"A British soldier died in Iraq because he was not wearing the enhanced body armour he had had to give up because of shortages, an official report found. Sgt Steven Roberts, of Shipley, West Yorks, was accidentally shot dead when UK troops opened fire during a disturbance near Basra in March 2003.
The board of inquiry said bullet-proof plates on his Enhanced Combat Body Armour (ECBA) would have saved him."

Link to article (BBC)

This incident had (and still has) tremendous resonance in the British Army.

Essentially what happened was Sgt Roberts was shot by one of his own soldiers, who was trying to stop a "crazed" attacker from throwing rocks at him.

Looking at the report (linked to from the article), it looks like it was a combination of circumstances:

1. Sgt Roberts was manning a vehicle checkpoint alone with a pistol (the rifleman who should have been protecting him close-up was moving an armoured vehicle, at Sgt Roberts instruction, at the time of the death). The officer with whom he was in contact via his personal radio probably knew this and apparently did nothing.

2. When Sgt Roberts used his pistol against his assailant, the weapon suffered a stoppage. Similarly when one of his troop went to use the troop's GPMG machine gun, it also suffered a stoppage.

3. When the gunner in the vehicle opened fire with its co-ax machine gun in support of Sgt Roberts, he didn't make an allowance for the line of sight correction needed (essentially fall of shot adjustments are needed much below or above 400m range), because he hadn't been trained to do so.
It was rounds from this weapon which caused the death.

4. The reason ECBA body armour was short in the troop was because procurement of the ceramic plates had been put on hold because the Government did not want to appear to be arming up for an invasion (the concept that people should be trained in the gear they would fight in was not well established).

5. The commander of the battlegroup prioritised the available ECBA to the infantry and troops in soft skinned vehicles, and appeared to overlook the fact that dismounted armoured soldiers would consequently be managing vehicle checkpoints without ECBA.

All in all, an avoidable casualty. I can understand it would leave a very bitter taste: we need people who are systematically equipped, trained and led to do the job they are being asked to do. We hear so much about the "tremendous" job our soldiers do, and it's true, but my goodness they need far better support than this incident illustrates they are getting.

Sorry for the long post but I got upset by this .

This was one of those unfortunate accidents that happen in war. When the war kicked of they found that they were short of Armoured Vests for the troops . So logically they took them from the tank crews who normally have a fair amount of protection around them and gave them to the infantry until the new issues arrived. Had I have been the Commander out there I would have know doubt made the same decisions. I don't they had expected that they would have been fighting in and Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time and also that a a fair number of the TA would be sent out to make up the numbers, lets face it what ever you plan for can and will go wrong

that is very unfortunate, but it sounds as if the l94 gunner wasnt properly trained which could have also prevented this from happening. i also agree with leenfields take that the vest prob went to an infantryman who also might be dead if he didnt have it. a very unfortunate, preventable death.

How many MG rounds hit him and would the Body Armor have protected him anyway?

Fratricide is never pretty. My sympathies go out to those involved and their families.

The report said he was hit by two rounds. One round was fragmented by the body armour he was wearing, the other got through; the board of enquiry believed the second round would have been shattered by the ballistic plates, had there been any.

I think there has been a change of policy as a result of this incident, which is a positive outcome.