Org Mobile Site
Thread: No armour caused soldier's death
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.
Originally Posted by :
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Cornwall-born Sgt Roberts, 33, was issued ECBA but it was withdrawn on 20 March 2003 - four days before his death - due to shortages.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."
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."
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?
Originally Posted by Shaun:
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?But having armour would definately ave helped, wouldnt it? Should soldiers lives needlesly be endangered by avoiding to equip soldiers with inexpensive armour?
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?
Originally Posted by Hannibal99:
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.In protection and having armour yes, but was he hit by friendly fire or enemy fire? also, how much cover did he have?
Originally Posted by econ21:
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.
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?
Originally Posted by econ21:
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.
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'
it wouldn't surprise me.Originally Posted by Shaun:
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. But having armour would definately ave helped, wouldnt it? Should soldiers lives needlesly be endangered by avoiding to equip soldiers with inexpensive 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.
Originally Posted by Grey_Fox:
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).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.
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.
Originally Posted by econ21:
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.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.
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.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
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.If you insist on sending your troops somewhere, make sure they have good equipment.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO