Thanks Thanks:  159
Likes Likes:  510
Dislikes Dislikes:  15
Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 608
  1. #101
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's probably for a number of reasons:
    - soldiers (in uniform) not going to the polls (in uniform) on the way to/from work
    - soldiers being away from home
    Etc

  2. #102
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Mayo
    Posts
    609
    Post Thanks / Like
    It was the norm that any serviceman could choose in what constituency he could use his postal vote. This privilege / right was withdrawn suddenly in the 90's as far as I remember, maybe the 80's! There was a fear that large numbers of servicemen might opt for and target one particular constituency for obvious reasons.

  3. Thanks Truck Driver thanked for this post
  4. #103
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Re: Mutual international defence training & agreements
    A closer defence partnership/association/ training agreement (for all three branches of the Defence Forces) with one or two countries – that have good capabilities in the three areas of land, sea and air operations - would probably be advantageous for the Defence Forces, to keep up with modern procedures, but on a very close-up basis. This country though would then have to offer some reciprocal training opportunities to these one-two countries, that would be of reasonable value to them.

    [on NATO - personally not sure it should, and agree with others, that full membership of multi-national NATO is unlikely is a candidate scenario].

    To make such a partnership (relatively informal – not a ‘pact’) agreement acceptable to this country (politically etc.), to the other actor(s), be worthwhile to both, and give this country meaningful lessons (i.e. in alternative but still ‘right’ techniques and procedures for doing things), and just as importantly, to avoid getting this country entangled (or associated/confused with) some other nation’s foreign adventures – the following one-two selection principles should be to be used(?):

    1. The other nation(s) to be relatively close in geographical and population terms to Ireland, and relatively close in political and social outlooks (but not too close – so as to keep
    clearer divisions of interests and influences).

    2. The other nation(s) should not have too many, or too deep ‘interests’ around the world - or aspirations for such... (nor be a near ‘client’ state, or ‘proxy’ for another such
    nation).

    For either one, or both, principles the following example nations could be ruled out: - Britain, USA, Germany, Brazil, Poland, Denmark, Russia, China..!

    It would leave open, under one or both principle parameters: Sweden, or say Sweden/Norway/Finland (i.e. in a similar fashion to how they partner each other in some foreign affairs affairs abroad...(admittedly, not too dissimilar in that regard to Irish and British cross assistance e.g. consulate/citizen wise in foreign countries))...also reasonable candidates(?), Portugal, Austria, Belgium, and maybe France (though France a bit shaky on selection principle no.2...).

    Obviously, some of those nation suggestions are not new, but that would be part of the attraction (for public acceptability).

    [I previously mentioned making some suggestions, some a bit ‘left of field’, for capabilities increases and readjustments for the Defence Forces. However, seeing as a couple or so would be quite unlikely (ever, possibly even technically) and, regardless, the sum of them would be in ‘Hover Tank’ and ‘Mitty territory, and may ‘sully’ the above and previous ruminations..!.. I’ll stick them where they belong – in the ‘Hover Tank’ thread.]

  5. Likes morpheus liked this post
  6. #104
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Re: internal security and NI
    I do not think for example, that the ending of the DF involvement in security for ‘cash in transit’ was a good idea(not that it came from the Government side) (and notwithstanding the prominent opportunity it always presented regards the public, to point to that particular service and say ‘this is one thing the Army does...’)...because it was such a great deterrent, in that criminals would not even bother to attempt to ‘arm up’ to assault said accompanied cash transfers.
    Criminals may attempt to though, if it were the Gardai in escorts...
    and i don’t think the Gardai as the ‘civil defence/guardians’ (as in their name) should up arm to a very high level i.e. with assault rifles.
    Never mind the idea of private security companies ever been so armed for the same reasons.

    The Army is armed in such a way, so that the Gardai don’t have to be (in my opinion).

    Similar thoughts towards (whatever) DF units been retained widely dispersed around the country.

    The military getting involved in day-to-day internal security???.. If it looked as if a ‘shitt..uation’ was leading the country down that direction (e.g. in an ‘expanded’ state...) – likely best to run in the opposite direction (?)..like it is the plague!.. and in the same strand... l also agree, that the wishes of the Unionist community seem to be conveniently left out (and more importantly?!?) their subsequent ‘unforeseen’ impact as a voting block in ‘Greater-Ireland’ [is that a phrase?!), could help take the whole country closer back to where it originally came. That would be ironic.

  7. Likes DeV liked this post
  8. #105
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhingeNot View Post
    Re: Mutual international defence training & agreements
    A closer defence partnership/association/ training agreement (for all three branches of the Defence Forces) with one or two countries – that have good capabilities in the three areas of land, sea and air operations - would probably be advantageous for the Defence Forces, to keep up with modern procedures, but on a very close-up basis. This country though would then have to offer some reciprocal training opportunities to these one-two countries, that would be of reasonable value to them.

    [on NATO - personally not sure it should, and agree with others, that full membership of multi-national NATO is unlikely is a candidate scenario].

