This story appeared some time ago in the newspapers, and it seems the situation has now been resolved. Fortunately the situation in the short term was relieved by the cooperation of Canadian and American Forces.

There is an accompanying Video on this page. It's well worth reading the text and watching the video.

Heads should roll in the Ministry of Defence, not least the resignation of the Minister for Defence, or he should be sacked.

from Telegraph Online today

The lives of paratroopers were put in danger after the Ministry of Defence sent defective ammunition to Afghanistan, it can be revealed.

The situation became so serious that a platoon from the 3Bn The Parachute Regiment refused to go out on patrol until the problem was resolved. The troops had to borrow ammunition off Canadian and American special forces as they battled to fight off Taliban attacks.

The MoD, which yesterday unveiled plans for British troops to make a quicker-than-expected withdrawal from the front line in Iraq, has been unable to explain why defective ammunition for the .50 calibre Browning heavy machinegun was sent to Afghanistan.

It is thought that the batch was from either Pakistan or the Czech Republic, where a round costs 60 US cents. The price for British, Canadian or American ammunition is $1.50. With many thousands of rounds fired, using cheaper ammunition would have saved thousands of pounds.



same source

A shocking demonstration of the poor quality rounds is shown on a video posted by a paratrooper on the YouTube website. It shows two soldiers in a sandbagged position struggling to operate the machinegun, which can also be mounted on Land Rovers.

One is shown constantly re-cocking the weapon as his colleague seeks to feed through the ammunition belt. At one point, the Para, who becomes exhausted with the strain of constantly pulling the cocking handle, drops the gun and swears in frustration. All the time incoming enemy fire can be heard.



The video (mms://telegraph.wmod.llnwd.net/a689/o1/gunfire.wmv)

Full Story Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=DCJQR2M2ODVXLQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/23/nammo23.xml)

I thought it was being in Afghanistan that put our troops at risk in Afghanistan...

The cheaper ammunition may have saved thousands of pounds, but what price do you put on the life of service personnel when their gun doesn't work?

The cheaper ammunition may have saved thousands of pounds, but what price do you put on the life of service personnel when their gun doesn't work?

Good question, but nobody ever has the guts to come up with an answer. If decent ammunition cost a million pounds per bullet, would we still expect them to have it?

What IS a human life worth?

The cheaper ammunition may have saved thousands of pounds, but what price do you put on the life of service personnel when their gun doesn't work?

lifes dont count £s do britain plc

its just another example of this country sending troops in to a dangerous area with substandard equipment (boots that melt in the heat, no body armour) how many lives are put at risk with penny counters trying to get the cheapest equipment possible

whatever you feel about the troops being in afganistan or iraq surely they sould have the best equipment to defend themselves

whatever you feel about the troops being in afganistan or iraq surely they sould have the best equipment to defend themselves

Up to how much cost?

Up to how much cost?
as much as it takes

as much as it takes

So if I develop a diamond-and-titanium armour that improves troops' protection, but it costs a hundred million pounds per uniform, you think all of our 10,000 troops in Afghanistan should wear one, at a cost that will bankrupt the entire country, close down the NHS, police, schools, train network and everything else?



Try again. How much cost is reasonable?

Up to how much cost?

when it comes to defending british troops' lives cost does not matter

the fact that the ammo sent cost 90c us cheaper than proper ammunition shows how bad pen pushers and penny pinchers are

when it comes to defending british troops' lives cost does not matter


See my above post. Do you seriously believe that we should close down the NHS, police, schools, road network, train network, and every single other avenue of government spending, if by doing so we can marginally increase our troops' safety?


Cost DOES matter. The reason so many governments get away with pennypinching decisions like this, and play with mere thousands, is beause nobody is ever prepared to discuss what IS a reasonable limit to spend on soldiers. If we got round to discussing it, we might enforce a lot higher overall limit.

If we can't afford to do it properly (ie using the equipment that we know is required and at the price we know it is properly produced) then we shouldn't be asking the soldiers to be there at all.

Diamond coated armour aside, the costs of a campaign can be quite accurately predicted, and the costs of ammunition, desert equipment and other supplies can all be estimated in advance.
If they only way we can afford it is with substandard equipment then we shouldn't be there.

