Soldier's families to sue the government?

Indeed they do, Greatnan!

Obviously full protection cannot be guaranteed in all circumstances, but surely the very least our troops deserve is the best possible that is available.

Two Typhoons from Leuchars have just hurtled past my window. Part of Armed Forces Day. I would NOT like to have planes like this flying over my head in anger, whatever the standard of my protection. To be in a substandard tank, with substandard equipment, is like a fish being shot at in a barrel.

I would think that it could be very difficult to argue negligence in all circumstances. If your vehicle got hit in just the wrong place by an IED or a darn big rocket you would not stand a chance whatever quality equipment you were wearing. It could be interesting to see the legal arguments.

http://www.channel4.com/news/mod-negligent-over-vehicle-deaths-families-claim

The statistics seem to bear out the families' claims.
Let us hope they can get legal representation to match that which will be available for the MOD.

If the MOD didn't do so many negligent things then there would be no need for people to sue. Without people being brave enough to question such a powerful body, nothing would change & soldiers would be seen as mere war fodder - as they often were in WW1. My grandfather was killed in a military cock-up in WW1 & his widow with 3 young kids had to fight long & hard to get her meagre rights. If we send people to fight on our behalf, even if we disapprove of the cause, then we must support them properly.

It depends upon whether there was negligence or not, just as with medical compensation claims. In medicine it is known as the Bolam Test - what a practitioner of reasonable skills in that field would have done in the same circumstances.
My nephew will probably be serving in Afghanistan next year. We accept that he will be at risk, but the Army has a duty of care to minimise that risk to what is reasonable.
If it is perceived that the Army has failed to reduce risk to a reasonable level, then it is right that this should be tested in court and compensation paid if the Army is found negligent.

Equipment that was known to be faulty and on which the lives of people depended should not have been supplied. It was. And it will continue to be unless someone challenges the practice. There were challenges and they were ignored; hence the families taking the legal route.
Biker do you think it is acceptable to supply troops with substandard equipment? And if not, what action would you have taken, following the unnecessary and avoidable death of your son due to the supply of substandard equipment?

I doubt if even a tank would save the occupants from some of the explosions

When a person signs up for the armed forces, they are entitled to expect that the MOD will do everything within its power to protect them.
Billions have been wasted on useless equipment, but a small amount was saved by not providing proper vehicles.

One of the arguments is that the MOD failed in its duty of care by supplying troops with inadequate kit. "Snatch" landrovers offered no protection from roadside bombs for example.