    To make such a partnership (relatively informal – not a ‘pact’) agreement acceptable to this country (politically etc.), to the other actor(s), be worthwhile to both, and give this country meaningful lessons (i.e. in alternative but still ‘right’ techniques and procedures for doing things), and just as importantly, to avoid getting this country entangled (or associated/confused with) some other nation’s foreign adventures – the following one-two selection principles should be to be used(?):

    1. The other nation(s) to be relatively close in geographical and population terms to Ireland, and relatively close in political and social outlooks (but not too close – so as to keep
    clearer divisions of interests and influences).

    2. The other nation(s) should not have too many, or too deep ‘interests’ around the world - or aspirations for such... (nor be a near ‘client’ state, or ‘proxy’ for another such
    nation).

    For either one, or both, principles the following example nations could be ruled out: - Britain, USA, Germany, Brazil, Poland, Denmark, Russia, China..!

    It would leave open, under one or both principle parameters: Sweden, or say Sweden/Norway/Finland (i.e. in a similar fashion to how they partner each other in some foreign affairs affairs abroad...(admittedly, not too dissimilar in that regard to Irish and British cross assistance e.g. consulate/citizen wise in foreign countries))...also reasonable candidates(?), Portugal, Austria, Belgium, and maybe France (though France a bit shaky on selection principle no.2...).

    Obviously, some of those nation suggestions are not new, but that would be part of the attraction (for public acceptability).

    [I previously mentioned making some suggestions, some a bit ‘left of field’, for capabilities increases and readjustments for the Defence Forces. However, seeing as a couple or so would be quite unlikely (ever, possibly even technically) and, regardless, the sum of them would be in ‘Hover Tank’ and ‘Mitty territory, and may ‘sully’ the above and previous ruminations..!.. I’ll stick them where they belong – in the ‘Hover Tank’ thread.]
    No need
    Engaging with a single country will not broaden the experience as much as it does in a multi-national environment

    Just participate more in PfP, EDA and EU battlegroups

  9. #106
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,847
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    No need
    Engaging with a single country will not broaden the experience as much as it does in a multi-national environment

    Just participate more in PfP, EDA and EU battlegroups
    bit of both perhaps - doing lots of exercises and ops with lots of different partners and groups of partners provides a 'sweetie shop' of immediate experiences from which the DF can pick and choose what it likes, and see whats definitely not a good model to follow. however, it doesn't provide a depth of experience - it gives a snapshot - depth of experience is provided by doing something over a long term, and doing it in several different positions within a particular structure.

    which is partnership.

    the DF mission to Mali will tell the DF about cultural and operational compatability with UK forces, it will tell the DF about the comparative effectiveness of different uniforms (HINT!) etc.. but if the AC wanted to learn about deployed helicopter operations, or AH or medium lift, them it would have to embed AC people at half a dozen levels within, for example, the UK JHF for several years or even several consecutive tours.

    some things would require much deeper levels of partnership - does it, for example, make sense for the AC to run its own rotary, single and ME training streams for what is a tiny number of students? wouldn't it make much greater sense to send AC flying students to the UK (or France, or Canada, or Angola..) and just put them through their established pipeline while also sending experienced Irish aircrew to be instructors within that pipeline?

  10. Likes morpheus liked this post
  11. #107
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=WhingeNot;421210]Similar thoughts towards (whatever) DF units been retained widely dispersed around the country. QUOTE]

    I always wondered in the decision to disband the 4th infantry battalion in cork. In its area of responsibility there's cork airport and port the later being the second largest in the island. Some people will say well Collins barracks is home to 1st brigade headquarters/cavalry/artillery etc. but those are support units. Would two brigades of 4 infantry battalions each be better.

  12. Likes DeV liked this post
  13. #108
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    bit of both perhaps - doing lots of exercises and ops with lots of different partners and groups of partners provides a 'sweetie shop' of immediate experiences from which the DF can pick and choose what it likes, and see whats definitely not a good model to follow. however, it doesn't provide a depth of experience - it gives a snapshot - depth of experience is provided by doing something over a long term, and doing it in several different positions within a particular structure.

    which is partnership.

    the DF mission to Mali will tell the DF about cultural and operational compatability with UK forces, it will tell the DF about the comparative effectiveness of different uniforms (HINT!) etc.. but if the AC wanted to learn about deployed helicopter operations, or AH or medium lift, them it would have to embed AC people at half a dozen levels within, for example, the UK JHF for several years or even several consecutive tours.

    some things would require much deeper levels of partnership - does it, for example, make sense for the AC to run its own rotary, single and ME training streams for what is a tiny number of students? wouldn't it make much greater sense to send AC flying students to the UK (or France, or Canada, or Angola..) and just put them through their established pipeline while also sending experienced Irish aircrew to be instructors within that pipeline?

    Which is why the DF sends people to the likes of PSBC.
    It isn't as if the DF and BA have never operated together before but you are correct (it is a new type of setup and scenario that they are operating together in). The DF have been training Somalis for a good while now so the type of op isn't new.


