Irish Army RG32M- excellent vehicle

timhorgan

The news from the British MOD today that yet two more British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in their armoured vehicle due to an IED explosion shows once again how thorough and professional the Irish Army is. When choosing a new vehicle a few years ago our Army choose the excellent South African designed and built RG32M some of which are now deployed with our troops in the Lebanon. These vehicles have integral to their design the V-shaped hull first used so successfully by the Rhodesians during the bush war there. The South Africans then developed their own versions and became world leaders with this design. The US Marines and now the US Army have also invested heavily in this type of vehicle.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfmagazine/sets/72157623853539050/


Although the MOD communique does not specify the vehicle involved in this unfortunate incident it is most likely to have been a Scimitar Mk2 which has been uparmoured and re-hulled for Afghanistan. If so, the ever-changing tactics of the enemy seem to have adapted once again.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/TwoSoldiersFromTheQueensDragoonGuardsKilledInAfghanistan.htm

goldie fish

How do you know it wasn't a wheeled armoured vehicle? Or even a BV206?

cruasder777

timhorgan wrote: »

The news from the British MOD today that yet two more British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in their armoured vehicle due to an IED explosion shows once again how thorough and professional the Irish Army is. When choosing a new vehicle a few years ago our Army choose the excellent South African designed and built RG32M some of which are now deployed with our troops in the Lebanon. These vehicles have integral to their design the V-shaped hull first used so successfully by the Rhodesians during the bush war there. The South Africans then developed their own versions and became world leaders with this design. The US Marines and now the US Army have also invested heavily in this type of vehicle.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfmagazine/sets/72157623853539050/


Although the MOD communique does not specify the vehicle involved in this unfortunate incident it is most likely to have been a Scimitar Mk2 which has been uparmoured and re-hulled for Afghanistan. If so, the ever-changing tactics of the enemy seem to have adapted once again.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/TwoSoldiersFromTheQueensDragoonGuardsKilledInAfghanistan.htm

The RG32 is a light scouting vehicle with far less armour and firepower then a scimitar mk2, Irish army ones are not fitted with anti IED electronic jamming equiptment to operate in hostile environments like Afghanistan.

The RG32 is an excellent vehicle, but many have also been lost to IEDs in Afghanistan.

As for the Irish army always choosing excellent vehicles, I disagree the Mowags have had numerous prpblems.

Irish army vehicles suffering multiple faults
A fleet of 80 armoured personnel carriers has been hit by a series of problems, including wheels that fall off

Mowag armoured personnel carrier
Richard Oakley
A FLEET of 80 armoured personnel carriers bought by the Irish army at a total cost of €120m has suffered a series of problems including multiple cracks, faulty transmissions, failing speedometers and wheels that simply fall off.
Documents released by the defence forces under the Freedom of Information Act reveal “ongoing concerns” with the Mowag Piranha IIIs and that €5m has been paid to acquire spare parts, despite an extensive warranty.
The documents also reveal that monitoring equipment is to be used in an effort to establish if the failures are being caused by faults in the vehicles, or because of the way in which they are being driven by soldiers in harsh conditions.







Its too early to access the merits/failures of the new British CVRT II vehicles, they have just come into service.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZeVbCPA6jc&feature=related

timhorgan

goldie fish wrote: »

How do you know it wasn't a wheeled armoured vehicle? Or even a BV206?

GF-I'm afraid that it was a Scimitar but the MOD might take some time to announce it in view of the massive amounts spent upgrading it.

timhorgan

Thanks, Crusader,

I take your points but the RG32M is exceptionally "fit for purpose" for current Irish requirements. I have been told that the vehicle lost in the QDG incident was in fact one of the uparmoured Scimitars. I live in London and my information from a good friend in the British Army is usually correct. But it is interesting how details of vehicle types are issued on a very selective basis by the MOD.

cruasder777 wrote: »

The RG32 is a light scouting vehicle with far less armour and firepower then a scimitar mk2, Irish army ones are not fitted with anti IED electronic jamming equiptment to operate in hostile environments like Afghanistan.

The RG32 is an excellent vehicle, but many have also been lost to IEDs in Afghanistan.

As for the Irish army always choosing excellent vehicles, I disagree the Mowags have had numerous prpblems.







Its too early to access the merits/failures of the new British CVRT II vehicles, they have just come into service.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZeVbCPA6jc&feature=related

goldie fish

timhorgan wrote: »

GF-I'm afraid that it was a Scimitar but the MOD might take some time to announce it in view of the massive amounts spent upgrading it.

Are you sure this was the modified version?

Or are you just waffling as usual?

cruasder777

timhorgan wrote: »

Thanks, Crusader,

I take your points but the RG32M is exceptionally "fit for purpose" for current Irish requirements. I have been told that the vehicle lost in the QDG incident was in fact one of the uparmoured Scimitars. I live in London and my information from a good friend in the British Army is usually correct. But it is interesting how details of vehicle types are issued on a very selective basis by the MOD.

The RG32 is a light scout vehicle, the Scimitar II a force protection vehicle.


All vehicles can potential be destroyed by an IED, we dont know the size of the IED involved.

RMD

You're really going on nothing at all. Your claim of a good friend sounds as reliable as a tabloid claiming an "inside source". We don't know what vehicle was involved, keep the claims and speculation on hold till we know. If out on Afghanistan I'd feel much safer in an AFV than a light scouting vehicle in fairness.

mbiking123

Irish army vehicles suffering multiple faults
A fleet of 80 armoured personnel carriers has been hit by a series of problems, including wheels that fall off

Mowag armoured personnel carrier
Richard Oakley
A FLEET of 80 armoured personnel carriers bought by the Irish army at a total cost of €120m has suffered a series of problems including multiple cracks, faulty transmissions, failing speedometers and wheels that simply fall off.
Documents released by the defence forces under the Freedom of Information Act reveal “ongoing concerns” with the Mowag Piranha IIIs and that €5m has been paid to acquire spare parts, despite an extensive warranty.
The documents also reveal that monitoring equipment is to be used in an effort to establish if the failures are being caused by faults in the vehicles, or because of the way in which they are being driven by soldiers in harsh conditions

Be careful what you read in reports, RTE got caught out to the tune of an estimated 5 million euro this week

Mowag's have been used/in use by US Army, Austrilian, Belgium, Canadian, Danish, New Zealand, Spanish, Sweden, Swiss, USMC etc on a very large scale and they have problems as with all vehicle's but Mowag's never gave them problems to the level as suggested in the media

I am sure the warranty on the Mowag's will mean either replacing of parts, some form of corrective procedure or complete replacement if necessary will be carried out by the Mowag themselves

Manic Moran

I am not sure I see the logic flow of this thread.

British soldiers killed in Scimitar by bomb: RG-32 is a great little vehicle.

?

So if Israeli soldiers were killed in a Merkava by a bomb, RG-32 is a great little vehicle?

What if American soldiers were killed in an RG-31 by a bomb? (Incidently, the only loss our unit suffered). Does one conclude that RG-32 is a great little vehicle from that?

Is there any evidence to suggest that the bomb which destroyed the Scimitar in question would not have done a number on the RG-32 as well? Is there anything thus far to suggest that the Scimitar was conducting a role which could have been performed just as capably by RG-32

It is a good little vehicle. It'll stop bombs that Nissan patrols won't. It might go places that M-ATV won't. But it has its roles and its limits. If it's good for what the Irish Army has in mind, fantastic. I'm not sure I see the comparison with other types of vehicles entirely, however.

NTM

timhorgan

RMD wrote: »

You're really going on nothing at all. Your claim of a good friend sounds as reliable as a tabloid claiming an "inside source". We don't know what vehicle was involved, keep the claims and speculation on hold till we know. If out on Afghanistan I'd feel much safer in an AFV than a light scouting vehicle in fairness.

You read it here on Boards.ie first-

It WAS a Scimitar and it WAS uparmoured -fact. So, it is back to the drawingboard. But my fear is of a major disaster with the ludicrous Warthog.

cruasder777

timhorgan wrote: »

You read it here on Boards.ie first-

It WAS a Scimitar and it WAS uparmoured -fact. So, it is back to the drawingboard. But my fear is of a major disaster with the ludicrous Warthog.

Why back to the drawing board ?

Do you not think those who design armored vehicles dont know the limits and capabilities of what they design.

Do you not think they dont test their limits with IEDs and computer programmes etc ?

Why is the warthog ludicrous ?




"Warthog is a modified and better protected version of the Singapore Army Bronco. It will be equipped with an upgraded cooling and filtration system, Bowman BCIP 5 communications fit, mine blast protection and Electronic Counter Measures (ECM). Warthog will provide Protected Mobility (PM) for the infantry with its protection, firepower and mobility. It will also operate in a Mounted Close Combat (MCC) role and provide support to Dismounted Close Combat (DCC).

The vehicle is able to operate in a range of environments including the Green Zone and desert areas of Afghanistan. Warthog with its associated communications, ECM suite, mine blast protection, load carriage, crew served weapon system and increased tactical mobility & range will be a considerable enhancement to elements of ground manoeuvre capability in Afghanistan.

Firepower
All Warthogs are equipped with a crew served weapon system. This provides them with a protected weapon station from which the commander will be able to quickly deliver fire on either the 7.62mm General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG) or 0.5 Calibre Heavy Machine Gun (HMG). The mount allows accurate, suppressive fire out to 1000m allowing for effective self defence or the provision of fire support when required.

Mobility
Warthog has been designed to be easily moved by air, sea, rail, road and landing craft. When operating it has the ability to cover some of the most demanding types of ground."



The warthog is incredibly agile and can cross deep rivers.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd3OHI0xE2o



"Warthog is an armoured beast of a vehicle that will carry troops to the heart of operations in the difficult terrain of Afghanistan's Green Zone. It can work in terrain where other vehicles find it difficult to operate.



Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/warthog-vehicle-arrives-in-uk-for-afghan-modifications-23123/#ixzz1e4rkxpJH

mbiking123

as per http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/fighting-vehicles/1481.aspx
the Scimitar is a vehicle for recce, I hear it has been nicknamed the 'wasp' as it is small but has a sting with the 30mm canon. If you want a good vehicle to protect against IED go for Mastiff or the Cougar as the USMC and US Army call it. Then again both vehicles are for different purposes, what you gain one way - light and manoeuvrable you loose with something else - armour. If you want a Scimitar with better protection and armour just use a Challanger MBT

cruasder777

Warthogs have been hit by 11 IEDs with only two badly wounded.

The Warthog is a 22-ton tracked armoured vehicle whose off-road ability allows it to frequently outflank the fleet-footed Taliban.

The vehicle’s success has led to a rethink on British tactics as they are not only able to deliver troops, supplies but they can also bring down heavy firepower from unexpected directions.

It can carry up to a dozen soldiers who can be deployed either to fight insurgents or engage with the local population to build up an intelligence picture of tribal communities.

It has almost certainly saved lives after 11 Warthogs were hit in one tour by large IEDs (Improvised Explosive Device) without anyone inside being killed although two were badly wounded.


“We have been able to manoeuvre in an extraordinary way. Literally we can go over ditches, swim rivers or go up ravines getting right in behind the enemy where they least expect us.


http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2011/08/we-need-warthogs-get-rid-of-half-the-lavs-and-replace-them-with-these/

The Warthog is replacing the BAE Systems built Viking which is being withdrawn from service after almost a quarter of the fleet was destroyed by Taliban bombs.

alex18

All that is shows is what we already know; whereas the MoD spends millions uparmouring and upgrading vehicles, all the Taliban need to do is add a few extra pounds of explosives.

Explosives will always win over armour for the simple reason that you can only add a certain amount of armour to any vehicle whereas an infinate amount of explosive can be added to a bomb.

timhorgan

alex18 wrote: »

All that is shows is what we already know; whereas the MoD spends millions uparmouring and upgrading vehicles, all the Taliban need to do is add a few extra pounds of explosives.

Explosives will always win over armour for the simple reason that you can only add a certain amount of armour to any vehicle whereas an infinate amount of explosive can be added to a bomb.

