver Eales He will be more of a man dead, than you’ll ever be.
Yeah the UK would of been invaded if it wasn't for that war
Britain uk ... it is being invaded to this day, I wonder how many Isis sleeper cells are here
It IS damned unusual for a professional politician, even one who specializes in Defense issues, to personally helm a major procurement program solely because he identified a need.
Now, I am an American. I have no real grasp of the politics of the British Ministry of Defense. Therefore, I make no comment about the system or its ability to outfit the British soldier. Undoubtedly there are complaints about it and just as undoubtedly those complaints will have some overblown hyperbole and some stone cold truth to them. You can say that about every bureaucracy ever devised.
But that Paul Drayson was willing to put his name and stake his reputation on program to address an immediate need in an immediate time frame speaks volumes about the man's ethical courage.
He'll never see or hear about it, but Lord Drayson has the respect of an old American cavalry corporal half a world away. Hopefully he also has the thanks of men and women who made it home because of the Mastiff program.
That's the kind of comment why even after all these years I still read what people have to say. Thank you.
Excellent comment.
Nice vehicle. We in the U.S. obviously went through the same pain with the Humvee. But there's only so much you can do when you need light and fast transportation. Even the predecessor to the Bradley, the M113 (a dedicated armored personnel carrier) was a disaster. Our guys in Vietnam all rode on top because if you hit a mine and you were inside, you were gone. Even with those lessons the military didn't address mine resistance in the Bradley until a couple of years ago. There's definitely a reality gap between those who have to use the equipment and those who determine equipment requirements.
It doesn't matter how good the gear is, the incompetence at the top will always over rule it, just like in Vietnam. In this case the Incompetent George W. Bush, his skanky bureaucratic cronies and last but not least the incompetent sons of bitches from West Point! Special place in Hell for all of them.
Any MRAP predecessor would have been better than that Land Rover death trap. The politicians basically f'd over their own soldiers playing politics.
Do you recall that the U.S. government scrounged all the M113s they could find as a stop gap until the MRAPS were put in service?
@@politicalsheepdog Heard the MRAPS was a slight disaster too, an army mechanic told me that they bolted so much add on armor that the suspension can no longer take the weight and as soon as someone gets the bright idea to take them off road the suspension will fail. The real kicker being you have to unbolt several armor panels to replace broken suspension components.
@@wetlettuce4768 I never had any experience with the MRAP vehicles. I know that happened to the HUMVEEs. Lots of armor kit bolted on that made the vehicle too heavy for the suspension. We gave a bunch to the Iraqis who put even more armor on them.
You know I really didn't expect this type of quality journalism from a Forces channel....keep it up.👍
gjssjg this is BS Drayson was as guilty as Blair.
In June, when this was first raised in the Lords, the defence procurement minister, Lord Drayson, insisted that these unarmoured Land Rovers provided "the level of protection we need".
Asked why the British Army was not, like most other coalition troops in Iraq, equipped with mine-protected RG 31s, he replied that the Army had used them in Bosnia and found them wanting. He was later forced to admit, grudgingly, that the vehicles used in Bosnia were not RG 31s
quality? it's really bad, whoever done this don't know what he was talking about
This isn't really good journalism thats war propaganda
Yes I am quite impressed, I wish Canada could produce such levels, but our stuff is pure amateur hour
bazacobb - Interesting that you think that. The chap doing the voiceover is eloquently expanding on what the interviewees have said... Could you be more specific?
Sad to know so many lives were lost from them in Iraq. Shameful in fact. What annoys me though is we were still also using bloody CVRT’s in Afghan and Iraq also. They were just as poorly protected. So were the warthogs and FV432’s.
But the CVRT took the biscuit for being the worst protected tracked vehicle in service in this time of IED threat. Shameful to know we sent them out there anyway because it’s all we had.
Those snatches were a load of shit i never felt save in them i would rather sit in a back off a warrior with all the hatches shut and broken aircon than be in a snatch
Warthogs can survive ied and mine attack
worst part was that there where loads of opstion on the market that where cheap. Swden got the RG32M a land rover sized MRAPs and your new home of Canada got a lot of RG31s all for cheap and fast. MOD is the biggest enemy of a solder in the UK armed forces
Guy in purple pajamas can they now..... care to explain your logic/experience with them
Matsimus they are able to survive ied/ mine attacks
I think one of the reasons the MOD were slow about this is due to the 'make do and mend' attitude that the army has had to adopt, due to the years of sub standard equipment we've had to deal with.
Exactly
Sounds like you are making excuses for them
He has a good point to be fair, of course no excuses can be made for such lackluster thinking, the army previously thought this was best due to the initial stigma of not having the top of the line gear and equipment, then you have the whole gaggle of politicians going against the war which basically just kills soldiers day by day with them not giving and authorizing the things they need. A real shithouse of a situation.
@@desnebula5699 sounds like hes just being blunt on how it was and still somewhat is.
You have it right Plank, it has always been make do and mend as well ask make it work!
5:15 what he really means to say is we couldnt afford to ship a load of mine protected vehicles because it was expensive.
Des Nebula they paid the price, the my had to spend millions before we deployed re role the old 432 and armour it up as a minister banned land rovers from Basra city. Op telic 9
As he sits there wearing a Rolex Daytona...
Des Nebula no.. he is saying that the infrastructure they had in place to source a replacement for things that had become obsolete wasn’t able to handle how fast things were becoming obsolete
No he isn't.
@@euanmorse His watch is irrelevant.
No acknowledgement to the South African military designs which were dealing with IED’S and soviet mines in the bush war as far back as the 70’s.
