regulator12 Posted on: Today at 17:26:36 said:
Not everything that higher up tells us to do is correct.
Ummm, Actually it is. It's called a Lawful Command.
I do have to agree with you, you are not a wimp if you say "I think that is too dangerous ..." when it does not interfere with the objective.
You are allowed to say that, and the next guy up the food chain is allowed to
Say 'Tough snot, get on with it'
. (Your decision at that point would be to do it or start practising the hatless dance.)
Say ' You know, Bloggins, good point, go get the old man's LAV... he won't mind.'
(At which point you thank providence for a chance to do some baja-ing in kit you never signed for.)
Mr Wallace's point is correct, recce was done in Iltis, tarps off, windshields down, door chains stowed and a lot of the time with the crew commander sitting on top of the radio trays for a better vantage. Couldn't get closer to the 'bad guys' than Bde Recce. Why?
those safety 'faux pas' were required in order to achieve the mission.
The question of armour and it's protection has to be balanced against speed and stealth, both equally as good methods of protection as armour. I think that's as applicable whether in the Fulda Gap or ferrying jerries between the FOB and the OP.
Heck, the Infantry doesn't call tanks (and other heavy track) 'bullet magnets' for nothing.
Once again, I think if we look at the task that was needed to be done, the intrep, the considerations of armour vs. speed vs. stealth the man on the ground was the man to make the decision.
Given this incident they'll revisit it, I'm pretty sure that does not represent back peddling or incompetence in the first instance (although the press will try to spin it that way) but rather an adaptation of an initially sound plan to changing circumstances.
I'm pretty sure the grown ups will make the right call, they usually