The BAE Systems Scandal

[peteweaver]

Has anyone heard about the alleged bribery of members of the saudi government by BAE systems to earn lucrative defence contracts ?

The BBC's Panorama programme recently did a very interesting documentary about it.

[peteweaver]

Here are some links about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6728773.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6729903.stm

Earlier this year a government enquiry into the deals was controversially dropped.

[Darat]

My first thoughts are "So what even if they were direct bribes?"

If we are willing to engage in selling arms to such regimes as SA then we have to do deals with the people who control those terrible regimes and guess what? They are not "good" people! Therefore we will have to "bribe" if we want the deals. (I use quotes around bribes because I always associate a bribe with wrong doing and in terms of these regimes the payments made are not considered wrong.)

[T.A.M.]

You know I have to agree. When I see stuff like this, I am reminded of the movie "A Few Good Men".

For all that Jack Nicholsons character was an ass, he did have a few good points in his statement, regarding the double standards people have with respect to what needs to happen to keep people safe on this continent.

Funny how as you get older, your perspective on all this changes.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

I thought the problem is when your government accepts a bribe from someone else's private company, not when one of your private companies offers a bribe to someone else's government.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Fact: bribes happen...all the time.
Fact: first fact will never change.
Fact: while it is wrong, It is the way the world works.

TAM:)

[8den]

Its the scale of the bribes that is scandalous. £1billion pounds, worth of bribes over the years. And a £78 million pound jet, and all expenses paid for it. Unbelievable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles

[8den]

You know I have to agree. When I see stuff like this, I am reminded of the movie "A Few Good Men".

For all that Jack Nicholsons character was an ass, he did have a few good points in his statement, regarding the double standards people have with respect to what needs to happen to keep people safe on this continent.

Funny how as you get older, your perspective on all this changes.

TAM:)

Who was it that said "If you're not a rebel aged 20, you have no heart. If you're not establishment by 30, you have no head."

[T.A.M.]

that is a great expression 8den...

TAM:)

[Matilda]

There is a brief article here mentioning a possible US investigation:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/us+launches+bae+anticorruption+probe/567612

[Big Les]

Who was it that said "If you're not a rebel aged 20, you have no heart. If you're not establishment by 30, you have no head."

Francois Guisot, apparently;

Charles Krauthammer [op-ed, May 25] quotes Winston Churchill as saying, "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no head."

This quotation is frequently but mistakenly attributed to Churchill. It is anyway unlikely that Churchill would subscribe to this philosophy: He was a swashbuckling soldier at 20, and a Conservative member of Parliament at 25. A couple of years later he switched to the Liberal Party (which was not liberal in the modern sense), and later went back to the Conservatives.

The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."
Washington Post letter. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A43103-2001Jun8&notFound=true)

[peteweaver]

I thought the problem is when your government accepts a bribe from someone else's private company, not when one of your private companies offers a bribe to someone else's government.

-Gumboot

The thing with Bae systems is that not only are they Britains largest arms dealer, they are also heavily tax subsidised.

We have a thing called the export credit guarantee department, which protects UK companies (including arms companies) should the foreign buyer default on payment.

The really interesting thing about this, is whether UK taxpayer's footed the bill for a bribe, which earned a company an arms deal.

[jaydeehess]

I thought the problem is when your government accepts a bribe from someone else's private company, not when one of your private companies offers a bribe to someone else's government.

-Gumboot

As peteweaver alludes to, it is a problem when your gov't (or a company that receieves gov't funds) uses its money (your tax dollars) to pay bribes.

If it becomes OK to pay bribes to foreign officials in order to get contracts then it is not all that far removed from paying bribes to your own gov't's officials in order to get contracts. (actually in the later case at least the money remains within the country:D )

[gumboot]

Ah OK, well if BAE are receiving government funds that totally changes things.

-Gumboot

[peteweaver]

According to the Panorama documentary about this, Prince Bandar, recieved bribes, including a personal jet.

And by personal jet, we are not talking lear jets, he recieved his very own personal Airbus A340 worth £75million pounds ($150 million).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/story/0,,2103730,00.html

And this is it:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43034000/jpg/_43034039_bandarplane203_joelvoght.jpg

In march the serious fraud office dropped its investigation into the deals, and gave the following reason: "To continue the investigation was going to cause damage, it was going to cause serious harm with our relations with Saudi Arabia" Possible threats to national security were also mentioned as a reason for dropping the investigation.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6444205.stm

There are also points about this deal, and about ECGD subsidy on the UK parliament website:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070328/text/70328w0022.htm

[uk_dave]

Well, we had to stop the French from getting the contract.

[peteweaver]

The French will sell arms to anyone (or at least it seems that way).

[Whiplash]

Who was it that said "If you're not a rebel aged 20, you have no heart. If you're not establishment by 30, you have no head."


That is suprisingly close to a quote that I often see attributed to Winston Churchill, but from what I've read in other places (including some Wikipedia page about falsely attributed quotes) he never said it. But it was something to the effect of:

"If you are not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart.. If you are not a conservative at age 40, you have no brain".