Go to (I forgot the name but remember the letters) skipe? 765 another comment thread go to most populair and just read
That's ok because the South Africans never reference the Rhodesians who taught them. :-)
@@timmurphy5541 One and the same now, both countries being taken over by spear chucking marxists with predictable results for the Dutchy Boer pioneers who made SA and Rhodesia places where Blacks excelled as well as they where able to - as well.
Are you talking about Rhodesia?
@@Veldtian1 The same reason why we must avoid that same fate, and remove them from Europe as soon as possible. We do or we die.
Better journalism than most news channels.
Tungst In June, when this was first raised in the Lords, the defence procurement minister, Lord Drayson, insisted that these unarmoured Land Rovers provided "the level of protection we need".
Asked why the British Army was not, like most other coalition troops in Iraq, equipped with mine-protected RG 31s, he replied that the Army had used them in Bosnia and found them wanting. He was later forced to admit, grudgingly, that the vehicles used in Bosnia were not RG 31s
@@davidrobertsemail What point are you trying to make?
Tungst this video is revisionist history.
Lord Paul Drayson was not the man that solved the problem he and his government were the problem.
Forces TV should not publish this BS propaganda.
He, Blair and the rest of his cabinet are responsible for the MOD. They new they had a problem but they didn’t want to spend the money.
@@davidrobertsemail Still better journalism than most news channels.
Tungst it’s deliberately misleading. Drayson is on record in Hansard as stating the snatch was fit for purpose.
This while they were being killed in it.
Unfortunetly 120 deaths v the cost of new equipment is a price the MOD were willing to pay.
asambi69 it’s crazy
Especially when alternatives were ready and available ASAP. But it had to be built and designed in UK.
Point is, that potentially few houndred thousands of lives is price apparently NATION is willing to pay for achieving political objectives.
Sad but true.
was total madness... the Australian army didnt even think about deploying in land rovers... we went in to that war with Mine protected bushmaster PMV.s.. At a time when several of my friends lives had been saved by that vehicle the UK government was still refusing to protect its personnel
Nathan O'Malley the SASR deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 with the LRPV ( 6x6) Land Rover and SGT Andrew Russel got killed when his vehicle drove over a Mine . But your Correct the Bush master has been a blessing for the ADF . The Next problem is dealing with all the Soldiers who have been in them
While a IED blast has rattled they’re brains and given the a TBI for their trouble . A mate of mine was in no less then 13 IED incidents and at only 39 he’s on A handful of meds every few hours has fits constantly and it has ruined his family life . He’s seen the top brain surgeons on the planet and none of them have an answer.
@@shanekonarson he should have been tested, and declared unfit if necessary, after every incident.
repeated concussions are harmful and deadly.
the NFL and Rugby have found out the hard way.
The way to move this forward quicker is to sit an MPs kid in the front of the Snatch till the new vehicles are on line...
Is was the brass who let their men down. It was a politician who stepped in and straightened things out.
Did you actually watch the video?
@@065Tim Was going to say the same thing
@@065Tim Right answer !
Tungst the video is BS
Drayson was part of the problem.
In June, when this was first raised in the Lords, the defence procurement minister, Lord Drayson, insisted that these unarmoured Land Rovers provided "the level of protection we need".
Asked why the British Army was not, like most other coalition troops in Iraq, equipped with mine-protected RG 31s, he replied that the Army had used them in Bosnia and found them wanting. He was later forced to admit, grudgingly, that the vehicles used in Bosnia were not RG 31s
@@065Tim that politician does sit chatting about procurement though
A good few years ago now I had the opportunity to build a new vehicle for our British army called the Foxhound. Was at a company called Ricardo. It felt good being able to be part of creating something that was going to help our troops. I'll never forget my time at that company. There was a real sense of pride in what we were doing. I'm glad I got to do my bit to help
I don't understand why people 'forgot' about v shaped hulls when basically every SDKFZ the Nazis used in ths 1930s and 40s had an 'explosive resistant' V hull.
Its not that they forgot, but its that caused issues with top weight. Th components that could otherwise be beneath the vehicle floor now has to be moved up because the V shape limits available space.
South African vehicles had top weight issues. Germany just had relatively large vehicles compared to the jeeps and light trucks in use today for patrols. Those German halftracks would struggle in narrow streets the light trucks are designed for.
I know about the Sdkfz 221 but that's a 3 man crew armored car. Light trucks and jeeps are meant to have more carrying capacity sufficient for a fireteam and stretcher roles. The Sdkfz narrow bottom wouldn't accommodate something like that.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 nonsense !
@@neurofiedyamato8763 There are more than just the sdkfz 221 you absolute plonker, all vehicles used in the wehrmacht in WW2 were designated with the "sdkfz" name.
Like Medicine, Equipment always takes a leap forward in times of conflict.
Unless you're British.
V-shaped hull transport vehicules have been around since the 80's in most countries, but British waited 3 decades to understand that.
However it does not surprise me. British have always had the worst land vehicules of all the modern armies. Just look at WW2, what a perfect example ! Horrendous tanks, useless transporters, outdated cannons, blatantly stupid troop helmets (only helmet in ww2 with no shrapnel protection, too wide and too short, it didn't fit on most heads, hence why most British didn't even wear them, and many more flaws, like the helmet obstructing the crosshair when you needed to shoot the rifle), also, the ugliest ww2 uniforms of all the armies, and least practical as the dumb designers forgot the importance of pockets on army uniforms, can you believe how dumb can one be to not include enough pockets and larger pockets for a solider... It's shoking how utterly obviously flawed the British equipment is and was, and how nobody seems to notice or care.
British are very good at naval and areal warfare but surprisingly terrible on land warfare.
@@1yoan3 All I can say is look at the Kit we took into Afghanistan against the kit we come out of Afghanistan with.