A: Fully agree - what will eventually come our re Afghan. is that much of what is being done in armoured vehicles should be done by helicopter but the BA has been very slow to learn any lessons. Many British Army officers are resigning in disgust. Many I have spoken to refer to the Rhodesian "Fire Force" concept as a model. Using mainly Allouettes but with the doors removed.


http://selousscouts.tripod.com/fireforce_operations.htm

goldie fish

timhorgan wrote: »

You read it here on Boards.ie first-

It WAS a Scimitar and it WAS uparmoured -fact. So, it is back to the drawingboard. But my fear is of a major disaster with the ludicrous Warthog.

Source?

A real one, and not something your imaginary friend told you.

timhorgan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am not sure I see the logic flow of this thread.

It is a good little vehicle. It'll stop bombs that Nissan patrols won't. It might go places that M-ATV won't. But it has its roles and its limits. If it's good for what the Irish Army has in mind, fantastic. I'm not sure I see the comparison with other types of vehicles entirely, however.

NTM

MM: No disagreement there. The point I wished to make was that the Irish Army consulted with and involved all ranks in the decisionmaking process- I was not comparing different types of vehicles-just that the RG was an example of sound judgement by the Irish Army while Jackal etc. were totally unsuitable for purpose.

cruasder777

timhorgan wrote: »

MM: No disagreement there. The point I wished to make was that the Irish Army consulted with and involved all ranks in the decisionmaking process- I was not comparing different types of vehicles-just that the RG was an example of sound judgement by the Irish Army while Jackal etc. were totally unsuitable for purpose.

So you gave been proven wrong on warthog, (its too early to access Scimitar II), now you move on to Jackal :rolleyes:

There was active input from troops when Jackal was being designed.

Its a throwback to the long range patrol vehicles used in WW2 so effectively. Very light and mobile, its perfect as a long range reccon vehicle. Its open design is what troops wanted, would you want to be stuck on a closed vehicle at 50 degress in the desert 10 hours a day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oH6WEQcFvU

goldie fish

timhorgan wrote: »

MM: No disagreement there. The point I wished to make was that the Irish Army consulted with and involved all ranks in the decisionmaking process- I was not comparing different types of vehicles-just that the RG was an example of sound judgement by the Irish Army while Jackal etc. were totally unsuitable for purpose.

still no proof that it was a scimitar?
No connection whatsoever to the choice of vehicles?

timhorgan

goldie fish wrote: »

Source?

A real one, and not something your imaginary friend told you.

Come now GF- my post is so that people here on Boards get an insight into what is really happening in Afghanistan so we can all thank our Gods that we have not allowed ourelves to be dragged in to others imperialist and stupid wars. You should of course know from your own limited Security experience beforre you "left" that I can not divulge my source. That is Rule no 1 and 2,3,4 etc.etc. Shame on you for asking. But not to worry, the news will out eventually- just people here on Boards get to know the facts first.


But what people here on Boards might also like to know is that a few years ago the MOD stopped giving the vehicle type involved in incidents- the only exception being when their newest expensive"toy" surives an IED- then it is lauded.

Classic example here where the crew of a Scimitar survive just a few days before the latest unfortunate deaths. This gets big publicity but when things go wrong a few days later there is a cover-up and it is hidden from the British public.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/SoldiersSurviveIedStrikeThanksToScimitar.htm

cruasder777

timhorgan wrote: »

A: Fully agree - what will eventually come our re Afghan. is that much of what is being done in armoured vehicles should be done by helicopter but the BA has been very slow to learn any lessons. Many British Army officers are resigning in disgust. Many I have spoken to refer to the Rhodesian "Fire Force" concept as a model. Using mainly Allouettes but with the doors removed.


http://selousscouts.tripod.com/fireforce_operations.htm

Helos are not invincible, one chinook shot down is a huge loss, infact the UKs biggest single loss there comes from such an incident.


Afghanistan is not just about airpower, its about putting troops on the ground to interact with locals.

Its not just about taking on the taliban from the air.

The biggest problem for NATO is lack of troop numbers and the fact only a handful of countries are prepared to do any fighting.

cruasder777

timhorgan wrote: »

Come now GF- my post is so that people here on Boards get an insight into what is really happening in Afghanistan so we can all thank our Gods that we have not allowed ourelves to be dragged in to others imperialist and stupid wars. You should of course know from your own limited Security experience beforre you "left" that I can not divulge my source. That is Rule no 1 and 2,3,4 etc.etc. Shame on you for asking. But not to worry, the news will out eventually- just people here on Boards get to know the facts first.


