Iraq: Australians reject inferior British body armour

A group of Australian troops were this week sent to Iraq to join the British 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment on an 'exercise'. They were not permitted to take Australian body armour or helmets because they were not being 'deployed'. The families of the Australian troops were concerned - more so because two British troops from the regiment had been killed by an IED a few days before and the British body armour [like the useless British Land Rover] is seen as offering insufficient protection and inferior to Australian armour.

The soldiers were told that if they needed body armour it would be provided by the British, as reported by the Sidney Morning Herald:

[Australian] Defence's attitude has angered and worried the soldiers and their families because British body armour "literally just covers the heart", one relative said, while the Australian version is much larger and gives more protection to other vital organs.

"He arrived in Basra [this week] without Australian body armour. The family is very worried," a relative said. "As far as I am concerned, the army breached its duty of care." Link

db: And the 'duty of care' to the British?