@@hounslowparks2469
Your statement is true as a general rule, war makes technology and techniques leap foward, but regarding post-WW Britain,
it wasn't a leap foward if the Kit you came back with is a copy of what South Africa used in their 70s.
That "leap" is a mere catch-up to to all the accumulated delay.
No it doesn't!
So maybe don't stick your nose in? Iraq was not Britans fight!
Jack Sadler didnt die in a Snatch, I was there, he died when he was thrown from a WMIK which is a different land rover platform. Terrible nonetheless but the role we were in required small agile reconnaissance vehicles and that's all the brits had at the time. RIP mate.
It's still a variant of the Wolf
We’re you there when Darry Gardiner was killed?
@@MrManning95 Hello mate, I'd been on leave 2 days when Darryl was killed. He was a cracking bloke and it hit the unit hard. Always a top bloke to talk to.
anth2154 He was my cousin, I grew up with him around. Hearing this randomly was very strange, I appreciate you saying the kind words about him, he really was all the above. I’ve got selection next week - I’ll be lucky to be half a good a soldier as Jack and Daz.
Alfie good luck man hope you do well and make your country and family proud
Lost many a friend in these vehicles. Too little too late, though I’m glad the MOD has somewhat learned to keep up with kit and equipment to protect our soldiers. During the early days of op telic our lads were being deployed with body armour with one plate to protect against shrapnel and rounds. Fast forward to now and we had osprey now virtus, And the L85 has been upgraded beyond recognition to better help our guys and girls when they come into contact.
Thank you for everything you did and im so sorry for your loss hopefully the government has learned its lessons permanently
My friends in the British Army were warning the Brass that the Snatch Land-rover were dangerous in 1990 and nobody seemed to interested in getting it sorted, one short wheel base Land-rover was 40 years old, had multiple electrical fires and had been wrapped around trees and Light Poles and deliberately crashed in the hope of getting rid of it and Still they sent it back to the Unit repaired, I'm sorry you lost friends in the Snatch Land-rover, I know that it's hard to deal with because I've had to deal with the grief of losing friends in similar circumstances and some that are even more senseless as you will have, I hope time will bring you some healing and let your family and friends help you bear the load...
The same problem we had on the US Military HMMWV(Humvee). Even the US Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Shinseki protested that some of the US Military Vehicles were poorly protected. He was ignored and thousands of US Soldiers and Marines died because of the arrogance on the Commander In Chief.
Like they say funerals are cheaper than building a new equipment. Meaning Soldiers are expendable.
I am an American of Irish, Scot, and Welsh descent, and proud of it. This is why I try to keep up with news and information about everything UK, especially the Military.
I was overjoyed to hear about the new Foxhound. (MY Eldest Grandson was in-country for 2 years in that Hellhole.)
Broke my heart to hear about Jack Sadler and all the rest of your Mother's and Father's Sons!
Much Love and Respect from America.
Many of us knew the snatch limitations years before Iraq. Very limited off road capability due to wieght..gearbox weekness due to wieght. But more importantly even the ira had the means to pierce snatch armour with improvised weapons. It was nothing more than a placebo to improve morale..it was a cheap implementation driven by mod purse holders with shares in land rover.
Exactly, they were great adventure, civilian vehicles, but not suitable for these conditions. So heartbreaking listening to the guys dad in this video :(
That's the truth, it's a vehicle unsuitable for using anywhere in active combat....
In the 1970s the Rhodesians modified landrovers so that they would provide a surviveable protection against TM46 mines for 2 occupants.
Much love too the families of of our fallen brothers and sisters in arms. Love from across the river The U.S.A.
Not an Army anymore,too many cuts,now a defence force
Tell that to the 43,390 soldiers deployed in over 40 countries on tasks and operations around the world (2017 Figures).
@@domcox he's an idiot don't waste your time.
Sean Taylor isn't that precisely what an army is. Multifaceted?
Gordon Ramsey bore off
the billions of pounds we put into nuclear stuff probably isn’t well spent.
I find this just as unforgivable just as the Hummer. Neither the Hummer nor the Landy had any protection yet the South African Defense Force had mine proof vehicles since the late 70's and 80's and battle proven.
It is unforgivable that stupidity and lack of focus caused all these deaths.
BAE owned the company that made the South African protected vehicles. The MOD was offered them but the politicians refused.
General lack of awareness of what modern combat involved...
coalition forces probably didnt even exceed 10,000 compared to millions of dead iraqis, civilians and what not
we got off fine, hard to say it.
the Technology existed.
this was a political(= Big Business) decision. when the MoD finally dropped the Land Rover the production of the Vehicle was stopped shortly after.
coincidence ?!
Soldiers were killed and injured unnecessarily to prolong the production, and the Profits that go with that, of an unfit-for-purpose Vehicle !
this is a national disgrace !
Heads should roll !
responsible persons must go to Prison !
The shortcomings of the hummer were well know but MR VEHICLES are pricey
When we say the Land Rover had been in service since the Second World War we mean in the years after it ended - not during. This should have been more clear. For more information on the Foxhound please visit our website: bit.ly/2TSOvdI
Forces TV revisionist history.
This is BS propaganda.
Shame on you for putting this out.
You aren’t a soldier obviously.
Our troops were not equipped property because of politicians like Blair and brown.
@@davidrobertsemail - Sounds like you're spreading some propaganda of your own.
Manic Mute tell that to the wife of sergeant Steve Roberts who was killed by friendly fire after he was ordered to give up his body armor due to shortages.
Or tell it to the parents of the Red Caps that we’re slaughtered because they didn’t have enough bullets to defend themselves because of shortages. Ask Reg Keys who stood against Blair in 2005 because his son died because of shortages caused by politicians like Blair and Brown who refused to fund our troops at war.