[Big Les]

That is suprisingly close to a quote that I often see attributed to Winston Churchill, but from what I've read in other places (including some Wikipedia page about falsely attributed quotes) he never said it. But it was something to the effect of:

"If you are not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart.. If you are not a conservative at age 40, you have no brain".

Erm, mate... (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2708894&postcount=11)

[Whiplash]

Woops, I skimmed that post, only saw the end part of it with the proper quote and rushed off to post... My apologies.

[Big Les]

Hey, no problem, I just thought I was losing the plot for a minute there.

Bribes are especially a fact of life in Saudi. When in Rome...

[peteweaver]

Les, they may be a fact of life in saudi, but does the British taxpayer have to foot the bill ?

[Darat]

Its the scale of the bribes that is scandalous. £1billion pounds, worth of bribes over the years. And a £78 million pound jet, and all expenses paid for it. Unbelievable.

...snip...


But put that in context - wasn't the deal apparently worth something like 43 billion? I've paid agents and the like 10 to 20% of a contracts total worth in the past when they secured a deal so whilst the amount is incredible in terms of percentages it doesn't seem to me to be excessive.

The thing with Bae systems is that not only are they Britains largest arms dealer, they are also heavily tax subsidised.

We have a thing called the export credit guarantee department, which protects UK companies (including arms companies) should the foreign buyer default on payment.

The really interesting thing about this, is whether UK taxpayer's footed the bill for a bribe, which earned a company an arms deal.

As peteweaver alludes to, it is a problem when your gov't (or a company that receieves gov't funds) uses its money (your tax dollars) to pay bribes.

If it becomes OK to pay bribes to foreign officials in order to get contracts then it is not all that far removed from paying bribes to your own gov't's officials in order to get contracts. (actually in the later case at least the money remains within the country:D )

Les, they may be a fact of life in saudi, but does the British taxpayer have to foot the bill ?

If we want an arms industry, that can develop our own technology and weapons for our own armed forces, we apparently need to do this type of deal because our own armed forces requirements cannot support such research/development/production.

As far as I know BAE did nothing that was illegal (at the time) in the UK or was illegal in SA (and still isn't).

[8den]

But put that in context - wasn't the deal apparently worth something like 43 billion? I've paid agents and the like 10 to 20% of a contracts total worth in the past when they secured a deal so whilst the amount is incredible in terms of percentages it doesn't seem to me to be excessive.


Well theres the flip side, British Arms industry jobs are subsidies to an absurd degree, I think, (I'll need to check my Pilger) to the tune of £20,000 per person per year. And the deal is worth £20billion ish. The British Arms industry is one of the most heavily subsidies industries in the UK, protected by the export credit guarantee (basically if the evil dictator renages on the deal the British taxpayer will foot the bill for the poor unfortunate arms dealer)






If we want an arms industry, that can develop our own technology and weapons for our own armed forces, we apparently need to do this type of deal because our own armed forces requirements cannot support such research/development/production.

As far as I know BAE did nothing that was illegal (at the time) in the UK or was illegal in SA (and still isn't).

It may not be illegal but it is immoral. Robin Cook while in opposition said of the arms to Iraq program "this is not just a Government which does not know how to accept blame; it is a Government which knows no shame". His ethical foreign policy did not last long in New Labour government, selling hawks to Indonesia. Now we have Brown muttering about renewing trident, on the grounds we don't know what future decades will bring. It will bring decades more of corporation money flowing to coffers for politicians, while hospitals and schools go wanting, and new missiles gather dust in silos.

Could not the billions spent shoring up the arms industry be better spent in health or education? Could the billion thrown at a Saudi Prince, not be better spent. I'm Irish living in the UK, and frankly I resent the hell out of my taxes going to line the pockets of Saudi Prince, and it's another reason I want to move home and out of this stinking corrupt place.

[Darat]

Well theres the flip side, British Arms industry jobs are subsidies to an absurd degree, I think, (I'll need to check my Pilger) to the tune of £20,000 per person per year. And the deal is worth £20billion ish. The British Arms industry is one of the most heavily subsidies industries in the UK, protected by the export credit guarantee (basically if the evil dictator renages on the deal the British taxpayer will foot the bill for the poor unfortunate arms dealer)



I'm quite happy to believe you regarding the amount of subsidy they indirectly get. My posts aren't to defend the arms industry or any indirect subsidies to it but simply to try and put this into some form of context.

And what I see the context being is that for a nation as small as the UK if we want to be able to develop our own military technology (that is effective and competes against the latest from other countries) it has to be subsidised. Now this can be achieved in many ways, one of the ways we seem to have adopted in this country is to make arms deals with many rather unsavoury countries. Therefore we will have to engage in business as it is carried out in those countries - there is no other option if you want to make a deal.




