Chris Gray inquest raises concerns over body armour

Private Chris Gray from 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment was killed , aged 19, fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan on April 13th 2007.
At his inquest his mother, Helen, has raised concerns about the protection that body armour offers troops. Although Chris was wearing tabbard-style armour at the time, a sniper's bullet passed through his side where there were no armour plates. Whilst recognising that body armour is heavy for the lads to wear, Helen Gray thought that better armour would have saved her son and that other soldiers' lives could be lost if body armour is not improved.

The MoD expert informed the inquest that plates at the side would make body armour too cumbersome and restrict soldiers' movement. He said research was under way to improve body armour.

The inquest heard that Pte Gray was leading his platoon - in point position - when it stumbled across Taliban fighters in the dense foliage of an orchard. Captain Ian Robinson, of the Royal Anglian Regiment said: "Chris died in close combat with the enemy, protecting his friends quite heroically…..He showed we can, in this country, still produce young men of quality."

Private Gray was posthumously awarded the Command of British Force Afghanistan Commendation for bravery.

Another concern raised by Chris's inquest: why has it taken almost two years for the inquest itself to take place?

BBC: Mother questions soldier's armour The Mirror: Young hero soldier died helping comrades in AfghanistanThe Sun: Teen hero killed in first battle

AFF: Retention issues from the family’s perspective

Just as the House of Commons Defence Committee is conducting its own review and consultation on Armed Forces recruitment and retention, the Army Families Federation has just carried out its own survey Retention Issues from the Family’s Perspective.

Although 50% of respondents to the AFF survey found that Army life was better that expected, 46% said they would be happier if their spouse was not in the Army. Asked to rate which aspects influenced their decision, the responses were

• 31% relationship with spouse
• 26% children's education
• 20% housing
• 19% your career/employment
• 4% your education

Respondents also commented that increasing deployment frequency and length would be a deciding factor as well. Presumably the Defence Committee will be taking on board the findings of the AFF survey.

Link> AFF: Retention Issues from the Family’s Perspective
Link> Defence Committee web forum on recruitment and retention

Low recruitment threatens the Forces' ability to sustain international commitments

Following hot on the announcements that troop levels in Iraq will now be remaining at 4,000 and also that the UK is about to deploy a further battalion of 600 troops on a peace-keeping mission to Kosovo, the Observer today reports that the British army's frontline fighting capability has been severely weakened by an acute manpower shortage that has left military commanders short of two infantry battalions. It quotes an MoD document which admits that the British infantry is 1,280 men under strength ahead of this year's spring offensive in Afghanistan and that every battalion out there is 100 men short of its full complement.
The revelations were made in a document submitted to the House of Commons Defence Committee's inquiry into Recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. The MoD admits that there are 70 'pinch points' of critical skill shortage - 31 in the RAF, 30 in the Army and 9 in the RN - and these are having a 'detrimental impact' on the ability of the Armed Forces to conduct two major conflicts. Shortages of aircraft gunners, intelligence analysts, mechanical engineers and medical personnel were highlighted.
Despite having spent a record £95million in recruitment over the last year (an increase of almost 50% on 5 years ago), the services are still failing to attract the recruits they need. The only factor from the report that the Guardian chose to mention is obesity: 'Increasing levels of obesity and resultant health problems among young people reduce the number eligible to join.' All the bad publicity about poor living conditions, inadequate compensation payouts, low pay and the Government's general failure in its duty of care can't be helping recruitment either. The Defence Committee's report on the subject will make interesting reading.

Link> The Guardian: Army weakened by recruitment failure
Link> The Guardian: New mission for British troops in Kosovo
Link> AV: Defence Committee web forum on recruitment and retention

Defence Committee web forum on recruitment & retention

The House of Commons Defence Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. As part of this inquiry they are running an online forum to hear the views of former and current service personnel. They are also interested in the views of religious leaders, parents and guardians, and careers guidance counsellors. The aim of the forum is to find out what motivates some people but not others to join the Services and what factors can affect people's desire to remain in uniform over time. Needless to say they are "especially keen to investigate the disconnect that exists in the number of recruits from ethnic minorities who choose to join the Services".
DefComm's inquiry is aimed at identifying why the UK Armed Forces are failing to meet their recruitment targets. The MoD is already under pressure to find enough troops to sustain the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; this pressure can only increase if sufficient new recruits cannot be found and if the current high level of personnel leaving the Services continues.

The web forum for posting comments runs until 21st May. Even if you are not 'eligible' to make a comment yourself, the forum itself is well worth a visit to read the comments from those qualified to make them.

