Talk:Snatch Land Rover/placeholder

When described as military vehicle, the Snatch Land Rover is a protected patrol vehicle intended for general patrolling in low-threat areas. However, the "Snatch", as it is universally known, is more than just a vehicle.

After deployment with the British Army in Iraq and then Afghanistan, its crews have suffered a mounting toll of deaths - 38 to date. Many more have been injured, some very seriously.

It has thus come to symbolise the ill-preparedness of the British Army and Government for counter-insurgency warfare in Iraq, and then Afghanistan. Its continued use, even after the deaths mounted, illustrates the failure of the military and political establishments rapidly to adapt to changing circumstances of the wars, and protect troops from unnecessary risk. As such, it has acquired iconic status.

This page deals with the two issues: the basic technical description of the vehicle and then, at much greater length, with the wider controversy surrounding it.

Overview
Technically, this is an unremarkable vehicle. It is based on the Land Rover Heavy Duty Chassis, a militarised version of the Defender 110 (similar to the Land Rover Wolf), it was originally procured for use in Northern Ireland by the British Army. . The vehicle was first introduced in 1992.

Officially designated, Truck Utility Medium (TUM) with Vehicle Protection Kit (VPK), the vehicle is more widely known by its informal title, the "Snatch", even in official documentation. It is believed to have acquired the name from its use in the Troubles, when it was the preferred vehicle for "snatch squads" used in raids to capture suspects.

The "Snatch" was the first factory modified Land Rover to be used in Northern Ireland, replacing a series of ad hoc conversions including a protected Airportable Land Rover (Land Rover 1/2 ton Lightweight), known as the "piglet", being a smaller version of the Humber "Pig" APC then widely used by British Forces in Northern Ireland.

Manufactured as the CAMAC CAV 100 by NP Aerospace, the "Snatch" conversion was developed with the aid of Ricardo, and is fitted with CAMAC composite armour to offer the crew protection against kinetic energy projectiles and, to a very limited degree, against explosive devices. Its rated "combat weight" (without crew and weapons) is 3,050 kg.

Five versions have been produced, the first being the original Snatch-1, equipped with a V8 petrol engine. Nearly 1000 were produced, with 278 being "desertised" and reclassified as the Snatch-1.5. Many are now being (or have been) upgraded to current variant standard, either the Snatch-2 12v, LHD, the basic training variant; the Snatch-2A 24v, RHD, "Rest of World variant"; or the Snatch-2B 24v, RHD - the N. Ireland variant. These later versions have been retro-fitted with diesel engines and the 2A is also fitted with air conditioning.

When deployed, the vehicles are often fitted with electronic counter-measures (ECM) suites, which are designed to prevent certain types of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) being triggered, and Bowman radios.

Now used in Afghanistan and Iraq, they were first deployed to Iraq in September 2003. Then, 178 vehicles (Snatch-1) drawn from reserve stock or surplus to requirement in Northern Ireland were shipped from Belfast docks aboard the chartered roll-on roll-off ship Dart 10, arriving at Umm Qasar on 4 October.

Background to the Iraqi deployment
With the official termination of hostilities in Iraq on 1 May 2003, there was a brief honeymoon for British forces occupying southern Iraq. The predominantly Shia population did not show they same degree of antagonism to the occupying forces as did the deposed Sunni, further north and, for a period, troops were able to patrol in soft hats, without armour.

A presentiment of trouble came when six military policemen were killed by a mob in Majar al-Kabir, north of Basra, on 24 June 2004. On 28 July 2003, three or four loud explosions were heard from the centre of the city, followed by rounds of gunfire. Some buildings suffered heavy damage and there were civilian casualties.

In mid-August, Basra had been swept by organised riots, with mobs protesting against the lack of fuel and electricity in the city – when British forces were shot at and returned fire, killing at least one Iraqi.