It may not be illegal but it is immoral. Robin Cook while in opposition said of the arms to Iraq program "this is not just a Government which does not know how to accept blame; it is a Government which knows no shame". His ethical foreign policy did not last long in New Labour government, selling hawks to Indonesia. Now we have Brown muttering about renewing trident, on the grounds we don't know what future decades will bring. It will bring decades more of corporation money flowing to coffers for politicians, while hospitals and schools go wanting, and new missiles gather dust in silos.

Could not the billions spent shoring up the arms industry be better spent in health or education? Could the billion thrown at a Saudi Prince, not be better spent. I'm Irish living in the UK, and frankly I resent the hell out of my taxes going to line the pockets of Saudi Prince, and it's another reason I want to move home and out of this stinking corrupt place.

You seem to be against the idea of the UK having a modern and effective armed forces, so is it fair to say that you are against the deal with SA not based on the matter of an alleged "bribe" but from the principle we shouldn't have an arms industry?

[Brian Pears]

I'm Irish living in the UK, and frankly I resent the hell out of my taxes going to line the pockets of Saudi Prince, and it's another reason I want to move home and out of this stinking corrupt place.

So you think that Ireland is free of corruption?

http://www.irishcorruption.com/
http://www.transparency.ie/about_cor/default.htm

[peteweaver]

I'm quite happy to believe you regarding the amount of subsidy they indirectly get. My posts aren't to defend the arms industry or any indirect subsidies to it but simply to try and put this into some form of context.

And what I see the context being is that for a nation as small as the UK if we want to be able to develop our own military technology (that is effective and competes against the latest from other countries) it has to be subsidised. Now this can be achieved in many ways, one of the ways we seem to have adopted in this country is to make arms deals with many rather unsavoury countries. Therefore we will have to engage in business as it is carried out in those countries - there is no other option if you want to make a deal.





You seem to be against the idea of the UK having a modern and effective armed forces, so is it fair to say that you are against the deal with SA not based on the matter of an alleged "bribe" but from the principle we shouldn't have an arms industry?

8den brought up the issue of Hawks to indonesia, and thats a very important point. In 1997, the Labour Government promised an ethical dimension to its foreign policy. There was evidence even in 1994, that the Indonesian government had been using hawk jets in east timor, journalists had even filmed them flying over Dili. After serious questions about the arms deals to Indonesia, and a temporary suspension of trading weapons to Indonesia, the former foreign secretary Robin Cook made a decision to allow parts for Hawk Jets to be sent there.

In 1997 our government promised to be whiter than white.

Part of being whiter than white, is not selling weapons or parts for weapons to dodgy regimes which have appalling human rights records.

And, if the arms industry is so good for the economy, why does it require so many billions in subsidy ?

8den is right, we'd be far better pouring that money into the NHS.

[8den]

So you think that Ireland is free of corruption?

http://www.irishcorruption.com/
http://www.transparency.ie/about_cor/default.htm

Oh good god no! I'm still frankly astonished that the Irish public just elected a Man who claims he didn't have a bank account for two years while he was minister for sodding Finance. Hell the Irish political system is massively corrupt. But [doctor evil]ONE BILLION DOLLARS[/doctor evil] thats just taking the piss.


I'm quite happy to believe you regarding the amount of subsidy they indirectly get. My posts aren't to defend the arms industry or any indirect subsidies to it but simply to try and put this into some form of context.

And what I see the context being is that for a nation as small as the UK if we want to be able to develop our own military technology (that is effective and competes against the latest from other countries) it has to be subsidised. Now this can be achieved in many ways, one of the ways we seem to have adopted in this country is to make arms deals with many rather unsavoury countries. Therefore we will have to engage in business as it is carried out in those countries - there is no other option if you want to make a deal.

Well no I don't believe that Britian needs an arms industry. And it's not independent, hell it's nuclear capacity is entirely dependent on the US. It's frankly the last rattle of jingoistic empire esque attitude. The UK arms industry is Britannia's mid life crisis porsche. It's evident that the UK is faded power with last weeks exposure, that Bush told Blair that he didn't need his help before invading Iraq. The US just admitted that they didn't need to coalition of the willing.

Again I go back to Cook's claim of an "ethical foreign policy", having a ethical foreign policy, and an arms export industry is a oxymoron. It's the hypocracy that sickens me.


You seem to be against the idea of the UK having a modern and effective armed forces, so is it fair to say that you are against the deal with SA not based on the matter of an alleged "bribe" but from the principle we shouldn't have an arms industry?

Does the UK have a modern and effective armed force? Recent reports likened the triage time for UK troops in Afghanistan to that of Vietnam era US troops, up to 7 hours before they got effective medical treatment. UK troops in both theaters have substandard transportation that is not effective protection and lags significantly behind the US. Body armour, is shoddy, and like the US, not readily available. Wounded soldiers fail to recieve effective care and attention when they come home. That last dedicated army hospital has just closed.

If this money was spent, on the promise that it would lead to a "modern and effective" armed force, fine. But it hasn't. It's been squandered providing baubles and trinkets for an already wealthy man.