Link> eConsultations: Recruitment & Retention in the Armed Forces

Link> Parliament: Defence Committee launches country-wide web forum on recruitment and retention in the services

The War Lords of Sleez

It's been reported in the Mirror that three retired military chiefs are being investigated by a "sleaze watchdog". It is alleged that the three War Lords used a House of Lords debate to demand more spending on the Armed Forces without having declared their own financial interests in the armaments industry.

This possibly compromising situation was noted in the article "Cui bono?" which appeared in the Defence of the Realm blog back in November.

Link> The Mirror: Military Lords in sleaze probe
Link> Defence of the Realm: cui bono?

Cpl Mark Wright: Hero's death blamed on MoD

A military inquiry has found that inadequate equipment, lack of maps and failure in radio communications were to blame for the death of Corporal Mark Wright of 3rd Battallion the Parachute Regiment on 6th September 2006 when he and his section were caught in a minefield near Kajaki in Afghanistan. The blame was placed squarely with the Ministry of Defence.
Corporal Wright, who was posthumously awarded the George Cross for saving the life of an injured comrade, could have survived his wounds had a properly equipped helicopter been available. The Chinook which had been sent to rescue Cpl Wright and his comrades was of little use because it did not have a lifting winch and, consequently, the injured soldiers had to wait until a US helicopter could arrive. The MoD told the inquiry that ALL the winches for its Chinooks were in the UK at the time being checked out for a possible fault. The post-mortem had revealed that the wounds which Cpl Wright suffered would have been survivable had he been brought to a field hospital sooner.

The inquiry also found that the soldiers did not have a map of the mined area even though one was available; that radio problems led to a communication breakdown; and that the soldiers had to provide their own mine extraction kits.

Part-time Defence Secretary, Des Browne assured Parliament on 10th January that improvements had now been made which ensured "that those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have the best equipment and kit possible"; unfortunately this was too late to save the life of Corporal Wright.

Link> The Telegraph: Army hero left to die by failings at MoD
Link> MoD: Corporal Mark William Wright killed in Afghanistan
Link> MoD Oracle: Equipment Shortage Blamed For Para Death

HMS Cornwall fiasco: systemic failure ..... again

The detailed Fulton report into the sequence of events that led up to the capture of Royal Navy personnel by the Iranians in March 2007 is not going to be made public "because it addresses operational and tactical issues, which cannot be discussed in public without increasing the risk to our forces". We must trust the politicians on the House of Commons Defence Committee (and if you can't trust a politician, who can you trust?) when they say that the requirement for secrecy is legitimate and that no cover-up is intended.
The Defence Committee, who were privy to the Fulton report, found that: "There was a lapse in operational focus in the front line, and a widespread failure of situational awareness." However, no senior officer or civil servant is going to be held publicly accountable for the cock-up. The "Administrative action" that is apparently going to be taken merely means that some service personnel may receive a slap on the wrist and that some careers may be put on hold for a bit.
Fulton has publicly admitted that faults in procedures, risk analysis, intelligence handling, training and information sharing were the causes of the fiasco. In other words we're back to the old "systemic failure" excuse, the excuse we hear time and again whenever a government department reluctantly admits they've screwed up but doesn't want any individuals to shoulder the responsibility. It's alright for the front line troops to risk their necks day after day but heaven forbid that senior personnel should ever have to risk theirs.

In parallel with Fulton, the Government also commissioned the Hall inquiry into the media handling of the debacle, in particular the decision to allow the service personnel involved to sell their stories to the press. And guess what? The Hall inquiry also found that no individuals were responsible! No disciplinary action is going to be taken against those who caused the Royal Navy to become an international laughing stock and the UK to be so humiliated.

Lack of clarity in the decision-making process, "collective failure of judgement", and lack of overall control were apparently the causes of the media disaster. So, good old "systemic failure, I'm afraid" again then?

Link Defence News: Def.Sec. pledges to implement Navy operations & Media-handling reviews

Link Select Committee: report on the Fulton and Hall inquiries

Link BBC: MPs condemn navy story decisions

Hercules crash: families denied legal aid

The inquest into the deaths of the ten servicemen lost when an RAF Hercules crashed three years ago in Iraq has now been scheduled for March 2008.
That it has taken over three years for the inquest to take place is bad enough in itself. But the Labour Government has now announced that there will be no legal aid support for the families of the nine British servicemen killed. This is typical of the indifference and insensitivity which this Government shows towards the Armed Forces. Contrast this attitude with that of the Australian Government which will be providing financial support to the family of the Australian serviceman killed in the same incident. The circumstances surrounding the downing of the Hercules are controversial, so much so that the British Government will be sending three lawyers to represent them. Perhaps the Australian lawyer will be able to look after the interests of the British families as obviously the British Government doesn't give a damn.

This now has the stink of "cover up" all over it.

The Telegraph : Hercules crash families attack legal aid bar
BBC: Ten feared dead in Hercules crash