View Full Version : No armour caused soldier's death
ShadesWolf
07-31-2006, 17:36
I find this an interesting article. The news article on TV said that it was a government decision not to gather enough equipment as they did not want to warn the UN, by there actions, that they were gearing up for war.
A British soldier died in Iraq because he was not wearing enhanced body armour he had had to give up because of shortages, an official report found.
Sgt Steven Roberts, of Shipley, West Yorks, was accidentally shot dead when UK troops opened fire during a disturbance near Basra in March 2003.
The board of inquiry said bullet-proof plates on his Enhanced Combat Body Armour (ECBA) would have saved him.
The Army said it was working "quickly" to learn lessons from this.
Iraqi civilian Zaher Zaher was shot and killed in the same incident.
The Army Board of Inquiry also found the L94 machine gun which fired the shot which killed Sgt Roberts was known to be inaccurate at short range. The gunner who fired it had not been taught about problems with it during his training.
The inquiry criticised "inadequate" procedures and recommended all gunners should in future be educated on the gun's shortcomings.
Col Peter Davies, the Army's director of personal services, said of the findings: "This board of inquiry was convened to help us identify the important lessons we must learn to ensure similar circumstances do not occur."
"We are now working quickly to ensure we do just that."
Cornwall-born Sgt Roberts, 33, was issued ECBA but it was withdrawn on 20 March 2003 - four days before his death - due to shortages.
The report said: "Had Sgt Roberts been wearing correctly fitting and fitted ECBA when this incident unfolded, he would not have been fatally injured by the rounds that struck him."
The Ministry of Defence is criticised in the report for failing to give "timely attention" to shortages in kit.
Soldier's widow
In the aftermath of his death, the soldier's widow Samantha Roberts released an audio diary in which her husband had called supplies to soldiers "a joke."
And she called on the then defence secretary Geoff Hoon to resign over the issue.
The report also found that generals had identified a need for more body armour in September 2001, but ordering was held up for 15 months by "political constraints" because the government did not want to be seen to be arming for an invasion at a time when diplomatic efforts to prevent a war in Iraq were continuing at the United Nations.
It added the government had since imposed a policy making sure all soldiers on the battlefield had appropriate body armour.
The report also found some equipment had gone missing because of logistical problems, but it said the military has since improved its logistics.
The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said in April there was insufficient evidence for charges to be brought against the UK soldiers over deaths of Sgt Roberts and Iraqi Zaher Zaher at a roadblock at Az Zubayr near Basra on 24 March 2003.
The Metropolitan Police investigated both deaths after Lord Goldsmith removed the investigation from Army control.
And a Met Police post-mortem examination found Sgt Roberts had been hit twice but "may have survived" had he had body armour.
The Army's Col Peter Davies added that the loss of Sgt Roberts was still mourned.
"He was an all-round professional soldier and a first-class tank commander. I know the entire Army would want his family to know he is greatly missed and our thoughts and condolences remain with them," he said.
"We do our utmost to protect our people but the unfortunate reality is that military operations are dangerous, uncertain and complex. Regrettably, soldiering is far from risk-free."
Grey_Fox
08-02-2006, 00:29
No offence or nothing but the term 'may have survived' and 'would have survived' are two entirely different things. Nobody can say with any certainty that the soldier would have lived, it's all educated speculation.
But having armour would definately ave helped, wouldnt it? Should soldiers lives needlesly be endangered by avoiding to equip soldiers with inexpensive armour?
No offence or nothing but the term 'may have survived' and 'would have survived' are two entirely different things. Nobody can say with any certainty that the soldier would have lived, it's all educated speculation.
From the quoted article, the Met post-mortem said "may have survived" but the Army Board of Inquiry said "would have survived". Certainty may be too strong, but I think the British army should have a pretty good idea whether its own body armour could have stopped two of its own machine gun rounds, fired where they were at the range they were. If they say the armour would have stopped them, I'm inclined to believe them (although it must be pretty good armour for that to be true).
Was this the case where the dead man had reluctantly given up his armour a few days earlier due to shortages or is it another case? If it is the former, where the man's widow has been campaigning for better protection for the troops, it is a very poignant case.