[Big Les]

What Darat said. The BAe "scandal" is a non-issue in the context of the UK arms industry. If you want to argue that we shouldn't have one (because it's not economic, or because symptoms like this are morally disagreeable to you), that's fine, but it's a different issue, and a different argument.

If we want such an industry, we have to engage in deals like this. Simple as.

[peteweaver]

What Darat said. The BAe "scandal" is a non-issue in the context of the UK arms industry. If you want to argue that we shouldn't have one (because it's not economic, or because symptoms like this are morally disagreeable to you), that's fine, but it's a different issue, and a different argument.

If we want such an industry, we have to engage in deals like this. Simple as.

If the British taxpayer is to subsidise it, then, there needs to be some kind of scruitiny to make sure the money is not abused.

Why should Saudi Princes be given airbusses at the British taxpayer's expense ?

[Darat]

...snip...

8den is right, we'd be far better pouring that money into the NHS.

So would I be right in coming to the conclusion that it isn't the allegation of a bribe that concerns you but the fact we have an arms industry and/or the fact that our arms companies trade with, as I call them, unsavoury regimes?

[Darat]

...snip...

It's evident that the UK is faded power with last weeks exposure, that Bush told Blair that he didn't need his help before invading Iraq. The US just admitted that they didn't need to coalition of the willing.

...snip...

The USA has not needed military support from any country for literally decades. (Not that it hasn't sought it either for convenience, cost or political reasons.)


...snip...

...snip...

Does the UK have a modern and effective armed force?

...snip...

By all accounts yes.

[8den]

The USA has not needed military support from any country for literally decades. (Not that it hasn't sought it either for convenience, cost or political reasons.)


Precisely. The US did not need, and indeed offered Tony Blair a back door to escape the Iraq folly before it started. This government's hubris, and willingness to ignore mass public objection is why it is in Iraq.



By all accounts yes.

By all accounts, I take it by your snip, you mean "by all accounts, provided you ignore all evidence to the contray"

[Darat]

Precisely. The US did not need, and indeed offered Tony Blair a back door to escape the Iraq folly before it started. This government's hubris, and willingness to ignore mass public objection is why it is in Iraq.


Which has what to do with alleged bribes paid to a member of the SA government from the late 1980s onwards?




By all accounts, I take it by your snip, you mean "by all accounts, provided you ignore all evidence to the contray"

No.

[peteweaver]

So would I be right in coming to the conclusion that it isn't the allegation of a bribe that concerns you but the fact we have an arms industry and/or the fact that our arms companies trade with, as I call them, unsavoury regimes?

Thats correct, Its not just bribery no, Its the way the UK arms industry operates and the way its subsidised via the taxpayer that concerns me. Its also the hypocrisy of the government which tries to make itself look better than the last lot, but has done exactly the same thing as those it was condemning just 11 years ago.

The UK government also allowed the British owners of Ashok Leyland to sell military trucks to Sudan, which ended up in the hands of the Janjaweed.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmquad/uc873-i/uc87302.htm

This matter was brought up in the minutes of that discussion by a journalist called Mark Thomas, a matter which is also brought up in his recent book "As used on the famous Nelson Mandela, adventures in the arms and torture trade".

[Darat]

Thats correct, Its not just bribery no, Its the way the UK arms industry operates and the way its subsidised via the taxpayer that concerns me. Its also the hypocrisy of the government which tries to make itself look better than the last lot, but has done exactly the same thing as those it was condemning just 11 years ago.

The UK government also allowed the British owners of Ashok Leyland to sell military trucks to Sudan, which ended up in the hands of the Janjaweed.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmquad/uc873-i/uc87302.htm

This matter was brought up in the minutes of that discussion by a journalist called Mark Thomas, a matter which is also brought up in his recent book "As used on the famous Nelson Mandela, adventures in the arms and torture trade".

Thanks for making that clear, I have a lot of reservations regarding the arms trade myself but not quite to the same extent as you seem to have. :)

[gumboot]

Does the UK have a modern and effective armed force? Recent reports likened the triage time for UK troops in Afghanistan to that of Vietnam era US troops, up to 7 hours before they got effective medical treatment. UK troops in both theaters have substandard transportation that is not effective protection and lags significantly behind the US. Body armour, is shoddy, and like the US, not readily available. Wounded soldiers fail to recieve effective care and attention when they come home. That last dedicated army hospital has just closed.

If this money was spent, on the promise that it would lead to a "modern and effective" armed force, fine. But it hasn't. It's been squandered providing baubles and trinkets for an already wealthy man.



Do you have any evidence whatsoever for these claims? I would rate the British Armed Forces, adjusted for scale, to be superior to the US Armed Forces.

By all considerations, the Challenger 2 is comparable with the Abrams, the Warrior is comparable with the Bradley, and the Saxon is superior to the Humvee in terms of protection. The British also have the FV430 series (armoured/tracked), the Pinzgauer (6 or 4 wheeled light skin), and Landrovers.

In terms of air transport, the RAF operates the C-130 which is also the USAF's primary tactical airlift platform, and the C-17 which is also used by the USAF for strategic airlift.

