The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have forced the Ministry of Defence to face up to the realities of counter-insurgency warfare. The provision of the right equipment has been ad hoc, often delayed and frequently too late to prevent tragedies on the battlefield.

No war can be fought without casualties. There is no such thing as 100 per cent protection for the troops. Even if every soldier went into battle in armour-plating, there would always be an Achilles’ heel for the enemy to exploit.

The lessons have been salutary. There can never be an excuse for failing to provide personal body armour to a soldier operating in a war zone. Sergeant Steve Roberts, of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, died in March 2003, when he was hit in the chest by bullets. He had given his body armour to a comrade because there was a shortage.

If the enemy is equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machineguns, it is nothing short of negligence to expect a soldier to defend himself with a standard rifle and not much else.

Troops in both theatres of war are now significantly better equipped than they were when the operations began. After the combat phase of the war in Iraq was over, it had been assumed that British units would be involved in humanitarian and peacekeeping duties and the decision was taken to provide armoured Land Rovers for the mission. That decision proved fatal when insurgents began lining the patrol routes with roadside bombs.

In Afghanistan the Taleban demonstrated that they were ready to take on British troops and casualties began to rise steeply, partly because equipment was inadequate or in short supply. However, because the purchasing procedures inevitably took time the troops facing the Taleban had to make do while they waited for the better equipment to arrive.

Times Recommends

• A new kind of western conservatism
• Georgiana is the wrong role model
• Alaska, where cops don't bother you