The coroner was unequivocal. The last four soldiers to be blown up in a Snatch Land Rover in Afghanistan were unlawfully killed. They should not have died, and did so because they were inadequately equipped. By now, this must surprise nobody. It certainly would not have surprised those troops themselves. As the Wiltshire and Swindon Coroner David Masters reminded us yesterday, their commanding officer had requested a different vehicle for the mission, only to be told that none was available.

Corporal Sarah Bryant, Corporal Sean Robert Reeve, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin and Private Paul Stout were killed by a roadside bomb in 2008. Not only were they driving in an inadequate vehicle, but equipment shortages had also led them to be equally inadequately trained in the detection of exactly the kind of bomb that killed them. To be more specific, a lack of mine-detectors meant that many troops left the UK with no training in their use whatsoever. Once on their bases in Afghanistan, they were forced to seek informal instruction from their peers. Some troops gave evidence that their training with an Ebex mine detector had lasted under 20 minutes. Others said they had been forced to figure it out for themselves, with a manual.

Gordon Brown could not have been surprised by the coroner’s verdict on Snatch Land Rovers, either. In Afghanistan last weekend he announced that 200 new heavier vehicles would finally replace them. This sounded like a better pledge that it was. For one thing, the Conservative Party has claimed that there was an earlier plan for 400 vehicles, and Mr Brown’s announcement represented a reduction. For another, the timing was both suspiciously convenient in terms of the coroner’s inquest, and at least five years too late in terms of the military need.

Within Afghanistan, Snatch Land Rovers have long been referred to as “mobile coffins”. The vehicle was intended for operations in Northern Ireland, where the risk was primarily small-arms fire. It is entirely unsuited to the very different threats of Helmand. When this became clear, more than five years ago, American forces immediately brought in a heavier fleet to replace their similar light vehicles. Britain did not. The coroner’s report now reinforces the question of why.

Giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, the Prime Minister furiously denied claims that he had ever refused requests for equipment from military chiefs. As is so often the case with Mr Brown, while this may be the literal truth, it remains a misleading thing to say. Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, dismissed the claim as disingenuous, pointing out that Mr Brown certainly kept a tight reign on defence funding as Chancellor, and it was these limitations that led directly to the equipment shortages of today.

Also in front of the Chilcot inquiry, the former Secretary of State for Defence Geoff Hoon blamed Mr Brown’s cuts in 2003 for the insufficient supply of helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan, which led in turn to an overreliance on Snatch Land Rovers. Evidence given by Sir Bill Jeffrey, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, suggests something very similar. He reported that Mr Brown’s Budgets had left the MoD with financial problems that “persist to this day”.

It is often said that Britain has the finest troops in the world, while America has the finest hardware. But the two are not separable. For our troops to be adequately trained, they must be adequately equipped. The coroner’s verdict highlights a betrayal of the military covenant. If Britain wishes to be a leading military power, this comes with a cost. If our troops are prepared to pay this cost in blood, then the very least our Government can do is be prepared to pay it in cash.