The dusty environment of Afghanistan and Iraq makes helicopters especially vulnerable to brown out - which is the primary cause of aircraft losses. All helicopters are vulnerable to this. You'd have to provide some evidence that the Puma and Merlin are more vulnerable to enemy fire than the Blackhawk, Sea King, and Sea Stallion. Both forces use the Chinook.

Most importantly of all, the British military are much more prepared for urban insurgency warfare, having the benefit of decades of conflict in Northern Ireland to draw on. There's a reason the occupation of Basra went so much more smoothly than the urban centers occupied by Americans.

-Gumboot

[8den]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever for these claims? I would rate the British Armed Forces, adjusted for scale, to be superior to the US Armed Forces.

By all considerations, the Challenger 2 is comparable with the Abrams, the Warrior is comparable with the Bradley, and the Saxon is superior to the Humvee in terms of protection. The British also have the FV430 series (armoured/tracked), the Pinzgauer (6 or 4 wheeled light skin), and Landrovers.

The problem is the standard patrol vechile is the landrover. While the US use the hummer, which is much better protected. The landrover is not armoured, and its not effective. The Challenger as I understand it, was recently exposed to being vunerable to IEDs possibily because insurgents planned to target Prince Harry was being sent to Iraq to operate from one.



In terms of air transport, the RAF operates the C-130 which is also the USAF's primary tactical airlift platform, and the C-17 which is also used by the USAF for strategic airlift.

The dusty environment of Afghanistan and Iraq makes helicopters especially vulnerable to brown out - which is the primary cause of aircraft losses. All helicopters are vulnerable to this. You'd have to provide some evidence that the Puma and Merlin are more vulnerable to enemy fire than the Blackhawk, Sea King, and Sea Stallion. Both forces use the Chinook.

Again not something I argued.


Most importantly of all, the British military are much more prepared for urban insurgency warfare, having the benefit of decades of conflict in Northern Ireland to draw on. There's a reason the occupation of Basra went so much more smoothly than the urban centers occupied by Americans.

-Gumboot

Went, past tense. Okay I'm not a military boffin, but I am Irish and spent a fairly substantial part of childhood in NI in the 80s. I'm no military expert but I do talk to journalists who have been in Iraq over the course of the conflict, and the situation in Iraq is infinitely worse.

As an Irishman, it's difficult to say this, but by the 80s the British army had done an effective job.

Take for example the modification to a range rover

http://irelandsown.net/RUCLandRover.jpg

Its RUC but I can remember watching as one drove down the street, back roof open and two soldiers covering either side of the street.

It's design (this is an old one) means its effective aganist rioting, and it's got a grid at the front, that can come down to protect aganist projectiles, gratting and leather mudflaps surrond the vechile, so debry cannot get at it)

The British army adopted it's NI tactics, (foot patrol, no helmets etc) and once things got bad, went back to business as usual. The total death toil from the "troubles" was 3,000. Thats a month in Iraq, the British army quickly dropped its "Its like Belfast but hotter" policy, when the conflict escalted. Speaking to colleague recently back from Basra the other day, was the report that British troops are confined to one base, and only patrol in heavily armed convoys, transportation in and out, is done by helicopter late at night.

I don't think I can match you on military know how, and I don't doubt the British army are an effective fighting force. But whether the are as good as the should be, or as well served by the powers that be. For example how can a billion pounds be found to line the pockets of a prince, but theres none to keep open the last military hospitial in the UK. I said this before, not to mention the appalling triage time for wounded troops. Both armies are struggling to provide body for their troops which is shocking considering the military budgets of the US and UK armies.


Darat I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, I suspect you're older and more cynical than me, hell, back in my twenties I'd have raged aganist this with firebrand fury, now it's just depressingly business as usual.

[peteweaver]

This story has just become more interesting. Last night the US Department of Justice Issued BaE systems with a Subpoena about their dealings.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKWLA064220070626

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6239918.stm

Bae systems would not be allowed to divulge any information without the consent of the MoD, and the British government, according to a news programme on BBC radio 2.

This could prove embarrassing for President Bush, as the saudi royal family will be putting pressure on him to get the DoJ to drop their investigation.

[Spins]

The Challenger as I understand it, was recently exposed to being vunerable to IEDs possibily because insurgents planned to target Prince Harry was being sent to Iraq to operate from one.
There isn't a main battle tank in the world that is totally invulnerable to IEDs, several M1s have been disabled by such devices in Iraq and crewmen have been lethally wounded in such attacks. A big enough bomb will defeat any armour and any vehicle unfortunately.

Having said that the survivability of both the M1 and Challenger 2 in standard enemy engagements is excellent, one Challenger 2 apparently survived being hit by 70 RPG's near Basra.

In my opinion, along with the Leopard 2, they are easily the best main battle tanks in the world.