Then on 14 August, a military ambulance was travelling from Basra, conveying a soldier to the military hospital in the Shaibah logistics base outside the city. Shortly after 9am British time, the vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb, killing Captain David Jones, injuring the other two soldiers, and badly damaging the vehicle. One national newspaper at the time reported that this had been the most serious attack on British forces since the attack on the MPs. . Furthermore, as this was the very first roadside bomb attack on a British military vehicle, the fear was that the "honeymoon" with the Shia was over. British troops in were now to be targeted by guerrilla attacks.

As reported by The Scotsman, the BBC had defence analyst Paul Beaver saying that the attack had been very different to any incident dealt with by British forces in Iraq before then. "This looks like a step up in operations by a group you can only call terrorists," he told BBC News (online link defunct). "This is very much a pre-meditated act of terrorism. There's no doubt at all what we're actually seeing here is someone making capital out of the fact there is now a greater awareness of discontent in the Basra area." The newspaper suggested that the campaign in Iraq had "entered a dangerous new phase".

Quickly following that, there was an incident on 23 August when three soldiers from the Royal Military Police - Major Matthew Titchener, Co Sergeant Major Colin Wall and Corporal Dewi Pritchard - were killed in an ambush in central Basra. Witnesses said the RMPs had been riding in a sports utility vehicle in a routine two-vehicle convoy and came under small-arms fire from an unknown number of men in a pick-up truck at around 8.30am. The soldiers returned fire, but appear to have been killed either by a grenade thrown from the other vehicle or when their own vehicle crashed into a wall.

Then, on 27 August, Fusilier Russell Beeston, a Territorial Army soldier in the 52nd Lowland Regiment, was killed on after a crowd surrounded his patrol vehicle in Ali As Sharqi, southern Iraq, and opened fire with guns and rocket-propelled grenades.

Friday 29 August saw a bomb attack on a British base in central Basra and, shortly afterwards, on 7 September, a roadside bomb in Basra exploded when a British diplomatic convoy was passing killing four people of unknown nationalities, wrecking the car and flipping it upside down. When a later explosion killed ten more, there can have been no doubt. The "honeymoon" was definitely over and an insurgency was in progress.

Within weeks, "Snatch" Land Rovers were being loaded onto a ship in Belfast docks. However, they were to arrive in an environment where the bomb was already proving to be the insurgent's weapon of choice, against which the vehicle was ill-equipped.

This, the Army – at least within its corporate or institutional memory - already knew. In its analysis of military operations in Northern Ireland, released for publication in 2006 (but written much earlier) with a forward by General Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of General Staff at the time that "Snatch" Land Rovers were first deployed to Iraq, the role of vehicles in Northern Ireland was assessed.

Vehicles, said the report, "could either be a valuable part of a patrol programme or a dangerous liability." When operating on their own (singly or in pairs with no foot elements), it continued, "they were vulnerable to attack."

The report then recalls how the Provisional IRA had developed at least two improvised anti-vehicle weapons. One was the "Improvised Anti-Armour Grenade" (IAAG) and horizontal projectors, which were deployed in some numbers "until counters to them were found". Crucially, the "counters" devised included, "avoiding such areas with vehicles, deploying top-cover sentries, and covering movement through such areas with foot patrols."

For an Army which prided itself in its expertise in counter-insurgency techniques, developed and honed in Northern Ireland – often regaling their "naïve" US counterparts in Iraq with their exploits – some of these lessons, were forgotten.

Casualties
Since the introduction of the "Snatch", in both Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been 38 known (or suspected) deaths arising from attacks on these vehicles, the latest including Cpl Sarah Bryant and three others on 17 June 2008 near Lashkar Gah, Helmand Province in Afghanistan. The casualties, in date order, are as follows:

2004

 * 28 June, Iraq: Fusilier Gordon Gentle, serving with 1st Battalion Royal Highland Fusiliers. Killed by an IED. Basra.
 * 9 August, Iraq: Private Lee Martin O'Callaghan, 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment. Basra.
 * 28 September, Iraq: Cpl Marc Taylor and Gunner David Lawrence, serving with the 1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery. Vehicle attacked on the outskirts of Basra.