The snatch land rover scandal is one story of many.
@@davidrobertsemail - And more propaganda from you.
Manic Mute great defense.
I've seen the vee hull used on mine resistant vehicles during the war in Rhodesia in the 1960s. They were in British military vehicle museums.
V-hulls were used even earlier than Rhodesia. The British Army themselves had pioneered them in Aden with mine protected trucks and land rovers. They had roll cages, v hulls, mine strike belly plates, additional armour, sacrificial wheels and wheel arches. The Army had also used the RG-31 in Bosnia to equip Engineer units who were doing route proving, they'd even replaced it with an even more capable MRAP called Tempest. The people who built Tempest took the lessons from that to build the US Cougar, which in turn was bought by the British Army in Wolfhound, Ridgback and Mastiff versions....
Soldiers worst enemies are civil servants. You sometimes think they are working for the other side.
A form on expenditure of ammunition. A form for equipment blown up on active service.
There really is a form for rations that states (a)"unfit for human consumption". (b) "unfit for issue to troops".
So far form MOD F1182A is a myth "permission to be killed on active service". But wait for it.
The problem is the political game playing that goes on with procurement that distorts the process and shifts the skill set in the staff. The procurement side of MOD has been allowed to move further and further away from the military. Getting anything out of the system is a bureaucratic nightmare and huge political game. Instead of people on the staff with technical knowledge and judgement, you get military politicians, playing short term games and generally avoiding the issue.
The only equipment programmes that get any mileage are high profile blue chip programmes that will gain kudos for whoever happen to be in charge at the time.. The normal day to day equipment procurement is so painfully slow as to be largely irrelevant once it gets into service.. Look at the cluster that is the procurement of the communications system.. thank god most folk had mobile phones to cover the gaps.. but this would never have worked had a major punchup broken out!
That seems to be an issue in many places, I thought it were especially bad here in Germany but as it seems, the more I read about internarional forces, the more I come to the conclusion that without an enemy it's really hard to maintain an army (army in the general not specific sense)
No this is heavily inaccurate. I was 2LI/3 rifles and on tour as ROBG at SLB over 06/07, i was seriously injured by a 45kg EFP on the 25th of February 07 resulting in me having my eyes removed. I don’t care about my injuries as it’s a possibility that comes with the job, what I don’t accept is that mastiffs were in theatre in 06 and were not allowed to use them, I have photos from November 06 from camp 4 SLB of 6 to 8 mastiffs sat ready for us on patrols company to use. I went on r and r in November and did cat c for my first week of r and r so we could use them on our return, when we did return we were told we were not going to use them as they were returning to the uk to get differant turrets! There was nothing wrong with the GPMG mount ones they had. The vehicles were there but we were denied their desperate needed use by some stroaker back at land command and as a result blokes died and many of us were left with life changing injuries. Also the minister said there was no medium vehicle known.....yes there was! The yanks had used mastiff from very early on, i know this as i was based at BIAP in Baghdad for a while and saw them every day and yanks I spoke to swore by them as life savers and theirs were out the box configurations. Also as far as I know these are South African made vehicles and had been around for a good period
How are you commenting this? Genuine question.
@@Arcaryon Possibly speech to text program from Microsoft ?
Probably he has someone To help him do you have brains To think that
The Alvis Saracen was a good vehicle once the final marks came out only the wheel units would be blown off by an explosion. Though any sizeable amount of explosives will destroy any heavily armoured vehicle.
Potato Peeler a sizable amount of explosives will destroy anything
I served with the British Army in Aden and the Oman in 1966 and obviously nothing had changed regarding soldier safety since then. We patrolled in Mk 9 Rovers and the only safety feature we had was wire mesh sides and tops to defeat grenades thrown into the vehicle. In Oman we had mine plated Mk 9's with a 1/4 inch of plating and a belly plate with a roll bar over the top behind the drivers seat, When other armies had body armour we had starched smart looking bush shirts. We didn't even have helmets on when patrolling. We knew that we were cheaper to replace than expensive equipment.
So Sorry For All Your Losses... Thank You One &All For Your SERVICE...
When you have sociopaths as politicians they will tend to value money over human life.
Underrated comment.
Ironically it was politicians who got the vehicle replaced. It was army bureaucrats and logistics personnel who dropped the ball.
politics tend to value money over human life by definiton
@ Jorge Shaft
I agree, the army bureaucrazy has a way of making changes painfully slow. But as it has been shown here, politicians actually _can_ change things, provided they actually give a shit and are not afraid to lose some of their own benefits on the way.
And the fact how rarely that actually happens is telling enough.
Astute observation...and true.
01:41 - 01:55 That small scene with well known object, sound and result. Suberb example of "show don't tell", nice job lads!
To the MP behaving like he had re-invented the wheel, and saved us all.... You were the one who sent the blokes to do your bidding.
I remember using SNACH during my time in NI, you felt safe but they were never really tested against anything more than petrol bombs and stones in NI, fast forward to 2003 onwards and they were found out to be wanting against ied’s. They were great in Belfast but shit in Basra..
@@anvilbrunner.2013 Coagh, Clonoe, Loughgall...
I was in charge of 6 snatch land rovers in Bosnia and they were hit a number of times by small arms, on one occasion one had it's wheel blown up by what we think was a anti personnel mine and another had it's whole engine bay blown off by an anti tank mine, in all instances the occupants only had bruises. If someone is making a IED to take out an armoured car and they have the kit to make it then you know it's going to be made of something bigger than a few ounces or kilos of HE so any new vehicle you put into services will eventually get blown up and your going to have to start designing all over again.......How far do you go.