Prince Harry was to have four FV107 Scimitar's, not Challenger 2's, under his command as cornet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornet_%28military_rank%29), I think you are making a connection there that doesn't exist. ;)

[Big Les]

I see the persistence with Landies as being a reflection of the differing approach of UK and US forces - they keep up-armouring their once fairly fast and acceptably maneovrable Humvees to the point where they are pisspoor armoured fighting vehicles rather than utility vehicles. Our army keep the Landies relatively light and fast because it suits their style, avoids extra expense, and because the more capable of the IEDs will blow through any amount of "up-armouring". As Gumboot said, even tanks can be quite readily disabled by those.

[gumboot]

The problem is the standard patrol vechile is the landrover. While the US use the hummer, which is much better protected. The landrover is not armoured, and its not effective.


Have you talked to any US soldiers from Iraq? The humvees - even with their extra armour - offer useless protection. Light patrol vehicles aren't designed to offer protection.




The Challenger as I understand it, was recently exposed to being vunerable to IEDs possibily because insurgents planned to target Prince Harry was being sent to Iraq to operate from one.


Everything is vulnerable to IEDs. The Iraqis are daisy chaining sometimes in excess of 100 155mm artillery shells together to form an IED. There's IEDs that will flip an AAV on it's roof - that's a 22 tonne armoured vehicle.

The Challenger 2 has a pretty good record in Basra. On one incident a tank took eight RPG rounds at close range and a MILAN anti-tank rocket, as well as hours of continuous heavy small arms fire. The tank withdrew, received minor repairs, and was back in combat six hours later.

Another tank reportedly survived 70 RPG hits without taking serious damage.

As far as I know there's only three instances of a Challenger 2 suffering serious damage:

One friendly fire incident in which a Challenger 2 shot at and destroyed another Challenger 2.

And:

August 2006 - the driver of a Challenger, Trooper Sean Chance, lost three of his toes when an RPG-29 penetrated the frontal armour during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq.

April 6, 2007 - in Basra, Iraq, an IED shaped charge penetrated the underside of the tank, resulting in the driver losing a leg and causing minor injuries to another soldier.




Again not something I argued.


Well you said they had inferior transport. You didn't specify what type of transport so I covered all bases. :)




Went, past tense. Okay I'm not a military boffin, but I am Irish and spent a fairly substantial part of childhood in NI in the 80s. I'm no military expert but I do talk to journalists who have been in Iraq over the course of the conflict, and the situation in Iraq is infinitely worse.


True. But the situation in Basra is infinitely better than the situation in Baghdad or Mosul. One of the reasons is the British are more experienced in this type of warfare.




As an Irishman, it's difficult to say this, but by the 80s the British army had done an effective job.

Take for example the modification to a range rover

http://irelandsown.net/RUCLandRover.jpg

Its RUC but I can remember watching as one drove down the street, back roof open and two soldiers covering either side of the street.

It's design (this is an old one) means its effective aganist rioting, and it's got a grid at the front, that can come down to protect aganist projectiles, gratting and leather mudflaps surrond the vechile, so debry cannot get at it)

The British army adopted it's NI tactics, (foot patrol, no helmets etc) and once things got bad, went back to business as usual. The total death toil from the "troubles" was 3,000. Thats a month in Iraq, the British army quickly dropped its "Its like Belfast but hotter" policy, when the conflict escalted. Speaking to colleague recently back from Basra the other day, was the report that British troops are confined to one base, and only patrol in heavily armed convoys, transportation in and out, is done by helicopter late at night.


I have no doubt the situation in Basra is far worse than what they dealt with in Northern Ireland, but it's the same urban insurgency warfare. The key to success in that sort of warfare is how you treat the locals. The British seem to have a much better grasp on it than the Americans. Of course it could just be the British are a nicer bunch. ;)





I don't think I can match you on military know how, and I don't doubt the British army are an effective fighting force. But whether the are as good as the should be, or as well served by the powers that be. For example how can a billion pounds be found to line the pockets of a prince, but theres none to keep open the last military hospitial in the UK. I said this before, not to mention the appalling triage time for wounded troops. Both armies are struggling to provide body for their troops which is shocking considering the military budgets of the US and UK armies.


I think it's pretty much a given that no western military is as good as they should be, and that no western military is as well served by the powers that be as it should be.

We westerners are thoroughly anti-war. Maintaining an army is a necessary evil, and we reluctantly pay for as little as we have to. Furthermore politicians and the public are all too willing to use the military as a political tool.

Warfare is expensive - hideously so. The military could comfortably consume 100% of GDP without blinking. Even the USA - with its multi billion dollar military - is constantly struggling to afford the necessities.

-Gumboot

[8den]

Have you talked to any US soldiers from Iraq? The humvees - even with their extra armour - offer useless protection. Light patrol vehicles aren't designed to offer protection.


No just journalists back from Iraq having been imbedded in UK army bases. Its horrendous, no transport by day, only 3am helicopter jaunts, it means brutally long shifts to report live during the day, to rude middle of the nights awakings to hitch a ride with a helicopter. And the lattes! God the horror (just kidding I imagine the stress and strain of serving military members is infintely worse than some reporter embeded for a month)




Well you said they had inferior transport. You didn't specify what type of transport so I covered all bases. :)


Well yes you did mate and covered all the bases, as you do. Look hand on heart we both know a determinded creative enemy can pierce any armour. But a hummer afford some protection from a sniper trying his luck, a landrover does not. It's about reducing risks and the landrover doesn't do it.




