data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6b56/c6b562d3230f1871e5305f79f6b5e9c459daa38c" alt=""
According to The Guardian and other sources, the "explosion"
we reported earlier today, which killed two British soldiers – and injured two others, including the civilian interpreter, while they were patrolling in their vehicle, was a "roadside bomb" (IED).
The fact that it was an open WIMIK yet there were two injured survivors suggests that the blast was not massive. When very large bombs have been used, there tend to be no survivors, even in mine resistant and blast protected vehicles (MRAP).
On that basis, therefore, it is a reasonable presumption that, had the two British soldiers killed in the recent blast been travelling in a MRAP (such as the Mastiff), they would have survived and their colleagues might well have been uninjured. As we have seen, these types of vehicles can withstand an extraordinary amount of damage while still keeping their crews safe – another example is shown (top), this one an RG-31 in Iraq, with the engine compartment blown completely off.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/744f7/744f7dd82fdfedda472d2c6c5b806def08ba8865" alt=""
On the other hand, the following picture is of a WIMIK which has been hit by a relatively modest bomb, members of its crew being seriously injured. It cannot, of course, be said with certainty that the British soldiers in the current incident would have escaped, but the evidence points very strongly in that direction.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bbe35/bbe3558a8defa855816327101375c60bcb138864" alt=""
Since even relatively minor bomb damage to a WIMIK can accompany serious injuries to its crew, this would support a contention that, once again, the Army has left its troops dangerously unprotected.
COMMENT THREAD