Quote: DaButt @ January 8 2010, 8:33 PM GMTThe UK troops I've seen on the documentaries in Afghanistan and Iraq seemed top-notch and highly motivated, but slightly undernourished and under-supplied.
That's just our 'lean, mean, fighting machine' look.
Plus the British government has never quite moved away from the idea that rationing and shite food are character building. 
Quote: sootyj @ January 11 2010, 7:17 PM GMTThat scrote who poured bleach over a woman for shushing him in a cinema has been locked up for 12 months.
What the hell is wrong with this country? He got a quarter of the sentence that guy got for beating a burglar with a cricket bat.
Why can't the courts get it that violent unprovoked criminals should be locked up, until they are no longer a threat?
*big sigh of depression* Yep. 
Quote: DaButt @ January 14 2010, 10:05 PM GMTIt's not like they looked like Auschwitz victims, just a little too skinny.
I was thinking more "under-supplied". On the nourishment point though, I've seen a wide variety of physiques in the various reports I've seen.
Quote: Aaron @ January 14 2010, 10:40 PM GMT*big sigh of depression* Yep.
Agrees. The sentencing laws make no sense at all. Or if that's not legally true, the ways they're applied is ofttimes a nonsense.
Quote: Rob H @ January 14 2010, 10:26 PM GMTPlus the British government has never quite moved away from the idea that rationing and shite food are character building.
MOD*
If only they'd use the saved cash to purchase equipment that belongs this side of 1950.
And read about yet another guy accused of fiddling his taxes who got 3 years. Ok he should be punished but make him do taxes for charities for 10 years or wipe old peoples bums or dig holes for 10 years. Something useful, he's not going to run off or stab some one.
Our government is so rigidly fixed on locking up none violent offenders and giving violent scrotes endless second chances. I know 10 years in prison won't stop that bleach tossing wank stain commiting more crime. But at least it gives society a well earned break from him.
Quote: Aaron @ January 14 2010, 10:43 PM GMTMOD*
If only they'd use the saved cash to purchase equipment that belongs this side of 1950.
What, like this week's story about mothballed Chinooks being released after 8 years because of wrong software? Surely not!! 
And you're right, it is the MOD. But after 13 years the government should have the people in place they want to lead the army into the conflicts they have mistakenly taken the armed forces into.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-Dinosaurs-Blundering-Military/dp/0099484420/comedyguide-21/
A little dated but a top book on the subject.
British Army had a rifle that didn't work in something like 2 wars. And now is spending £70,000 a pop on Javelin missiles because the MOD can't buy a basic bazooka.
Quote: sootyj @ January 14 2010, 10:50 PM GMTAnd now is spending £70,000 a pop on Javelin missiles because the MOD can't buy a basic bazooka.
They haven't made bazookas in many decades. Javelins are awesome -- way more awesome than the lame RPGs our enemies carry.
Yes but it's rather heavy and expensive when all you need is a basic demolition rocket. Mud huts neither need a state of the art milimetric guidance system to track them, nor a top down warhead.
The British Army is need of funds but is spending £70,000 rather than £1,000 per shot.
Quote: sootyj @ January 15 2010, 7:02 AM GMTYes but it's rather heavy and expensive when all you need is a basic demolition rocket. Mud huts neither need a state of the art milimetric guidance system to track them, nor a top down warhead.
I can't think of any other weapon that would be able to take out a "mud hut" with a single shot. The "mud huts" in Afghanistan are surprisingly strong and resistant to anything but heavy weapons and a hand-launched missile is cheaper than the cost of flying the jets required for a bombing run or a helicopter to make a missile attack of its own.
Picture this:
Infantry squad find themselves under fire from a fortified "mud hut" and for some reason artillery and air support are unavailable. Do they risk life and limb (both cost the government FAR more than a Javelin) or do they pop off an expensive missile, destroy the threat and live to fight another day?
Sophisticated weaponry isn't cheap, but then neither are our troops' lives.
Yup but your chaps use the at-84 rocket for that job not a Javelin or the SMAW both of which are smaller, lighter and cheaper.
The Javelin gives troops exhaustion carrying it,
Quote: sootyj @ January 15 2010, 3:33 PM GMTYup but your chaps use the at-84 rocket for that job not a Javelin or the SMAW both of which are smaller, lighter and cheaper.
We use plenty of Javelins. too. They're expensive, but they have a range about 5 times greater than the SMAW and AT4, not to mention having a much more powerful warhead. Sometimes you can't get close enough to the target to use a smaller weapon.
Quote: DaButt @ January 15 2010, 5:05 PM GMTWe use plenty of Javelins. too. They're expensive, but they have a range about 5 times greater than the SMAW and AT4, not to mention having a much more powerful warhead. Sometimes you can't get close enough to the target to use a smaller weapon.
Well you can get closer but they can also shoot at you.
I'm with DaButt Javelins rock.
I'm fed up hearing that Prince William can fly a helicopter.
Ok, I'm a bit behind the times, but what do we reckon to Russell Brand / Katie Perry?