As others have said, the problem runs deeper than slow defence procurement. If our/my DMO (Defence Material Organisation - Australia) was clever enough to realise, in 1991, that mine protected vehicles were worth spending precious pennies on and the MOD didn't, then I pity the poor Brits who serve in your army. Our DMO is full blown down syndrome at the best of times, so the MOD must really be something else.
The piglet was the same,overweight by 1 tonne, only fitted with HVPK absolutely useless
2:30 "Less intimidating" is another way to say, "More likely to be attacked."
A a war, less intimidating is very bad thing. If your enemy will only attack you if he thinks he has a chance of hurting you.
If you seem invulnerable, your enemy won't attack, not even if such an attack means sacrificing his own life.
You don't even need to actually be invulnerable (though it helps) so long as your enemy thinks he can't hurt you, you will not be attacked.
There is no place for hippy nonsense like being nice on the battlefield.
Only when your enemy is dead or utterly defeated can you start being nice. Once your enemy is defeated, then you start working on avoiding another war.
Eric Taylor if you knew anything about the Iraq war, you would know a great deal of the Army’s job was community outreach and building trust with the locals. This requires less intimidating vehicles. Was the same story in Afghanistan and Syria...
@@Zebedee777 How does this contradict my comment. "The enemy" in Iraq was *NOT* the civilian populous.
Destruction of the civilian populace was not the goal of the Army in Iraq. Their goal was the destruction of the Iraqi military.
The United States has a long history of taking care not to harm the civilians, even if such action places military personnel at greater risk.
Many many people have died because the military was unable to strike a target when that target was to near something (like a hospital or school) that might cause civilian casualties.
One absolutely infuriating things done in Vietnam was people accepting the propaganda of "indiscriminate bombing" by American pilots. In fact, surface to air missiles (like the SA-2 used in Vietnam) are usually equipped youth a self destruct that will blow up the missile if it doesn't hit anything. This is done because you don't want the missile coming back down and hitting the city.
The North Vietnamese removed these devises because when the missiles came back down they might crash into the city. The missiles carried large warheads, over 200 lbs, so if the hit a building it could do substantial damage.
They especially liked it when one of the missiles hit a school or a hospital.
@@erictaylor5462 You mention "A long history of taking care not to harm civilians" this shows you are either delusional or very misinformed. You bring up Vietnam. Lets talk about the My Lai Massacre or the widespread use of firebombing which is never precise and always indiscriminate, or even the bombing of civilian cities and towns. More recently in Afghanistan most sources agree the US and its allies killed more of the 10,000 dead Afghan citizens than the Taliban did. Not to mention Wikileaks footage of US pilots knowingly attacking civilians (including children) and ambulances. Going all the way back to WW2 the US participated in the firebombing of Dresden and nuked two civilian cities. Not so sure about this "history of not harming civilians".
In these conflicts, and pretty much all modern wars, killing civilians is detrimental to your success in a region. It only builds support for the insurgency or leaders who you are trying to destroy. The best way to stop an organisation like the Taliban, ISIS or Iraqi government from recruiting more civilians and the best way to break down guerrilla networks is by being seen as a positive, peacekeeping force who builds a relationship, polices and helps the local communities. It's not 'hippy nonsense', its strategy.
@@erictaylor5462 lol , that is not how the Russian SAM in Vietnam worked , they reached a certain height then explode and create a net like structures of fragments that would trap and take down planes , the Pilot can dodge it by flying low at the risk of anti aircraft guns , or does a steep dive as the missile climb up before it explode . NVA 's SAM are not like heat seeking missiles or other more advanced artificial intelligent seek and destroy missiles, even if the Russians had it at the times , they were still sending the NVA their pretty out dated missiles , but were still effective due to the mass quantity, so were US bombs during Vietnam war , they didnt have " brains " or " eyes " back then , just drop and land.
@@Zebedee777 After all, you can't kill 10000 people who are already dead. You can't kill dead people at all, because they are already dead.
my dad served in Aden in the 1960's they were using Land Rovers at the time and he said they were totally inadequate for the job even then providing little or no protection for the troops, he was surprised and quite shocked to see them in service in Iraq and Afghanistan forty years later, he always said they were fine for Northern Ireland against small arms fire and petrol bombs but not much else. He said that the quality of the British Army top brass was still as incompetent now as it was back in his day. Wolves led by sheep.
There were plenty of IEDs in NI that compromised vehicles. The snatch was not fit for purpose there either.
but it's still used there and how many have they lost to IED's?
@@bazacobb they could lose a lot soon
The Huber one ton ,Pig was a botch job rushed into service for malaya Emergency, Saracen was also used in NI also a pain to operate.
The armoured Landy was shocking, it was top heavy and would topple over if you went round a corner faster than slow. As I found to my cost! Outdated 20yrs ago!
michael o'mahony How come??
ive seen foxhounds, and they are beasts. it looks like a hexagonal space station inside.
great design, great comms, massive vehicles.
Thank you for creating this video. Very well produced. I'm glad I found your channel.
When I was in Iraq, in 2003, we noticed that when our hummers, got hit, some if not all of the crew burned with the vehicle due to a plastic fuel tank. Even with belly armor on later models, the fuel tanks remained plastic!
All of that problem would be solved by switching to sterling engines.
Very, very difficult to watch Mr Sadler. My heart goes out to him. I live in Belfast. I grew up through The Troubles. I remember the Snatches on virtually every road. A LOT of people here can never be grateful enough for the soldiers' service and sacrifice. It is disgusting that May's government are hanging out to dry the former soldier involved in Bloody Sunday. Utter disgrace.
South Africa was using a v shaped hull on their armoured vehicles decades ago.
The problem with the MOD is,they equate cost verses risk and when the risk is too high,they still drag their feet in order to save money.