2005

 * 2 May, Iraq: Guardsman Anthony James Wakefield, 1st Battalion The Coldstream Guards, al Amarah.
 * 29 May, Iraq: L/Cpl Alan Brackenbury, The King's Royal Hussars. al Amarah. First known use of the Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP) device against British troops.
 * 16 July, Iraq: Private Phillip Hewett, Private Leon Spicer and 2nd Lt Richard Shearer, all 1st Battalion Staffordshire Regiment. al Amarah. EFP used.
 * 5 September, Iraq: Fusiliers Stephen Robert Manning and Donal Anthony Meade. near as Zubayr in Basra Province. Died as a result of wounds while acting as top cover sentries when what appears to have been an improvised explosive device detonated.
 * 11 September, Iraq: Major Matthew Bacon, Intelligence Corps. Passenger, en route to Basra Airport, after the helicopter due to convey him had become unserviceable. EFP used.
 * 20 November, Iraq: Sergeant John Jones, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. Basra. Commander of the vehicle. EFP used. The was incident is recalled by a badly injured survivor in a newspaper article.

2006

 * 31 January, Iraq: Corporal Gordon Pritchard, Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. On patrol in the port area of Umm Qasr, near Basra.
 * 28 February, Iraq: Captain Richard John Holmes and Private Lee Ellis, both 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment. Conducting a routine patrol in al Amarah.
 * 15 April, Iraq: Lieutenant Richard Palmer, Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. Vehicle commander on a joint patrol with the Iraqi Army.
 * 13 May, Iraq: Privates Joseva Lewaicei and Adam Morris, 2nd Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment. Killed in the same vehicle in Basra, while on a routine patrol.
 * 28 May, Iraq: Lieutenant Tom Mildinhall and Lance Corporal, Paul Farrelly, both The 1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards (The Welsh Cavalry). Patrolling the al Jezaizah district of North West Basra in support of the Iraqi Security Forces. Believed to have been an EFP. *
 * 27 June, Afghanistan: Captain David Patten, Special Reconnaissance Regiment and Sergeant Paul Bartlett, Royal Marines SBS. Killed near Sangin, in Helmand Province, on returning from a "planned detention operation" when insurgents hit their vehicle with an RPG. The soldiers were forced to leave the vehicle and died in an ensuing gun battle.
 * 4 September, Iraq: Gunners Stephen Wright and Samuela Vanua, 58 (Eyre's) Battery, 12 Regiment Royal Artillery. Killed near town of Ad Dayr, north of Basra City. An explosion hit their patrol as it was returning to their base following a routine task training the Iraqi Police.
 * 5 September, Afghanistan: Private Craig O'Donnell, B Company, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland. Riding top cover in Kabul, rammed by a Toyota Hilux driven by a suicide bomber.  The resultant explosion overturned the "Snatch" and killed Private O'Donnell outright.
 * 19 October, Afghanistan: Marine Gary Wright, 45 Commando Royal Marines. Riding top cover, leaving the police station in Lashkar Gah in Helmand Province. Attacked by a lone suicide bomber, on foot, who detonated his device killing Marine Wright and setting the vehicle on fire.  Two children were also killed in the blast.
 * 27 December, Afghanistan: Lance Bombardier James Dwyer, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery. Killed in southern Helmand Province, when the Land Rover he was driving struck a mine. (Various reports give the crew as four - the normal complement for a Snatch - although another report  describes the vehicle as a WMIK).

