Yes there were and if IIRC it was JTF 2 handing insurgents over to the Americans.
How true. Let's not forget that mefloquine poisoning is STILL being looked at. AND the only one held to account (jail time) was a soldier who should probably never have been there to start with. Never mind the MCpl.....who did not have a good rep either.
Probably explains why it took so long for our current Government to pull the trigger on the Mali operation.
Stuff tips.
need to buy some training wheels
100%. It rolls for experienced drivers too. The sway in a crosswind is noticeable and scary af lol.
Youre probably not wrong. I wonder if they intend to install RWS on some of the Senators when they inevitably win? A single mount with a 50 would be nice.
There's also the fact the brakes and steering are on the same hydraulic reservoir. Which doesn't seem to have enough pressure to run them both at the same time. So if you do find yourself in a turn going to fast there's no slowing down till it's too late.
I thought that had been resolved. Combine that with zero ABS and winter driving was whiteknuckle as fuck when I drove one.
Stuff tips.
Sometimes vehicle characteristics play a part but once those characteristics become known, in non combat related situations, the cause usually turns mostly to human factors.
It's long past time blaming the vehicle.
$0.02
I really dont know if the upgrade juice is worth the squeeze. Id rather see these turned over to Global Affairs to donate as they see to build diplomatic clout than to spend more money polishing a turd. Lets identify the capability (light cav, RAS, convoy duties, whatever) and then tailor a vehicle for the capability.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the TAPV as a cavalry vehicle or minimizing its problems.
Fixed that for you.
Maybe it's an upgrade on roll out and hasn't got it to us yet. A decision like that shouldn't have made it past prototype and definitely shouldn't be an issue still on vehicles almost a decade old now though.
The talk around town is that a sizable minority of them will be redistributed to ARes Armoured units as is - what a terrible idea. We already dont have the infrastructure or support for 4-6 TAPVs, I dont know how we're supposed to properly store and maintain them when units have 10-15 TAPVs. Storing them outside breaks them long term and we're losing thr Reg maintainers to a separate division...we're so fucked lmao.Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the TAPV as a cavalry vehicle or minimizing its problems.
My point was that the TAPV has for a long time been a known quantity. The army knows what it can and can't do. There should be adequate safeguards and training in place to minimize the problems with its characteristics. It strikes me that the army continues to misuse it because it has to use it for the purpose for which it was originally built. We continue to have issues because the training and supervision of the drivers is weak.
It's long past time to hand them over to purposes that do not need aggressive driving on difficult terrain. (I'm a fan of using what you have because anything is better than nothing at all - give them to an MP battalion or theatre level rear area security battalion for rear area patrols for example) That means, however, there needs to be a clear plan and strategy for what is needed by the "armoured cavalry" (I still divide them into distinct "tank" and "cavalry" components - the former organized and equipped for the close fight and the latter primarily for the divisional deep fight). The surveillance LAV, is one item but I see the need for smaller, lower, lighter, but heavily armed and networked vehicles as the core of the latter augmented by a variety of SEV "enablers." - I don't see a TAPV anywhere on the front lines.
One can only hope that with the 1 and 2 Div restructure, an adequate amount of full-time personnel will be directed into 2 Div. If not then all my thoughts about the lack of vision of army planners will be borne out.