The army does not have the ability to increase their budget they were underfunded in the beginning. those men died due to government policy. this politician is passing the blame
Rogal Dorn kinda sounds like it. If the military had gone to the politicians and said, hey this is what we need, does anyone really think the politicians would have approved it in a timely manner? Hell no, they would insist on lengthy trials, contract bidding to see who could make it for the least amount of money.... typical bureaucracy would have taken place. It's never up to the military as to what they get- it's the bean counters who tell them this is what you get, make do with it and don't ask for anything else.
Heard this was what happened with the SA-80 and Merlin. Not what the military wanted but were told this is what you're getting, make it work.
Spot on. This is revisionist history.
They knew how to solve the problem but they didn’t care.
I spent time working with the Brits in Al Muthanna province as part of the Australian TG. While we operated out of ASLAV, Bushmaster and Unimogs with armoured cabs the Brits where operating the Snatch . Watching this made me feel sick thinking back to the number of British deaths reported from the region at a time when we had none.
Its so sad, because other armies like the Dutch were given almost new bushmasters at a discount price when they landed in Afghanistan.
Another good video/documentary. Congratulations from your oldest ally (from 1438 ! Yes we had a English princess who became Portuguese queen)
joão Maxado Queen Philippa?
Ahh yes we've got the oldest alliance treaty in the world loved Portugal when I was there
G'day Simon, I'm ex-Air Force and a military historian now. Thank you for your interesting but ever so sad video. The story of the 'mobile coffins' actually is the historical reverse of what usually happens as new wars develop. Usually it is the technology of war that is way out in front of tactics and strategy. This is clearly seen in the development of new, huge, rapid firing artillery which did the greatest damage of all during WW1 along with the advanced machine guns. There, the 'approved' tactic was for soldiers to walk slowly into the teeth of murderous machine gun nests with overlapping ranges of fire. In WW2 the technological development in aircraft, tanks, armoured cars etc. greatly outstripped high commanders' knowledge of how best to deploy tanks, for example.
Of all countries, the UK and the MOD should have learned hard and fast lessons from WW2; that to win you need the latest most innovative technology and weapons systems on your side. That is why I'm so gobsmacked and angry that someone at the MOD and/or Army refused to react instantly to the IED threat. This brought about the needless deaths of way too many UK soldiers, simply because they were using old technology that could not, or would not, be improved to meet new threats. The new vehicles were fantastic but, as you say, 'Too little, too late'.
If this is your first or second video I strongly suggest you keep making them because you are very good at it. You told a fair, well balanced story and you let your interviewees tell the nuts and bolts of your story themselves. I wish you every luck in your career as a video maker. I've subscribed, via Forces TV. I looked for a channel called 'INTEL' but all I got were computer channels. Cheers, BH
These people knew the LR platform was inadequate. They knew.
When you right an enemy that operates asymmetrically they will use different strategies than an enemy operating a symmetrically.
You will get more IED's, more Mines, more "assassination" type hits. They will strike, kill, then drop their weapons and blend into the crowd of civilians.
You don't get that with a symmetrical force.
So, they knew. They knew and still did nothing for years.
British Army bought variants of South African mine protected vehicles made in UK by Alvis for use in the Balkans - and once we finished there sold them off ! There is even more thins boggling incompetence to this story than described here. Also now
We have the super modular Foxhound, are we going to use variants of it for MRV-P Phase 1? Nope, we will buy another new vehicle.....
South African Army have had a suitable vehicle for 30 years but you were never not interested....
Becuase there is such thing as national security and contracts for sensitive areas are only allowed withing certain allies groups or national company's. It's like the US or Russia. We all sort our own gaffe alot of the time.
All so we don't need to rely on one another if a big fight came out
I spent some time with technical guys who are part of the MOD. They needed Wheel based tanks and they recommended that the South African Vehicles were technically very good. Nothing happened as you have politics and big business involved.
IED's? ie Land mines? V-shaped hull technology in Africa first saw the light of day in the Rhodesian Bush War 1965 -1979. The Rhodesian armed forces and civilian industries developed a whole series of home grown vehicles, (Funnies) designed to protect crews primarily from small arms fire, RPG's & Kalashnikovs etc and the infamous Soviet derived Land Mines, using V-Shaped hulls. High ground clearances, over sized wheels & tyres, mounted on outriggers. The crews inside, seated in bucket seats, with full body harnesses. Standardising components for quick repairs, to keep these vehicles operational and doing their job. The old SADF was fighting it's own border war in Northern South West Africa / Southern Angola and was quick to adopt this technology, developing their own unique range of troop carriers and transporters not only for the SADF but also the various South African Police, anti-terrorist elite special forces. These vehicles, Buffels, Casspirs, Mambas etc were used in their thousands from the early 1970's up to the end of the conflict in 1989. Africa's southern desert terrain doesn't lend itself to tracked vehicles, but rather vehicles with balloon tyres, to give speed and maneuvrability but more importantly protection for the crews. These vehicles weren't perfect. They were bloody hot, noisy and uncomfortable. But, better sweaty, rather than dead. And many came short, during those long war years. South Africas own home grown arms manufacturer Armscor (Armaments Corporation of South Africa) together with the private sector developed and continues to develope a bewildering range of anti-mine Armoured Personal Carriers. Many variants are battle tested and exported all over the World, to this day. I think sadly, the British were complacent that their own vehicles, (Snatch Land Rovers etc) despite the technology and sophistication would do the job, of protecting troops from IEDs. Hindsight is still a wonderful thing. Bureaucrats and bean counters don't win wars, but cost countless precious lives.
RIP Jack thank you for your service
What service how did his death change your life in slightest? Are you one of the elite who profits from wars?
Hearing Jack's father speak is heart breaking. I cannot believe the Brits used these paper skinned vehicles for so long. Thank you to all the brothers and sisters from across the pond.