2007

 * 9 February, Iraq: Private Luke Simpson, 1st Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment. Killed south of the city of Basra, when his vehicle was hit by an IED.  Three others were injured.
 * 9 June, Afghanistan: Guardsman Neil "Tony" Downes, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards. Killed by an explosion while on patrol in the town of Sangin, Helmand Province, with the Afghan National Army. Four others were injured.
 * 24 June, Afghanistan: Drummer Thomas Wright, 1st Battalion The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment. Killed when his vehicle was hit by an explosive device. It was escorting a military team surveying the site for a new road project linking several Afghan villages in the Babaji area, roughly six kilometres outside Lashkar Gah.
 * 1 July, Afghanistan: Sergeant Dave Wilkinson, 19 Regiment Royal Artillery. Killed when an IED exploded next to his vehicle during a routine joint patrol with the Afghan National Army.
 * 9 August, Iraq: Lance Sergeant Chris Casey and Lance Corporal Kirk Redpath, both 1st Battalion Irish Guards. Killed at the north of the Rumaylah oilfields, west of Basra City, when an IED detonated next to their vehicle.

2008

 * 17 June, Afghanistan: Cpl Sarah Bryant, Army Intelligence Corps, Cpl Sean Robert Reeve, Royal Signals, L/Cpl Richard Larkin and Trooper Paul Stout both of 23 Regiment SAS. Vehicle travelling outside Lashkar Gah in convoy with three others. Reportedly hit by two stacked anti-tank mines, killing four occupants of the vehicle. There was one survivor.

The unease builds
Although – by early 2005 - there seems to have been considerable unease at certain levels within the Army, and certainly amongst those required to use "Snatch" Land Rovers,, very little of this seems to have emerged into the public domain until mid-2006.

Conservative shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth, claims to have raised the matter in September 2005 with the then Secretary of State for Defence, later stating:

I think I was the first to raise the issue of armoured vehicles which I did on my return from Iraq in September 2005. I told John Reid privately that he had to do something to get better protection for the troops facing roadside bombs (privately because I represent a garrison town and know how careless politicians can cause increased anxiety). He told me that they were aware of the problem and actively seeking solutions, but would not be specific.

However, he did not follow this up with any Parliamentary questions or other overt activity. Nor was there any significant parliamentary activity elsewhere, from any other Member, until about mid-2006. The only recorded concern prior to that seems to have been in November 2003 – after "Snatch" Land Rovers had been deployed to Iraq. Then, Gerald Howarth appears to have been more concerned about whether there would be enough "armoured Land Rovers" in the light of an MoD decision to sell off some surplus vehicles.

By November 2005, however, there seems to have been some official concern – according to one newspaper report. Then, it is claimed (according to this newspaper and the sister paper, The Daily Star - not online) a memorandum was issued by Foreign and Commonwealth Office security manager, John Wyndham, prohibiting FCO and Department for International Development (DFID) staff from riding in Snatches. UK police and private training contractors were also prohibited from using the vehicles.

According to the report, Major General James Dutton, then commander, allied forces in south-east Iraq had insisted on civil servants being allowed to ride in "Snatch" Land Rovers, but had been over-ruled by Wynham.

The controversy - early stages
As casualties mounted, what brought matters to a head was information emerging from theatre of the deployment of mine-protected vehicles by US Forces - these later being designated as Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) – who were suffering similar IED attacks. In particular, an incident was noted involving a USMC RG-31 (informally dubbed "Cougar") near Camp Taqaddam on 7 January 2006. . The RG-31 had taken an IED hit, sustaining significant damage, but the crew had survived with only minor injuries.

A photograph of the damaged vehicle was later published, which was picked up by a researcher working for Owen Paterson, a Conservative MP who had a constituency interest, with a major Army barracks in his area. This, in turn, was passed to the Conservative defence team and thence to Lord Astor of Hever, defence spokesman in the House of Lords.

Lord Astor raised the issue of "Snatch" vulnerability on 12 June 2006 in Defence Questions, complaining that it was "not remotely adequate for patrolling areas where insurgents use landmines," then asking:

Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will provide our soldiers with equipment that is fit for this role? What assessment have the Government made of the RG-31 which, with its V-shaped undercarriage, has a greater resilience to IEDs and which the Americans have bought in large numbers just for this role?

