Britain's unprotected troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

Whilst Canada and the US invest in RG31's to protect their troops from IED's, the UK sends Brits out on patrol in 'SNATCH' Land Rovers.

In the House of Lords, Lord Astor of Hever recently pointed out to Defence procurement minister - Dodgy 'Lord' Drayson [he was given a peerage by Labour and within weeks bunged then half a million quid] - that the Land Rover 'SNATCH' vehicle was not fit for purpose and asked for an assurance from the ignoble 'Lord' that it is the intention of the government to provide equipment that is. He went on to ask "What assessment have the Government made of the RG-31 which, with its V-shaped undercarriage, has a greater resilience to IEDs and which the Americans have bought in large numbers just for this role?" Drayson [left pic], in a feeble and wholly inadequate reply, stated that the SNATCH was indeed suited to 'our' requirements [I trust he will be riding in one sometime soon, hopefully in Iraq, without company] and that "We had 14 RG-31s in Bosnia, which we took out of service some time ago due to difficulties with maintenance. We have looked at the RG-31 alongside a number of alternatives for our current fleet and concluded that the size and profile did not meet our needs. Size is important in the urban environment. The RG-31 cannot access areas that Snatch Land Rovers can get to."

Unlike most news organisations that are waiting for a few more deaths to accumulate in both Iraq and Afghanistan before dragging themselves away from more pressing matters such as 'two jags' last shag or Charles Craig's crack binge, the Daily Telegraph has not completely ignored this story - and lays the blame at the door of Blair, who bends over backwards to please Bush by over committing British armed forces but shys from stumping up the cash to protect them from unnecessary risk:

One reason British troops continue to be killed and injured in southern Iraq is that they are expected to patrol in lightly-armoured Land Rovers which give them no protection against roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. Meanwhile, their American counterparts walk away unscathed, even when their RG31 armoured patrol vehicles are hit by the same explosives. Yet the Ministry of Defence has not equipped the British Army with the RG31, even though it is built by a British-owned company.

This is a small but chilling example of the shambles the MoD is making of Britain's defences, thanks not least to the way Tony Blair is trying to pursue two contradictory policies at the same time. This has not been properly appreciated because media coverage of defence has become so scrappy. Read more

There the RG31 pops up again. Does the writer not know that we had some in Bosnia, where we had 'maintenance issues'. Does he not know that they are bigger than the SNATCH? Neither of these drawbacks stopped the Canadians from investing heavily in the solution. The way they saw things was rather different to Drayson, the government and the British military establishment. They insisted that protecting their troops came first. Simple. What is more they were prepared to openly debate the route to take for replacement of the 'G Wagon' - which is what they were using in Afghanistan previously AND they implemented the solution without wasting time. From CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review:

Identifying the Requirement for Armoured Patrol Vehicles for OP Archer:
In a landmine-riddled country like Afghanistan, the need for mine-resistant patrol vehicles was obvious. But the Taliban insurgents were also applying the leasons of Iraq to Kanadahar. Suicide bombers and roadside or vehicle- borne IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) were becoming the norm in S.E. Afghanistan. A CF APV would need to be hardened against mines and IEDs ... By listing the APV as an Immediate Operational Requirement, the CDS was able to expedite this entire program. Delivery of these Off-the-Shelf vehicles is timed to match the CF's 2006 combat deployment to Kanadahar. A $60M contract was awarded to GDLS Canada "to provide 50 RG-31...with an option for 25 more" in November 2005 with deliveries to begin in February 2006.

The option to procure 25 additional vehicles was exercised May 31st, 2006, at a cost of US$28 million.

Certainly there will be situations where vehicles such as the SNATCH will have an advantage over a replacement like the RG31 - as the Canadians acknowledge - however those advantages did not outweigh the overwhelming priority given to troop protection. Also, by purchasing the RG31's they were under no obligation to off-load all the 'G-Wagons'- but what they are able to do is deploy the right vehicle for the job.

Canada spent in access of $200M on Equipment for its deployment to Afghanistan. They have clearly placed a premium on preserving the lives of troops. It would be interesting to know exactlyy how much Blair set aside. My guess is very little. Certainly if the British approach to [not] replacing the useless SNATCH vehicle is anything to go by.

IF YOU HAVE IST HAND EXPERIENCE OF THE SNATCH GET IN TOUCH - IN CONFIDENCE - EMAIL ADDRESS IN SIDEBAR

And, just in case you were wondering our view is NO to both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that's an issue we have with the immoral War Pimps - not the guys who die unnecessarily to fight them.

Previously at db:
Dodgy Minister defends useless 'Snatch' vehicles
IED exploded under this [non-snatch] vehicle

Sources:
'Professional Grade: A working paper on fatalities in military vehicles in Iraq' [June 2006 pdf] - Focuses on performance of US vehicles in Iraq - includes info on RG31
Defense Update: RG-31 Nyala Mine Protected Vehicle
CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review
Defense Industry Daily: Canada Purchases $200M in Equipment for Operation ARCHER in Afghanistan
BAE Systems RG-31 Mine Protected Vehicle [inc. PDF Brochure]