[QUOTE=Heyesey]So if I develop a diamond-and-titanium armour that improves troops' protection, but it costs a hundred million pounds per uniform, you think all of our 10,000 troops in Afghanistan should wear one, at a cost that will bankrupt the entire country, close down the NHS, police, schools, train network and everything else?

me i would personely pull the troops out & put saddam back in power i wouldn,t have risked one british soldier for that lot

me i would personely pull the troops out & put saddam back in power i wouldn,t have risked one british soldier for that lot


Fair enough, but irrelevant in the context of this discussion. You still haven't said how much money we should be prepared to spend on the troops, when and where they DO have to go into action.

Unlimited funds is not an option because they don't exist ... so, what's the limit?

shocked beyond words at this moment in time
________
Medical marijuana seeds (http://marijuanaseeds.org/)

our troops should be given the best we can afford simple

Fair enough, but irrelevant in the context of this discussion. You still haven't said how much money we should be prepared to spend on the troops, when and where they DO have to go into action.

Unlimited funds is not an option because they don't exist ... so, what's the limit?

There is no limit. Unlimited loyalty, service and dedication must be matched by the means with which to carry out this command. There is no other option.

There is no limit.


Wrong. The UK only has a limited amount of money; if we spend ALL of it on the troops, we'll have no pensions, no hospitals, no roads, no police, no schools, no benefits, nothing.

And that will still be a limit. Are you seriously proposing that we should do this? If not ... what is the limit?

the limit is whatever would keep the soldiers out there safe

the limit is whatever would keep the soldiers out there safe


*sigh*

Can anybody hear me?


You could spend the ENTIRE GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT on the soldiers in Afghanistan, and it STILL isn't guaranteed to keep them safe. So, fix a budget.

Wrong. The UK only has a limited amount of money; if we spend ALL of it on the troops, we'll have no pensions, no hospitals, no roads, no police, no schools, no benefits, nothing.

And that will still be a limit. Are you seriously proposing that we should do this? If not ... what is the limit?

If, as you suggest, that funds are finite, how come that benefit recipients have never been refused on the grounds of ' Sorry mate. We've run out of dosh' ? Perhaps we should fund our Troops on a pay per shot basis? No more bullets, bring them all home then?

*sigh*

Can anybody hear me?


You could spend the ENTIRE GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT on the soldiers in Afghanistan, and it STILL isn't guaranteed to keep them safe. So, fix a budget.

When you start posting sensibly, we are listening. If troops cannot be properly armed in a conflict demanded of our Government that is not properly funded to protect them.....we simply won't have an Army worth speaking about.

Get sensible!

If, as you suggest, that funds are finite, how come that benefit recipients have never been refused on the grounds of ' Sorry mate. We've run out of dosh' ? Perhaps we should fund our Troops on a pay per shot basis? No more bullets, bring them all home then?

Please cloudy, don't let Heysey go off on another tack. :)

[QUOTE=Heyesey]Wrong. The UK only has a limited amount of money; if we spend ALL of it on the troops, we'll have no pensions, no hospitals, no roads, no police, no schools, no benefits, nothing.
QUOTE]


we've been having this problem for along time anyways.

retire age of 68
Hospitals closing
police err what one of them ?
Benefits, well stop handing them out to slackers and get'em in work.

British Troops need the best , if it means i have to cough up an extra 3p a week in my wages i'd pay it with pride.
________
MERCURY CAPRI PICTURE (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mercury_Capri)

So if I develop a diamond-and-titanium armour that improves troops' protection, but it costs a hundred million pounds per uniform, you think all of our 10,000 troops in Afghanistan should wear one, at a cost that will bankrupt the entire country, close down the NHS, police, schools, train network and everything else?



Try again. How much cost is reasonable?

Cost would not enter into it. If your prices were the order of the day we’d not even be there! Even Blair would have seen the sense in that.

*sigh*

Can anybody hear me?



Yes, we can all hear you, but what you are saying ad nauseum is so puerile that no one wants to waste their valuable time in replying to you, regardless of how many *sighs* you preface your posts with. All you are doing is setting up a straw man of a pseudo-argument, indeed a classic example of a reductio ad absurdum, which you then seek to triumphantly knock down. You no doubt find this impressive, but unfortunately for you no one else does (unless they have a mental age of about 6).

According to the MOD, the ammo was from a long-used manufacturer in Belgium; normal price.

"that's a nice bolt-action machine gun, soldier."

Thanks for the video link Shoeshine - what on earth was that music they were listening to?

I guess they got a duff consignment - it happens. Mass producing stuff to fine tolerances and endless consistency, especially something as numerous as small arms ammunition, must be very difficult. The Belgians certainly know a thing or two about guns and ammunition & I think the last British army standard rifle was Belgian.

Non-story in itself, but yet symptomatic of the reality of British forces & their equipment?