He was answered by defence procurement minister, Lord Drayson, who set the tone for the subsequent controversy, stating:

My Lords, I do not accept that Snatch Land Rovers are not appropriate for the role. We must recognise the difference between protection and survivability. It is important that we have the trade-offs that we need for mobility. The Snatch Land Rover provides us with the mobility and level of protection that we need.

We had 14 RG-31s in Bosnia, which we took out of service some time ago due to difficulties with maintenance. We have looked at the RG-31 alongside a number of alternatives for our current fleet and concluded that the size and profile did not meet our needs. Size is important in the urban environment. The RG-31 cannot access areas that Snatch Land Rovers can get to.

The same information passed to the Conservative defence team had also been sent to journalist Christopher Booker, author of a weekly column in The Sunday Telegraph. On 18 June 2006 he published as his lead story details of the emerging "Snatch" controversy, together with a picture of the "Camp Taqaddam" RG-31. Booker noted that one reason British troops continued to be killed and injured in southern Iraq was that they were expected to patrol in lightly-armoured Land Rovers which give them no protection against roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades.

He also noted, "their American counterparts walk away unscathed, even when their RG31 armoured patrol vehicles are hit by the same explosives. Yet the Ministry of Defence has not equipped the British Army with the RG31, even though it is built by a British-owned company."

The Sunday Telegraph story was complemented by the publication of more details on a blog, inviting other blogs to join with their own posts – which some did – to create a classic blogstorm. (This was then supplemented by frequent additional posts to keep the debate informed. )

The following Thursday, 22 June 2006, there was a major defence debate in the House of Commons but, despite the media and blog activity, the issue was ignored by the front benches. It was raised, and then only in passing by Conservative back-bencher, Lee Scott, who complained that:

The American soldiers and marines in Iraq have access to RG-31 Nyala mine-protected vehicles which enable the crew to survive the blast of an improvised explosive device. Canadian troops deployed in Afghanistan also use RG-31s. British soldiers and Royal Marines need to make do with lightly protected Land Rovers.

The theme of IEDs was also taken up by Ann Winterton – also a Conservative back-bencher. She put to the minister "As our forces appear to be winning the firefights in Afghanistan, does he expect those who oppose our troops there and in other theatres to revert to the use of improvised explosive devices? If so, what vehicles are our forces to be equipped with to counter the threat?"

This invoked a non-committal response from defence minister Adam Ingram, who declared that, "…where we identify a threat - be it a new or technological threat - we identify a quick way to deal with it."

However, The Sunday Telegraph returned to the theme the following week, 25 June. . In the meantime, though, information had also been passed to Jonathan Ungoed-Thomas of The Sunday Times “Focus” team and, on the same day he, with defence correspondent Michael Smith, published a long report in their newspaper, as a "Focus" piece. The report was accompanied by a front-page "teaser" and a robust leader, under the title "Pay up and save lives", thus maximising the impact of the report. The leader declared:

We would naturally expect the ministry to do something about this. Far from it. The bureaucrats are digging in. It is not as if there is no alternative. The RG-31, an armoured Land Rover built by BAE Systems, is being used by the Americans and the United Nations. Some deaths from roadside bombs can never be prevented but other countries' soldiers seem better protected.

While Michael Smith was co-author of the "focus" piece, though, he was actually dismissive of the need for new protected vehicles. Writing on his blog, the same day as the "focus" piece went out in his name, he cited Brigadier Bill Moore, Director Equipment Capability (Ground Manoeuvre), saying that the use of heavy armour had to be balanced with the need for soldiers to interact with local communities.

Smith's argument was that, at 50cm wider than the "Snatch" Land Rover, "the RG-31 was not manoeuvrable enough to be used in the streets of Basra." It had the wrong profile for peacekeeping and an earlier version was used before by the British Army in Bosnia where it proved to have maintenance problems. "Its profile is all wrong and it's just that too big for Basra," he concluded.