But what people here on Boards might also like to know is that a few years ago the MOD stopped giving the vehicle type involved in incidents- the only exception being when their newest expensive"toy" surives an IED- then it is lauded.

Classic example here where the crew of a Scimitar survive just a few days before the latest unfortunate deaths. This gets big publicity but when things go wrong a few days later there is a cover-up and it is hidden from the British public.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/SoldiersSurviveIedStrikeThanksToScimitar.htm

The Taliban are not stupid, if the MOD gave out the vehicle involved and deaths with it, it would advantage the taliban with knowing what vehicles to concentrate on.

Its not a cover up, its done for operational security.

cruasder777

http://www.politics.ie/forum/defence/176043-rg32m-excellent-choice-vehicle-irish-army.html

Irish_Army01

OMFG!

And I thought this place was a timhorgan free zone!

What happened, you finally get the chop from IMO?


I have you on ignore on IMO because of your flaming trolling posts.


Men died, and your measuring d*%ks!


Ignore here too.

alex18

timhorgan wrote: »

A: Fully agree - what will eventually come our re Afghan. is that much of what is being done in armoured vehicles should be done by helicopter but the BA has been very slow to learn any lessons. Many British Army officers are resigning in disgust. Many I have spoken to refer to the Rhodesian "Fire Force" concept as a model. Using mainly Allouettes but with the doors removed.


http://selousscouts.tripod.com/fireforce_operations.htm

Not at all, the British Army learn quite fast.

It is the MoD and the politicans who don't seem able to grasp basic ideas.

Morpheus

the day soldiers are forced to fly instead of drive is the day the taliban have won.

RMD

Morphéus wrote: »

the day soldiers are forced to fly instead of drive is the day the taliban have won.

Not to mention the Taliban will adapt and find some way of procuring SAM's to start taking down the heli's.

iceage

Terry's trying that all the time.

goldie fish

cruasder777 wrote: »

The Taliban are not stupid, if the MOD gave out the vehicle involved and deaths with it, it would advantage the taliban with knowing what vehicles to concentrate on.

Its not a cover up, its done for operational security.

Come on now, if tims invisible 6 foot purple rabbit who works in the MoD says its a cover up, them we must believe him. After all, he was in rhodesia....shootin the darkies.

muppet01

timhorgan wrote: »

MM: No disagreement there. The point I wished to make was that the Irish Army consulted with and involved all ranks in the decisionmaking process- I was not comparing different types of vehicles-just that the RG was an example of sound judgement by the Irish Army while Jackal etc. were totally unsuitable for purpose.

Consulted all ranks!! "Hello troops, which of the following would you like to be blown up in??"
Theres no sound judgement involved, if an irish RG tactical vehicle rolls over an IED its going to hurt.The jackal is designed for a purpose just like the LRDG invented many years ago,not like a lunchbox to be blown up in

timhorgan

Morphéus wrote: »

the day soldiers are forced to fly instead of drive is the day the taliban have won.

The RM have learned the lessons and made good use of their helicopters. Pity they cannot leave them behind when they leave.

http://www.army-uk.info/news_detail.php?id=3743

Zambia

I prefer the Bushmaster

That RG32M thing just looks like a landy on a few roids

Fratton Fred

An IED went through a challenger 2 a few years back.

If an MBT is vulnerable then I guess not much is safe.

Irish_Army01

Zambia wrote: »

I prefer the Bushmaster

That RG32M thing just looks like a landy on a few roids

Designed by Timoney Ireland

cruasder777

timhorgan wrote: »

The RM have learned the lessons and made good use of their helicopters. Pity they cannot leave them behind when they leave.

http://www.army-uk.info/news_detail.php?id=3743

Why dont you read the links you post ? Its nothing to do with the RMs.

"The Baggers have been in Afghanistan since May 2009, with 854 NAS and her sister squadron from Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose, 857 NAS, taking it in turns to constantly monitor insurgent activity.