Banquo's Ghost
08-02-2006, 07:51
Was this the case where the dead man had reluctantly given up his armour a few days earlier due to shortages or is it another case? If it is the former, where the man's widow has been campaigning for better protection for the troops, it is a very poignant case.
Yes, it's that case. The big culprits here are the government who delayed ordering kit for the war in case it tipped the UN off that they were going anyway.
Regardless, may have should have could have must have, doesn't matter. If you insist on sending your troops somewhere, make sure they have good equipment.
If you insist on sending your troops somewhere, make sure they have good equipment.
I agree - if the enhanced body armour is good enough to stop two machine gun bullets from an armoured vehicle at 20 metres, surely it should be standard for all combat troops, just as a weapon is? Waiting for a real war to break out before ordering them seems cheap.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-02-2006, 23:18
The British Army is very cheap, prior to Iraq British troops were in a desert exercise wearing woodland kit. Their boots melted when they walked on sand.
:furious3:
Its why the British are the best trained army in the world, they have to survive when it all goes Pete Tong.
The British Army is very cheap, prior to Iraq British troops were in a desert exercise wearing woodland kit. Their boots melted when they walked on sand.
I know - it's something that strikes you in many wargames you play; the British Army may often be one of the best in the game, but it is seldom the best equipped. I remember playing a representation of a Falklands War encounter (probably part of the battle of Goose Green) in the boardgame Firepower with an American friend. The Argentines had powerful mounted machine guns and UV night fighting equipment, defending entrenchments on a hill. The Brits were out numbered, had only infra-red night fighting equipment (making them sitting ducks for the UV stuff) and only light machine guns, and were meant to storm the hill on guts alone. The higher quality of their British paratroops over the Argentine conscripts was modelled, but it did not seem to be enough to get them up the hill. After the game battle - with my British paratroops all lying fallen or pinned down on the slope, my American friend was full of admiration for the paras actually winning the encounter in reality.
Another example that struck me was playing the battle of Alma. The Brits are still using the Brown Bess musket and are essentially indistinguishable from their 1815 counterparts, while the French marching alongside them all have rifles.
Pannonian
08-02-2006, 23:41
The British Army is very cheap, prior to Iraq British troops were in a desert exercise wearing woodland kit. Their boots melted when they walked on sand.
:furious3:
Its why the British are the best trained army in the world, they have to survive when it all goes Pete Tong.
Yomp (verb): To walk to the battlefield carrying all your equipment when the designated transport has gone to the bottom of the sea.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-03-2006, 00:30
Or been blown to hell.
Fear the British Squaddie, for he drinks tea like water and should you interupt elevenes for a fight his wrath shall he such that not even a strawberry mist will remain for your relatives to mourn.
The thing people forget about us Brits is that we're just nastier and angrier than everyone else. I think you don't notice it, because we're so polite.
Why do you think we're so nice?
We don't want to upset each other!
x-dANGEr
08-04-2006, 08:55
I can hear an official say: "Sacrifices have to be made" (And in fact, that is really not wrong.. War is bad, and that is what war does. I sympythize with the family of each dead in war.. But man, that is war. And if you enter it, you must be ready to sacrifice..)
Unfortunately we're not the best at modernising over here. The British Army is notorious for sticking to outdated equipment until the bitter end. This may be because anything new, such as the SA80 for example, which was introduced due to the need for NATO standardisation, tends to be extremely problematic and unpopular.
This may be because anything new, such as the SA80 for example, which was introduced due to the need for NATO standardisation, tends to be extremely problematic and unpopular.
Eh? I was told that the SA80 was one of europe's best rifles, why is it unpopular?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-04-2006, 12:59
Eh? I was told that the SA80 was one of europe's best rifles, why is it unpopular?
The A2 is one of the best but its only been in service for about three years, the A1 was in service for the preceeding 18 or so and it sucketh most mightily.
1. It jams, more than any other weapon. Any just or fouling on the bolt will cause it to literally grind to a halt and the cocking stud flicks empty cases back into the bolt.
2. It breaks, the trigger falls off, the handguard melts...
3. Its about 2 kilos heavier than an M16.
4. Its fragile, the bullpup design means that the dust cover tends to open if the butt gets knocked and all the internals in the butt mean that using it as a club isn't the smartest thing.