This reflected a very real divergence of opinion within the military community, with the controversy being played out on the unofficial Army forum, where there was no agreement on the relative merits of "protection" versus mobility - the issues identified by Lord Drayson. A recurrent theme was that, since no amount of armour was sufficient protection against EFPs, it was better to rely on the manoeuvrability of the "Snatch".

Nevertheless, The Sunday Times report fully ignited the public controversy. The next day, during defence questions, no less than five opposition MPs challenged the then Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne, on the safety of "Snatch" Land Rovers, including Dr Liam Fox, his Conservative counterpart. To his first challenger, David Ruffley, Browne responded:

I have seen that that is a serious issue, and have asked for a review. There are medium and long-term plans relating to vehicles, and I shall be considering what we can do to respond to the situation in the short term—although we do also respond by means of tactics and operational instructions.

The exchanges and Browne's announcement sparked further significant media coverage, including BBC reports and a background briefing. .

Sky News also carried a lengthy report. This featured a "Snatch" patrol in Basra, and an interview with a soldier, who spoke to camera saying: "These Land Rovers are no use to anyone". This was highly significant as media reports from theatre including references to "weapons capabilities" require "specific approval" from the nominated Media Ops officer. . The broadcast of the interview indicated official permission had been given.

The "replacement" controversy
Because it was brought up so early in the debate, much of the ensuing discussion on a possible replacement centred on the RG-31. That this vehicle should be slated as a possible replacement was not entirely without logic. It had been selected by the United Nations for deployment in Lebanon and Bosnia as the "vehicle of choice" for its "high mobility and good crew comfort" and for its "non-aggressive appearance" (originally referenced to Wikipedia RG-31 Nyala the copy there since amended. The original text was copied verbatim and is reproduced here ).

In addition, the United States had purchased 148 for use in Iraq and the Canadian forces had bought 50 for use by their detachment in Afghanistan, with an option for another 25, having previously deployed three as part of their contribution to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

The vehicle had been selected after a tightly-fought contest with other mine protected vehicles and, in the view of one commentator, won the contract because: "Familiarity aside, the RG-31 had advantages that all but ensured victory in the CF's APV contest – proven performance in a range of climates and terrains, relatively small size."

With this not inconsiderable pedigree, it was something of a puzzle that the MoD had been so quick to discount the RG-31. The story, however, became "murkier" according to Christopher Booker, writing in The Sunday Telegraph. He reported on two issues which were highly relevant to the deployment of the "Snatch".

One of those was the evaluation by the MoD of the RG-31 which had led to the purchase of 413 Italian-made Panther armoured vehicles and the other was the earlier reference by Lord Drayson to the Army having previously operated RG-31s in Bosnia and had, in Booker’s words, “found them wanting”.

Reviewing this second issue, Booker – on the basis of photographic evidence of the vehicles in use at the time – asserted that the claim by Lord Drayson was not true. The vehicles used in Bosnia had not been RG31s but an earlier and much less capable vehicle, the Mamba.

This was raised a few days later in a House of Lords defence debate by Lord De Mauley, who challenged Lord Drayson on the veracity of his original claim. Drayson admitted that he had been talking about the Mamba. The RG-31 offered today, he said, "is the current version of that vehicle." He then added, "After giving careful consideration to the matter, we judged the size and mobility of the vehicle not to be appropriate to the needs of our Armed Forces today."

However, more details were to emerge later from a written parliamentary question asked by Mike Hancock MP, the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth. From that, it transpired that the MoD had purchased 14 Mambas, six in 1996 and the rest in 1999, for a total of £4.5 million but, in 2004 – after the "Snatch" Land Rovers had been deployed to Iraq – the vehicles had been sold for a total of £448,000, approximately one-tenth of their original purchase price. Nine had been sold to Estonia, four to a US company and one to a company based in Singapore.

It was thus evident that, at the time a need for protected patrol vehicles in Iraq had emerged, the Army already had 14 such vehicles on its inventory but, rather than using them, decided to dispose of them, for a fraction of their true value.