With two-and-a-half years` experience under their belts, Commander Douglas said his men and women are well-attuned and familiar with their operating areas, making it easier for them to spot the unusual:


"We are on a campaign footing. We will continue to do the job out there as long as we are needed - we stay until our job is done."

2011-11-18

goldie fish

Zambia wrote: »

I prefer the Bushmaster

That RG32M thing just looks like a landy on a few roids

You should compare like with like. The Bushmaster is an APC, the RG32M is an armoured scout car, amongst other things.

Its like comparing a mountain bike with a tricycle that has an ice cream vending stand attached.

Zambia

Agreed if I was comparing , I just said I liked the Bushmaster. If I had to go scouting that's what I would take.

However soon enough scouting will be done with unmanned aerial drones.

krissovo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

An IED went through a challenger 2 a few years back.

If an MBT is vulnerable then I guess not much is safe.

MBT's are not primarily designed to to offer protection against IED's/mines. Tanks have flat hulls to keep their profile as low as possible plus the Armour is thinnest on the hull and roof. Armour is focused to the front and the sides.

Most mine/IED proof vehicles are designed with V hulls which gives them a high profile and the Armour focused to the bottom/sides to channel the blast.

Manic Moran

True, but sheer mass counts for a lot.

Bombs which blow turrets off tanks will likely equally kill something like an RG. One Canadian RG was sufficiently blown up that the crew compartment flew 100 yards and the engine 200 yards. The pictures were pretty impressive.

NTM

timhorgan

krissovo wrote: »

MBT's are not primarily designed to to offer protection against IED's/mines. Tanks have flat hulls to keep their profile as low as possible plus the Armour is thinnest on the hull and roof. Armour is focused to the front and the sides.

Most mine/IED proof vehicles are designed with V hulls which gives them a high profile and the Armour focused to the bottom/sides to channel the blast.

Good point K: The Rhodesian v-shaped hull saved a lot of lives so much so that in the last year of the war the casualties from landmines were almost zero. The use of the new design- often fitted on MB Unimogs meant that the Rhodesian forces instead of "detecting and avoiding ambushes" were able to "detect and attack into" ambushes.

The whole design was down to the good work and research analysis of a single Colonel in the Rhodesian Army. The anti-landmine process also involved having a quantity of water in the tyres, believe it or not.

Rhodesian troops and police had stopped using Landrovers as they offered very little protection against landmines and used locally-designed v-shaped vehicles.. When the ceasefire came into being and a Commonwealth Monitoring Force arrived in Rhodesia it was standard in the early days of the ceasefire for the British in their Landrovers to follow behind the Rhodesians in their v-shape vehicles when venturing into the bush.

Despite the fact that there was also a large BMATT (British Military Training Team) in Zimbabwe for a further 5/6 years they did not absorb this lesson and Landrovers were in use until very recently by the British Army both in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the loss of many fine young people.

Zambia

This thing

timhorgan

Zambia wrote: »

This thing

'Fraid so,Z. Not as sophisticated as what the South Africans went on to develop but they worked for us-especially when used along with the Alouette helis.

Fratton Fred

timhorgan wrote: »

Good point K: The Rhodesian v-shaped hull saved a lot of lives so much so that in the last year of the war the casualties from landmines were almost zero. The use of the new design- often fitted on MB Unimogs meant that the Rhodesian forces instead of "detecting and avoiding ambushes" were able to "detect and attack into" ambushes.

The whole design was down to the good work and research analysis of a single Colonel in the Rhodesian Army. The anti-landmine process also involved having a quantity of water in the tyres, believe it or not.

Rhodesian troops and police had stopped using Landrovers as they offered very little protection against landmines and used locally-designed v-shaped vehicles.. When the ceasefire came into being and a Commonwealth Monitoring Force arrived in Rhodesia it was standard in the early days of the ceasefire for the British in their Landrovers to follow behind the Rhodesians in their v-shape vehicles when venturing into the bush.

Despite the fact that there was also a large BMATT (British Military Training Team) in Zimbabwe for a further 5/6 years they did not absorb this lesson and Landrovers were in use until very recently by the British Army both in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the loss of many fine young people.

Are they any good against IEDs though?