5. The bayonet is a cheap, brittle, shoddy P.O.S.
CaravelUnfortunately we're not the best at modernising over here. The British Army is notorious for sticking to outdated equipment until the bitter end. This may be because anything new, such as the SA80 for example, which was introduced due to the need for NATO standardisation, tends to be extremely problematic and unpopular.
Unfortunately we're not the best at modernising over here. The British Army is notorious for sticking to outdated equipment until the bitter end. This may be because anything new, such as the SA80 for example, which was introduced due to the need for NATO standardisation, tends to be extremely problematic and unpopular.
True, although much of this modern equipment can be made redundant with good training and training doesn't break like a radio or a fancy rifle.
When you look at it the priciple behind assault rifles has remained unchanged since WWII. Advances have been fairly minor.
I can hear an official say: "Sacrifices have to be made" (And in fact, that is really not wrong.. War is bad, and that is what war does. I sympythize with the family of each dead in war.. But man, that is war. And if you enter it, you must be ready to sacrifice..)
British officials never say that, because when something like this happens its because of money. This man died because of money, if money had been used to properly equip him its likely he would not have died, a little more money and his gunner would have been better trained and then he wouldn't have got shot at all.
So while I agree with your general principle F***ups like this are totally unacceptable, it amounts to criminal negligance on the part of the MOD and the government.
x-dANGEr
08-04-2006, 17:00
@Wigferth: It is much wider than money. Read: "The news article on TV said that it was a government decision not to gather enough equipment as they did not want to warn the UN, by there actions, that they were gearing up for war."
It doesn't say: "As they didn't want to because of money"
scooter_the_shooter
08-04-2006, 17:41
What caliber was he shot by and what level armour are they talking about?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-04-2006, 19:55
@Wigferth: It is much wider than money. Read: "The news article on TV said that it was a government decision not to gather enough equipment as they did not want to warn the UN, by there actions, that they were gearing up for war."
It doesn't say: "As they didn't want to because of money"
In America such equipment is standard. In Britain it is only provided in pre-deployment. Money.
What caliber was he shot by and what level armour are they talking about?
The gun was on a tank, a:
L94 7.62 mm Machine Gun. Hughes EX34 chain gun
As to Enhanced Combat Body Armour, here's stuff from the first hit on a google search:
According to the National Audit report on OP Telic, the UK's enhanced CBA costs £167.70, total buy for Telic was £2million. The enhanced bit is the 2 pieces of Ceramic plate added to the outer, to give it some protection against 7.62mm or worse, the basic vest is fragments or low velocity only. The plates themselves cover approximately 30% of your chest and back.
and
Enhanced Combat Body Armour provided personnel with significant levels of protection. Initial analysis of data from the operation by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) has indicated that body armour reduced the number of US forces killed in action from torso wounds by at least 50% (possibly up to 90%), and those killed in action overall by over 20% (possibly up to 32%).
Here's my source:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=13852.html
So, if the bullets hit where the ceramic plates would have been, it sounds like he probably would have survived. (Although two bullets in the same spot might have been nasty regardless, I would guess.)
Patriarch of Constantinople
08-04-2006, 23:04
But having armour would definately ave helped, wouldnt it? Should soldiers lives needlesly be endangered by avoiding to equip soldiers with inexpensive armour?
In protection and having armour yes, but was he hit by friendly fire or enemy fire? also, how much cover did he have?
armour does help lessen the ferocity of the wound inflicted by the shot, yet an unarmoured man who had a building for cover certainly wouldve used it and have a better chance of survival right?
scooter_the_shooter
08-05-2006, 00:10
The gun was on a tank, a:
L94 7.62 mm Machine Gun. Hughes EX34 chain gun
As to Enhanced Combat Body Armour, here's stuff from the first hit on a google search:
and
Here's my source:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=13852.html
So, if the bullets hit where the ceramic plates would have been, it sounds like he probably would have survived. (Although two bullets in the same spot might have been nasty regardless, I would guess.)