Nor indeed did the story end there. It then emerged that the US company that had acquired four of the Mambas has been the security consultant Blackwater, which used them in Iraq to transport American and other VIPs from Baghdad International Airport to the Green Zone in central Baghdad. .

It also emerged from a review of agency photographs of the time, and the accompanying narratives, that Blackwater Mambas had taken at least two IED hits, from which passengers and crew had escaped unharmed.

And nor did the story end there. The nine Mambas sold to Estonia were refurbished and issued to the Estonian Army where they were deployed to Afghanistan, alongside and under the command of British forces. As then reported in The Sunday Telegraph - again by Christopher Booker:

Sean Langan's chilling filmed reports from Afghanistan for Channel Four's Dispatches last week showed British troops hopelessly overstretched and ill-equipped to fight a guerrilla war with the fanatical Taliban. In particular they highlighted the inadequacy of the unarmoured Land Rovers in which our soldiers have to patrol, and in which not a few have died. One telling detail was the sight of a wounded British soldier having to be rescued by Estonian troops in a properly protected Mamba personnel carrier.

And nor, even, did the story end there.

The review
The first intimation that the review commissioned by Des Browne, announced on 26 June 2006, came in The Sunday Times on 23 July. The speed was quite remarkable, less than a month having elapsed since the original announcement, and Michael Smith of The Times was reporting that "100 new heavily armoured patrol vehicles have been ordered".

These, he predicted, would be upgraded versions of "the armoured Cougars used by US marines in Iraq", with "additional armour, making them the most protected vehicles of their kind in the world." The "Cougar" was the name given by the USMC to the RG-31 and it thus appeared that this was the vehicle which was going to be bought.

On Monday 24 July, the BBC appeared to confirm Smith's report, retailing that "100 US Cougars" were to be purchased, plus an existing order for Pinzgauer Vectors was to be increased to 166. In addition, there was to be an increase in the number of up-armoured FV432s – latterly named the Bulldog – from 70 to 124.

However, the statement from Des Browne to the House of Commons made it clear that RG-31s were not going to be procured. Asked by Michael Gove, what consideration had been given to the procurement of RG-31s, Browne answered:

We gave serious consideration to all the vehicles that were available. Thanks to the work that we were able to do with the Americans, and thanks particularly to significant work that my hon. Friend Lord Drayson was able to perform, we were able to identify about 100 Cougar vehicles to which the Americans were prepared to allow us to have access. We chose those because up-armoured, with electronic counter-measures added and with Bowman radios fitted, we believe that they would be the best protected mid-range vehicles in theatre. We made an objective decision to choose them instead of the RG31s. Had we chosen the RG31s, we would have had to fit ECMs and Bowman to them and possibly to up-armour them. In any event, the earliest possible time that we can get them into theatre is in the context of the six-month period of the next two roulements for Iraq and for Afghanistan. It physically could not be done any more quickly with any vehicle.

The confusion had arisen because a different vehicle, produced by the US firm Force Protection Inc, also carried the name "Cougar", albeit a completely different vehicle, a situation that was clarified when the MoD website published a photograph of the vehicle the next day.

The Cougar – later to be re-named the Mastiff by the British - is a 6x6 vehicle, built on the chassis of a commercial truck. Compared with the RG-31, it is four feet longer, nearly a foot wider and nearly two feet taller. As one commentator observed, it made a complete mockery of Lord Drayson's claim the "…the size and mobility of the vehicle not to be appropriate to the needs of our Armed Forces today".

The continuing controversy
Even after the review and the new vehicles had been delivered to their theatres of operation, the "Snatch" continued in use, albeit at a reduced level.

It has since been suggested that the vehicle is still inadequate for use in Iraq and Afghanistan, most recently by Major Sebastian Morley, the commander of D Squadron 23 SAS Britain's elite special reservist force in Afghanistan, who resigned and accused the British Government of "chronic underinvestment" in equipment. Reportedly he warned that people would be killed if the Snatch Land Rover vehicles continued to be used