19 October 2012
What a stupid ruling (in this particular case). Stevies tank had recognition panels on it! The tank was in a turret down, periscope up, observation postion when it was engaged. The 2RTR tank thought it was engaging a bunker position, the 2RTR tank failed to observe a major rule, in that it fired across an inter unit boundary without clearly identifying the target.
As for the Snatch, agreed it was not suitable for the role in Iraq, however it was also better than a soft skinned Land Rover until the new Protected Patrol Vehicles were introduced.
Does this ruling mean that any serviceman or his family killed or wounded can sue the MoD because somehow their equipment failed, I we going to see the relatives of people who died on the Hood sue. . . . this is laughable and is taking valuable defence funds away from urgently needed equipment.
There have been a number of cases where British Forces have deployed with inadequate equipment and yes the MoD has a duty of care to try and provide the best equipment possible, however the CR-2 is one of the best protected tanks in the World, Snatch (though not suitable for the role in Iraq) was the best short term answer at that point in time, until better protected vehicles could be purchased.
Rob - Telford
22 October 2012
This ruling has very serious implications for any expeditionary force the UK could possibly think of deploying. In the current situation RN & RFA do not have sufficient vessels to support an amphib operation and will use STUFT (Ships Taken Up From Trade) as we did in Falklands and Gulf 1. In Gulf 1 we were fortunate not to suffer casualties like we did in Falklands when Atlantic Conveyor was hit and subsequently sank.
With this ruling, MoD will be liable for all personnel and equipment on STUFT vessels being capable of operating in a war zone with adequate levels of protection against all credible threats. This will mean any STUFT vessel having to be massively modified prior to deployment to ensure it complies with its 'Duty of Care'.
There goes any rapid response....
Looking on the flip side, it might be time to start rebuilding the UK merchant and RFA fleets :)
AW Employee - Yeovil
23 October 2012
I think your comments are quite insensitive to the families of the deceased. The ruling is nothing short to the protection afforded to people in any other workplace. Are you saying that soldiers, sailors should expect less?
You cannot account for losses sustained in battle, but you can account for negligence and the inability to mitigate/manage risk. For example there were a number of incidents in the first Gulf war of friendly fire. Ten years later you think the MOD could have invested in something like Blue Force Tracking for the CR-2 and other vehicles.
Gary - Newport