14.1 |
Military equipment (post-conflict)
be struck
… and the only person I believe who could take that is the
commander on
641.
Asked if he
had discussed with Generals Jackson or Dannatt whether
something
else was
needed for Snatch or if he had ordered any review of Snatch, ACM
Torpy said:
“There was
work going on … Snatch had always been identified as a problem
and
I was
very aware of the work … going on in the equipment capability area
and in the
Front Line
Command to look at what alternatives there were.
“The
message … of the equipment capability areas is that there is not
another
vehicle on
the market which can provide that sort of mobility which we could
go out
and procure
tomorrow … The Americans didn’t have anything. They were still
using
Humvees …
they were having similar problems …
“… from a
PJHQ perspective … we rely on the expertise which is in the
equipment
capability
area and the Frontline Commands to deliver the requirements of the
in
642.
The Inquiry
asked ACM Torpy if he had received any requests for the provision
of
a replacement
for Snatch. He replied:
“No, not
that I recall.”
643.
Lt Gen Dutton
told the Inquiry:
“Snatch
served a really useful purpose in built‑up areas where it was not
easy –
in some
cases not even possible – to get more heavily armoured vehicles,
so …
Snatch was
not necessarily an unpopular vehicle … depending on what
was
happening.
But … I recall … there was a particularly nasty incident in
Maysan,
where …
soldiers … were killed and they were in Snatch Land Rovers and that
was
IEDs, so it
became obvious at that point that this vehicle was not optimised in
any
644.
The Inquiry
asked Lt Gen Dutton whether it was difficult for
commanders to decide
when it was
appropriate to use heavier armoured vehicles in
Iraq.338
He told the
Inquiry:
“Yes, but
there was an element of ‘You have got what you have got.’ So you
might
have to use
them, even if you know they are not the vehicle optimised for
that
particular
– and then you ask for different ones, and over time, they
appear.”
335
Public
hearing, 18 January 2011, pages 68‑69.
336
Public
hearing, 18 January 2011, pages 69‑70.
337
Public
hearing, 12 July 2010, pages 26‑27.
338
Public
hearing, 12 July 2010, pages 28‑29.
109