True. But the situation in Basra is infinitely better than the situation in Baghdad or Mosul. One of the reasons is the British are more experienced in this type of warfare.


The situation in Basra is, in my opinion better because of a variety of reasons. Essentially to this is the British determination to keep infrastructure working, something they rarly had to worry about in NI because the IRA's infrastructure attacks focused on the UK mainland, because they didn't want to alienate their base. I think the UK have been much more willing to adapt, partially because, unlike the uk, their army has been fighting an urban insurgency for 30 years (and thankfully over ten years of peace) and have had to adapt quickly, making horrendous mistakes (bloody sunday) and effective policing (theres a humourous story involving my dad, forgeting to dim his headlights at a checkpoint and 8 screaming paras that wasn't funny, more downright terrifying when I was 9). But in the end of the day, the UK have been forced to adapt US policies in Iraq.





I have no doubt the situation in Basra is far worse than what they dealt with in Northern Ireland, but it's the same urban insurgency warfare. The key to success in that sort of warfare is how you treat the locals. The British seem to have a much better grasp on it than the Americans. Of course it could just be the British are a nicer bunch. ;)



Mixed feelings on that one. Again, I can remember the polite smiling lads petting my dog through the window as a child, at the heavily armed checkpoints. I can also remember the brutality friends living under the army felt. Racial and sexual slurs from British soldiers. And the repeated reminders. Neil Kinock when as labour leader had christmas dinner with a group of soldiers who had recently shot and killed a kid for joyrider, and a banner glorifying this was on display in the background.






Warfare is expensive - hideously so. The military could comfortably consume 100% of GDP without blinking. Even the USA - with its multi billion dollar military - is constantly struggling to afford the necessities.

-Gumboot

And profoundly wasteful and prone to corruption as this episode proves.

[gumboot]

No just journalists back from Iraq having been imbedded in UK army bases. Its horrendous, no transport by day, only 3am helicopter jaunts, it means brutally long shifts to report live during the day, to rude middle of the nights awakings to hitch a ride with a helicopter. And the lattes! God the horror (just kidding I imagine the stress and strain of serving military members is infintely worse than some reporter embeded for a month)


Heh... well, I struggle to ever say anything nice about journalists. :p And the more politically charged the subject, the less reliable anything they say is.




Well yes you did mate and covered all the bases, as you do. Look hand on heart we both know a determinded creative enemy can pierce any armour. But a hummer afford some protection from a sniper trying his luck, a landrover does not. It's about reducing risks and the landrover doesn't do it.


Heh. You should read a book called "Kill Generation". It's written by a writer for Rolling Stone magazine who was embedded with the 1st Recon Marines during the invasion of Iraq. While the enormous armoured columns headed into the desert, this force rode right up the most densly populated part of the country with the sole purpose of stirring up a hornet's nest and drawing the Iraqi forces away from the main attack. The platoon had only humvees, and most of them didn't even have a roof, let alone armour. None of them were killed. War's a funny thing.




The situation in Basra is, in my opinion better because of a variety of reasons.


You (obviously) have a far better grasp of the "troubles" than I do, and my comparison is certainly of very limited value. But in the military any experience is helpful. The British army have been trying to occupy territory in the face of an unhappy populace for longer than the USA has existed. Heck - that's exactly how the USA was formed. The USA, by contrast, hasn't. Even in Vietnam, the US never really made it to the "occupation" stage. Where they found themselves occupying nations, it was normally after they had bombed the bajeesus out of the population first.

All of that British experience might not be directly 100% parallel to what they have to deal with in Iraq, but it certainly helps. :)




And profoundly wasteful and prone to corruption as this episode proves.


Well, I was thinking more the armed forces itself, rather than private companies in the arms industry. I certainly think wastefulness and corruption are problematic features of the arms industry, but less so features of the armed forces.

-Gumboot

[8den]

Heh... well, I struggle to ever say anything nice about journalists. :p And the more politically charged the subject, the less reliable anything they say is.

Please don't even get me started.



Heh. You should read a book called "Kill Generation". It's written by a writer for Rolling Stone magazine who was embedded with the 1st Recon Marines during the invasion of Iraq. While the enormous armoured columns headed into the desert, this force rode right up the most densly populated part of the country with the sole purpose of stirring up a hornet's nest and drawing the Iraqi forces away from the main attack. The platoon had only humvees, and most of them didn't even have a roof, let alone armour. None of them were killed. War's a funny thing.


Okay thats on my amazon list. Theres also the highly entertaining "War reporting for cowards" written by the UK times' correspondent, who really didn't want to be there, and got stuck with the forward recon unit for a marine artillery battery, who's commander boasted "pound for pound we are the most effective killing machine in the theatre of war.



