Time for reporters to start listening
Can we please let this be the last word on armoured vehicles and IED's?
In case any of the journalists out there missed that, I'll restate the good general's point with even less words for you: a big enough bomb can blow any vehicle up, and Afghanistan's not exactly short on explosives.
The Iltis was crap on wheels, the G-Wagen's a good bit better, the LAVIII is excellent, but not a single one of them will protect every soldier from every explosive device he could possibly encounter in Afghanistan.
People who expect armoured vehicles to be a magic talisman against death or injury need to revise their expectations.
Question: Kathleen Harris, Sun Media. General Hillier, this particular type of vehicle, the G-Wagon, is it a safe enough vehicle for this mission and is it possible that these lives could have been saved if they had been in a more heavily armoured vehicle?
...
General Rick Hillier: First of all, let me say the G-Wagon, armoured G-Wagon is a very good vehicle and we have Canadian soldiers alive today who would not be without the vehicle and the protection that it offers, without question. And in fact, yesterday I spoke to one of them, Master Corporal Franklin, of course, who is recovering back in Edmonton, Alberta himself. But you heard what I said. The explosion today was of considerable power. What exactly caused that explosion we’re in the process of determining and we will determine, but it was huge. I’ve seen a picture of the crater. It was deep. It was significant.
In short, any armoured vehicle can be defeated if you pile enough explosive into one location and, and manage to detonate it at the appropriate and specific point in time here. The G-Wagon is a good vehicle. We have a whole combination of armoured vehicles in Afghanistan to equip those soldiers and those men and women for every single mission. Our commanders judge the use of those vehicles based on the mission and the threat and we believe all that judgement was done today. But as I said, a) you cannot reduce the risk to zero, and b) if you put enough explosives, you can defeat any armoured fighting vehicle in the world. (Babbler's bold)
In case any of the journalists out there missed that, I'll restate the good general's point with even less words for you: a big enough bomb can blow any vehicle up, and Afghanistan's not exactly short on explosives.
The Iltis was crap on wheels, the G-Wagen's a good bit better, the LAVIII is excellent, but not a single one of them will protect every soldier from every explosive device he could possibly encounter in Afghanistan.
People who expect armoured vehicles to be a magic talisman against death or injury need to revise their expectations.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 3:39 p.m.
10 Comments:
This was a perfectly valid question that needed to be asked. And it needs to be asked each and every time something like this happens in order to insure our government is doing everything possible to protect the lives of our soldiers. To believe otherwise is naive.
Robert McClelland: We could always put everyone in Leopard IIs but that would be costly and reduce the number of infantry available to zero. And still not reduce the risk to zero.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/
Mark
Ottawa
Mark, in the future read what I write so as to avoid responding with irrelevant gibberish.
Every time a soldier dies in Afghanistan our government should face an effing inquisition from the press where every conceivable question is asked. To do otherwise is to foolishly accept that our government knows what its doing. And to suggest that a question should not be asked, as Babbling Snook did, is not only naive but is also reprehensible.
Robert McClelland: If our media did not constantly confuse APCs and wheeled vehicles such as the LAV III with tanks, and "battleships" with frigates and destroyers, you might have a point.
But given their almost complete ignorance of military technology and terminology I don't believe they know what they're talking or asking about.
Mark
Ottawa
I have no problem with educated questions. But this one has been asked and answered before.
This is somewhat a case of chickens returning to roost.
When this question is asked, the reporter is singing from the "our neglected military" hymnal, so beloved of conservative choirs these many years.
The idea that our military is underequipped is so deeply ingrained that one of the base media assumptions in every incident is that the equipment was inadequate. It is the existing narrative, and reporters love to expand on an existing narrative because it provides a news hook.
Iron Oxide, how exactly was Hillier being dishonest? Walk me through this, because I'm not seeing it.
I see your point now. I don't agree, but I see where you're coming from.
No, he wasn't being dishonest.
The question was whether the G-Wagon is an appropriate vehicle for the mission. The question was whether it is adequately armoured.
He did not evade it; he answered the question. You're accusing him of evading it because he didn't couch the answer in terms you think are appropriate.
The answer was that no vehicle can protect against all possible threats. In other words, yes, the G-Wagon is adequately armoured, but one still has to expect that its armour can be defeated.
Actually, the question was: "this particular type of vehicle, the G-Wagon, is it a safe enough vehicle for this mission and is it possible that these lives could have been saved if they had been in a more heavily armoured vehicle?"
That question has two parts:
- is the vehicle safe enough for the mission? That is, is it an appropriate vehicle?
- is the G-Wagon adequately armoured? In the context of the first question, that is the import of the second question.
Taking the second question out of context distorts its meaning. You pretend that only one question was asked, and complain about dishonesty?
Okay, then. No mirrors at your house, I take it.
In fact, the General did answer the question. His response was, in paraphrase, that the G-Wagon is a good vehicle, but that it can still be defeated, as can any vehicle.
Post a Comment
<< Home