“We like the land rovers because they’re less intimidating to locals.” How sad is that? Your soldiers lives are more important than the sense of security of the people who want to kill them.
Not every Afghan or Iraqui citizen is an enemy, and you want to have those on your side. How else do you build up a country that can govern itself? I don't want to defend their argument, but your line of reasoning is not any better
@@89DerChristian That is exactly what the Americans meant by their "Hearts and minds" doctrine. It was a bit simplified, because it needed to be communicated and understood across all parts of the troop, but it did touch on a very important principle: As the bigger force in an asymmetric war you will never win with bullets. There are only two ways to win: Genocide or converison to your cause. Or put differently: You need to either kill them all or make them like you.
Land Rovers weren't introduced until 1948, 3 years after WW2 ended.
filo4590
I feel in a 45 year lifespan piece of equipment 3 years is )*&( all .
Perhaps they would have been better served by stating since its SERVICE IN the Korean war .Then nit picky bastards like you and DC wouldn't be able to post about how they didn't enter service until '48.
Perhaps you should concentrate on the meaning (ie [in this case]Land rovers had been in service a very long time) behind commentaries rather than getting tied up in the literal meaning of the words used,( "Since the second world war" not in the Second world war).,
the chassis of the first land rover was from the American willys jeep so technically it was used in ww2
Well that was the main purpose of the story, thanks for that!
The UK military didnt purchase Land Rovers until a trial batch was purchased in 1949 to be evaluated against the Austin Champ. Production didnt start until the 50,s
They said it for simplicity and for aesthetics. 3 years isn't a ton of time.
The landrovers at the start of the film were apv far more heavily armoured to stop rpgs they were used in west belfast and the bogside far superior to the snatch these vehicles were donated to the iraqi police ?
2:32 Kind of says a lot about the MOD's interest level in the safety of its military
"It gets you from A to B and no ones scared of you when you're in it, in enemy-held territory"
The Generals, like generals everywhere never leave England and don't want anyone interuppting tea time
The fault was not with the Land Rover. The fault was with the British bureaucracy staffed by members of the super rich and nobility. This is also a problem with the US and Canadian Forces but less so because the bureaucracy is more likely to be staffed by people selected for their education, experience and technical qualifications, not because they came off a good family.
Thinking of Richard Larkin, a top bloke, great family man and all round good egg who died in a "snatch" in Helmand.
Across the pond they did the same thing to us with the humvees. They were initially under armored, and even after they armored them up the wide flat bottom meant even relativley small IEDs flipped them. They also tended to eject the turret gunner.
Of course the solution was very american, they dumped a ludicrous amount of money into building even more ludicrously huge MRAPs. Don't get me wrong, I survived 3 IED blasts in MRAPs, but those sow bellied pigs are so big and slow that we just traded fighting capability for IED survival. They couldnt move for shit, the only thing they did well was not kill you when they exploded. The turret sat so high off the ground that as a gunner moving from humvees to MRAPs I felt like we just traded being ejected for becoming a bullet magnet.
If an anti tank mine can destroy a huge tank just imagine what it would do to these
They often dont destroy tanks just theit sprockets and tracks but the crew and main body would often be fine
@@Mmjk_12 Deoends on the mine. Some are designed to M (mobility) kill the tank, I.e. blow off tracks so that it cant move and become an obsticle. Others are designed to K kill (kill or destroy) the tank or crew.
Terrific little documentary. Keep up the good work team.
"[Brits] are not worried about being blown up" - Lance Corporal Sean Simmonds, US Marines
+Daimo. Young bravado doesnt excuse top brass lack of proper decisions.
That goes both ways.. when the USMC entered Sangin they didn’t want to use our Vallon mine detectors in case it slowed their advance, and they didn’t have ECM. It wasn’t a wise choice.
I was an American soldier during Iraq. I did 3 tours over there and I was a Bradley mechanic and recovery operator. I personally call the Hummers Coffins on Wheels as well. My thumbnail pic is of me moving destroyed Hummv's that were damaged and destroyed by IED's with a M88a1. I moved 8 trucks that were destroyed by IED's that day. And what I saw in Kuwait of the bone yards there filled with destroyed vehicles from IED's and RPG's. The Hummv yard was just huge and nearly every one was a visual story of how soldiers died or were severely injured. I have seen the up armored versions shredded by nuts and bolts that were strapped to 155 shells like a giant claymore mine. When the MRAP's finally started to come out they helped allot. But also the fighting had slowed down by then as well. I will always carry the sights and destruction I witness as I had to go out and recover all those destroyed tanks and trucks. Our vehicles simply weren't designed to have something bigger than a land mine go off under them. And definitely not a anti tank mine. I know full well what other friendly forces went through in Iraq and I can only say I wish none of us had ever been there. It all ended with nothing gained and just lives thrown away.
The LandRover is the British Version of the American Humvee Problem.
Should not have happened, as the UK had no right and gained no benefit from, its presence in Iraq/Afghanistan!
You would think that Britain above all countries, would have stayed a way from Afghanistan?
Free Enterprise beats out Government in all things, every time. When will we learn!
Seeing the dad talk about the two dead soldiers is heartbreaking.
Excellent documentary. I hope people learn from this.
A N I M E
N
I
M
E
Put the political class in them it will be fixed very quickly.
The us military was faced with the same situation with the HWMMV. We began replacing them with MRAPs in 2007.
I'd love to see the pictures of a Land Rover in WW2 seeing as they didn't exist until 48.
@ D C
See my reply to filo4590
@James good Read the first comment again at the top
You realize they could just be saying that because it sounds better than saying 1948, and 3 years isn't a major difference.