Keep in mind I am no expert, I just shoot a bunch of guns and soak up all the knowledge I can about them.
It's Kind of hard to tell. 7.62 is pretty much NATO 308 (unless were talking about 7.62x39....but I doubt it, no gun chambered in that round would be on a tank). It's a mean round. On the other hand were talking about the military and they'd use level 3 armor. (Pretty much what you have described). He may or may not have lived. Without the plates I am pretty sure it would go through. (But I have not tested this)
Remember though, I am no expert all what I said is based off what I've read (except the parts about calibers) for 2 reasons.
One I don't want to buy body armor and then shoot it up.
Two, I doubt there is a better way to get big brother watching you then to perform ballistic test on body amour :help:
And body armor is not my field of expertise....at all.:inquisitive:
In protection and having armour yes, but was he hit by friendly fire or enemy fire? also, how much cover did he have?
Friendly fire, from 20m. He would not have been looking to take cover from it - it was his from his own unit. The tank was aiming at the "bad guys", but apparently its machine gun is inaccurate at short range - a fact apparently not communicated to the machinegunner.
Patriarch of Constantinople
08-05-2006, 04:49
Friendly fire, from 20m. He would not have been looking to take cover from it - it was his from his own unit. The tank was aiming at the "bad guys", but apparently its machine gun is inaccurate at short range - a fact apparently not communicated to the machinegunner.
im not an expert on british armour but if a man was shot with a 7.62 × 51 mm NATO bullet at close range with Enhanced Body Armour gave him a chance at living right?
im not an expert on british armour but if a man was shot with a 7.62 × 51 mm NATO bullet at close range with Enhanced Body Armour gave him a chance at living right?
From the source I quoted, it's the ceramic plates that would give him a chance. Must be pretty strong plates.
scooter_the_shooter
08-05-2006, 18:01
Friendly fire, from 20m. He would not have been looking to take cover from it - it was his from his own unit. The tank was aiming at the "bad guys", but apparently its machine gun is inaccurate at short range - a fact apparently not communicated to the machinegunner.
I think the the machine gunner was just an idiot...."inaccurate at short range" doesn't even make sense! If you can't hit the target at 50 yards how will you do it at 500?
Although depending on how far it's sighted in for it could shoot high or low at different ranges. (could be what they meant, god knows the press doesn't get any thing about guns right, I am sick of hearing about "semi automatic machine guns" in the news! )
It Sounds like they are just covering for em':inquisitive: it wouldn't surprise me.
Ja'chyra
08-07-2006, 11:09
I think the the machine gunner was just an idiot...."inaccurate at short range" doesn't even make sense! If you can't hit the target at 50 yards how will you do it at 500?
Although depending on how far it's sighted in for it could shoot high or low at different ranges. (could be what they meant, god knows the press doesn't get any thing about guns right, I am sick of hearing about "semi automatic machine guns" in the news! )
It Sounds like they are just covering for em':inquisitive: it wouldn't surprise me.
The round is 7.62x39mm standard NATO round, the weapon is the L94A1 Chain gun as used on the British Challenger and Warrior and some American helicopters, it is described as innaccurate at short range as it is a suppression weapon meant to keep the enemies head down or put a large amount of rounds on the target in a short time, therefore something has to give. That being said, it's not that innaccurate at all as the British army generally goes for accuracy over speed. The gun is not the main armament but a co-ax mounted machine gun.
As for the body armour, it is highly unlikely that the vest would have stopped a 7.62mm round at such close range, but there should have been more body armour to go round but when the government keeps cutting the funding for the armed forces then what do you expect?
But having armour would definately ave helped, wouldnt it? Should soldiers lives needlesly be endangered by avoiding to equip soldiers with inexpensive armour?
Not being shot in the first place is better than armour. Being in a war where people shot at you puts you in danger of being killed. Do you think all the people who died in all the wars bitched about their armour.
Just think of the charge of the light brigade - "Jolly bad show gents, the king hasn't given us any armour to stop all these blasted cannonballs, terrible pity! tally ho anyway"
I do admit that the people you're fighting for should try and protect you as much as possible, but in all fairness you can't rely on armour aline to save your life in combat.
Don't get Shot - its the best solution.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.