You (obviously) have a far better grasp of the "troubles" than I do, and my comparison is certainly of very limited value.


Thankfully my grasp is second hand on the most part. Although some family have been seriously injuried in bombings. My dad, before he was born, decided that he would not bring up his children in that environment, after watching a child being brought out in a belfast bar, to sing IRA athemns, classic indocturination of the young. He's seen his fair share of the crap, he was in Derry for bloody sunday (not involved) and during the UWC strike he was hold up with a B special (paramilitary police force, with strong ties to the Unionists), and he's a catholic!


But in the military any experience is helpful. The British army have been trying to occupy territory in the face of an unhappy populace for longer than the USA has existed. Heck - that's exactly how the USA was formed. The USA, by contrast, hasn't. Even in Vietnam, the US never really made it to the "occupation" stage. Where they found themselves occupying nations, it was normally after they had bombed the bajeesus out of the population first.


From my understanding, ironically, the UK forces have been forced to adapt to US tactics, out of necessity, because the insurgency in Iraq are far more brutal and extreme than the IRA ever where. For all their henious and brutality, the IRA never engaged in sucide bombings, and attacks on religious or social gatherings backfired dramatically, both sides quickly saw there was no merit in them, as they appalled the public. Michael Stone, the amialbe sociopath who attacked stormont last year, in the 80s attacked the funeral of an IRA hunger striker with grenades and shooting, at the funeral of one of his victims, two british soldiers drove into the crowd in an unmarked car, and were beaten and dragged to a lot, and shot. The five men convicted of their death, had the convictions overturned as unsafe. The sicking cycle of violence is almost unending

But in the end of the day, the total death toil over thirty years is a ,surprisingly, under 3,500. That includes civilians, army, and police, north and south, victims of the army and police, victims of terrorism, by both unionists and catholics.

3,500 is just a bad month in Iraq, I'm sorry to say. It's why I cannot equate the British experience in NI to Iraq.






Well, I was thinking more the armed forces itself, rather than private companies in the arms industry. I certainly think wastefulness and corruption are problematic features of the arms industry, but less so features of the armed forces.

-Gumboot

Coming from one of those "oppressed nations" I guess I have a odd feeling about the British Army, and it's reason for existance.

[gumboot]

From my understanding, ironically, the UK forces have been forced to adapt to US tactics, out of necessity, because the insurgency in Iraq are far more brutal and extreme than the IRA ever where.



Actually I'm not sure of that. The US forces made crucial mistakes in the invasion and first weeks of the occupation. Without the British expertise, they quite simply totally screwed up the crucial first weeks of the occupation. Those first weeks are when the major part of the population decide if they like you or not.

By the time the US had learned how to occupy a hostile country, it was too late, and everything was falling apart.

The Lieutenant commanding the platoon featured in Kill Generation has also written a book One Bullet Away, and within days of arriving in Baghdad and beginning the occupation - when Iraqis were still greeting them with smiles and flags - he had already predicted the outcome perfectly, based not on what the civilians were doing, but what the Americans were doing.

An excellent example:

Prior to the invasion, the Iraqi government issued literally millions of firearms to civilians. When the Americans occupied they immediately called for these weapons to be handed in. Those friendly to the coalition did so. Those with nasty intentions refused, instantly giving them an advantage over their fellow citizens. What ensued was uncontrollable looting, murders, and so forth - against the pro-coalition Iraqis. The Americans couldn't protect them because the war strategy didn't allow for it, and the demands from Washington prevented it. It doesn't take long for a citizenry to turn against their protectors if those protectors simultaneously take away the citizenry's own ability to defend itself, and also fail to offer protection.

Lt Fick recounts how in the first weeks in Baghdad, they would move into a neighbourhood, remain there just long enough to establish a relationship with the locals, and then they'd be moved some place new. And this continued over and over. Every few days they moved.

Command wouldn't let them go out on patrols when there was chaos in the streets. Quite aside from the fact that they are required under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions to provide security to the civilian population, it was a totally flawed move because it doomed them to failure. When they did go out, it'd be for a specific objective or mission, which might include popping into several villages to say hello before moving on. But there was no flexability.

At one village, the soldiers were told by the civilians that there was unexploded ordnance in someone's backyard. Against orders, Fick stayed at the village and disposed of it. The entire village gathered to watch, and instantly they saw Fick's platoon as a bunch of heroes. He was told off for doing it, and within days they had been moved again, so the villagers had a new American unit to deal with.

Having read some detailed accounts now, having seen the media reports, having a bit of a grasp of warfare, I am now convinced, had the US government given the military commanders the number of troops they requested, and had the military focused in those first crucial weeks on establishing law and order and embedding military units into neighbourhoods, Iraq would be a peaceful stable nation today.

That, of course, is what the British did in Basra. And it worked well. But it cannot be maintained unless it's happening all over the country. The failure of US forces in Baghdad and elsewhere undermined the success of the British troops in Basra. And the rest, as they say, is history.

-Gumboot