50% of communication is listening.
conflicting requirements. if you need light and fast, that means less armor protection and more vulnerability to IEDs it just goes with the territory. the only answer is knowing your situation and not getting blown up in the first place. otherwise you have lost the advantage of mobility. the bad guys know this perfectly well!
If only all government ministers were the quality of this bloke.
RIP Jack. Thank you to you and your family for your sacrifice.
'' war is about innovation '' . war is about out-performing your enemy in every possible aspect trough innovation.
These are still being used by the police in Northern Ireland
It is a different version but yes, as the video states, it’s perfect for Northern Ireland and can withstand petrol bombs and small arms.
"War is all about innovation ...and you've got to keep up" Best quote
Imagine thinking that looking "less intimidating" to the locals is more important than giving your troops the best chance of survival
@@user-pi4su6je8p Although I agree with you, it is irrelevant to the discussion.
@@user-pi4su6je8p 👍
Hands off to you guys, this video is very well done, cheers to our soldiers.
God bless all that serve and protect us.
What all those soldiers in afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and Yemen making the world a safer place, RAF bombing Libya, causing migrants to flood into Europe, opium production is up due to the watchful eye of our armed forces....
Making the world a safer place.
No I'm not some lefty I look at the whole picture.
@@simontuffs4106 I agree with everything you say Simon, blame goes to our governments, not the rank and file.
@@jules151968 They're not protecting us then, are they? Nothing against the military, but they're not helping me killing random Afghanis on the other side of the world.
@Charlie Skelton grow up boy.
In 2006, before we deployed to Basra palace we had to re role to armoured infantry as the snatch was banned from the city. The retrofitted the 432 it was ok, they had to modify mid tour with commander protection because a few our guys decapitated by IEDs
@MI6 yes mate, the used directional IEDs a deep metal tin with a solid back plate, angles the , nails and bits of metal towards the commanders hatch.
V shaped hulls aren't a new thing, the US M48-M60 series of MBT had a V shaped hull for better mine resistance and they date back to the 50's, the South African army also had a 'light' vehicle called the Buffalo that incorporated a V shape chassis back in the 80's.
I do understand that forces are always forced to react to situations on the ground, for instance it would have been thought rather strange if Land Rovers had always had a V shaped hull, one cannot be pre-emptive but it should be possible to quickly cobble together an answer to the newly discovered threat, after all, there is no new technology involved in the Foxhound, it was all existant.
ANTON RUDENHAM guess who was the first who had those v shaped hulls on patrol vehicles...
You can go back another 15 years past the 50s
@@tobiaszistler Hmmm. dunno, the Russians?
What were they doing there in first place.
No war
Only peace
Those snatches were a load of shit i never felt save in them i would rather sit in a back off a warrior with all the hatches shut and broken aircon than be in a snatch
Agrred
@@Starfield6824 what battalion are you i was 2nd
the funny thing is.....
half of the pictures of burning and destroyed land rover's wern't actually shot by the enemy........
they just broke down on their own.....
It reminds of the gun debate they're having in the US.
Except from with guns you have points for and against the ban;with this you only have points against them.
We in the US had a similar crisis with unarmored HMMVVs. Protection was improvised, and there was a wholesale employment of MRAP vehicles. The US military's newest JLTV is engineered around the mine/IED threat
@@petesheppard1709 Turns out noone was prepared in armouring their vehicles.
@@CancerGaming56 Yep. The danger from mines/IEDs has been evident for decades, but their use has been fairly minor in the past, and more easily ignored.
Your statement makes no sense. Please clarify. And the responses to your comment dont make sense either
What I mean is that in the UK, there was the debate of should we keep the Land Rover because people are dying and in the US its Should we keep our gun laws because people are dying.
in WWII, British / US tanks used tree logs fastened to the sides & backs of their vehicles to help absorb German RPG's & shells. A crude, but useful type of 'reactive armor'. The Australians also had its own 'Bushmaster' armored vehicle for Afghanistan / Iraq
It’s a shame that the Army doesn’t employ a ‘continuous improvement’ cycle. More a reactive approach. The opening title captured it well; Landrover been in service since the 1950’s or words to that affect. We need to continually review and adapt our equipment to meet future threats. Let’s not to do these reviews as a lessons learned.
the Army does have such a process.
it is called the Blue Team Red Team Exercise.
this was a political/financial/profit decision.
at the unnecessary cost of Soldier's Injuries and Lifes !
Matthias Doppenschmied Red teaming is a nice concept and more of a ‘buzz word’. I have seen very little Red Teaming unless this is something that the Procurement team pretend to do. If the Army was a business, it would fail.
I'm american we did not have mine resistant Hummvers in 2003 deployment. It took some time to get armor made for our wheeled vehicles and longer before the Mrap was designed.
Good film, bar the reference to the PIRA as "insurgents" & not what they were, i.e. terrorists.
I see due to political correctness history has started to be rewritten.
This what happens when you have a terrorist supporter leading the Labour Party.
Grahame Willmott terrorists are insurgents. Insurgents is a more professional term.
@@stanrobinson3838 "Insurgents" are guerrilla outfits who may/may not have a just cause, terrorists are urban revolutionaries that don't. That's the difference - clown.
@@Horizon344
"Insurgent: noun. A person fighting against a government or invading force; a rebel or revolutionary."
"Terrorist: noun. A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
Dude sort out your semantics, an insurgent fighting against a government or other ruling force is by definition using unlawful violence to acheive the political aim of victory or self-governance from that entity. The terms are essentially synonymous.
@@Horizon344 terrorists have always had causes, the problem is the methods.
a common issue between european country, was the same for us italian army, with the good old VM90, and we also find a solution called VTML "Lince" actually works really well and provide to keep safe from death our soldier in at least 3 situation during last year