    "Outsourcing" of AC flight training would be a double edged sword:
    - fixed wing training - you lose the main reason for the PC9s, Finance say sell them, you lose the limited air defence / light strike capability
    - rotary training - same applies for the light utility helo

    Use it or loss it

  14. #109
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'd imagine your dead right does a nation of this size need two artillery regiments or would one single regiment located centrally not be better

  15. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  16. #110
    Lt General Barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Rancho Relaxo
    Posts
    4,701
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark23 View Post
    I'd imagine your dead right does a nation of this size need two artillery regiments or would one single regiment located centrally not be better
    Nine years ago there were eight field regiments and one AD regiment - even if each of those could only field 1 Gun Bty and 1 Mortar Bty per field regiment and 3 AD Btys (they were closer to 4 back in the day) you'd still get more guns/mortars/missiles that could be deployable at one particular time than you would at the moment. The changes in the past decade haven't been accompanied by any white paper or other changes in defence policy, and the arty corps has never deployed a Gun Bty overseas, so why not bin the corps completely and spin the 120 mortars off to the IWW? As a gunner it pains me to admit it, but it's hard to justify the corps when the main contribution these days seems to be the UAV work that should probably be done by the air corps and the ISTAR work that should probably be done by the cav, recce platoons or other dedicated ISTAR assets.

  17. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  18. #111
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark23 View Post
    I'd imagine your dead right does a nation of this size need two artillery regiments or would one single regiment located centrally not be better
    Because it is part of a conventional all arms capability for 2 brigades

  19. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes apod, Rhodes liked this post
  20. #112
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like
    Have any thoughts been made to the amalgamation between the cavalry and artillery into Combat support Battalions and having a single PDF Engineering Battalion based in the Curragh and A Joint Air Defence Regiment (Air corps/Army) based at Gormanston camp.

  21. #113
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Because it is part of a conventional all arms capability for 2 brigades
    Maybe the so called "all arms brigade" needs to be looked at would an engineering battalion in each brigade not be more appropriate in this modern world, ie disaster relief, reconstruction, nation building along with the missions of the engineers corps and also provide enough troops to maintain infrastructure

  22. #114
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,124
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevo768 View Post
    Have any thoughts been made to the amalgamation between the cavalry and artillery into Combat support Battalions and having a single PDF Engineering Battalion based in the Curragh and A Joint Air Defence Regiment (Air corps/Army) based at Gormanston camp.
    Take that man there, with the suggestion.... out the back and shoot him in the head... twice! .... The beatings will continue until morale improves.
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  23. Thanks Stevo768 thanked for this post
  24. #115
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like

  25. #116
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevo768 View Post
    Have any thoughts been made to the amalgamation between the cavalry and artillery into Combat support Battalions and having a single PDF Engineering Battalion based in the Curragh and A Joint Air Defence Regiment (Air corps/Army) based at Gormanston camp.
    Does any comparable army have their light armoured recce element and light artillery in 1 unit?
    So remove the organic engineering capability from the Bdes?
    No need to have AC elements in AD, the army provides that capability. Although they should be dedicated AD Btys. And there could be a good argument for having an AC / attached AD Bty

    Quote Originally Posted by Spark23 View Post
    Maybe the so called "all arms brigade" needs to be looked at would an engineering battalion in each brigade not be more appropriate in this modern world, ie disaster relief, reconstruction, nation building along with the missions of the engineers corps and also provide enough troops to maintain infrastructure
    Possibly but the light nature of DF means comparatively few heavy engineer assets are required (eg we need heavy bridging but not enough to support an armd regiment)

    3 Cdo Bde used to have 1 regular and 1 TA squadron, then it went to a regiment. Now they want to go back.

  26. #117
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here's only A draught but would something like this work
    Combat Support Battalion (PDF)

    HQ Company (Admin-Signals-Supply etc.)
    Cavalry Squadron (HQ- 2 Close recce troop's 1 Medium recce troop 1 Support troop (Aml 90 Replacement)
    Artillery element HQ Battery including STA and one 105mm light gun Battery.
    Combat Engineering Platoon

    Combat Support Battalion (Reserve)
    HQ Company
    One Light Reconnaissance troop equipped with WMIK Land-rover’s or G wagen.
    STA Battery and two 120mm mortar Batteries equipped with 6 120mm Ruag Mortars each.
    Reserve Engineering Group (Light engineering Duty’s Equipped with Medium excavators/loaders /8wheel tippers and Infantry Support Bridge’s).
    The Reserve Combat Support Battalion would contain larger Artillery and engineering elements

    The Engineering Battalion in the curragh would be tasked with all the heavy engineering tasks

  27. #118
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    The point of a Bde having an organic arty Regt is that a battery can detached to each of the Bde combat elements as required (hence 3/4 batteries). The same with engineers etc.

    Mil Engineering is fairly labour intensive. There used to a Heavy Plant Section in the DFTC (not sure if there still is)

    Also there is no RDF units anymore

  28. #119
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like
    In my opinion the two brigades that are currently are designed for Admin and Internal security (How often do the army support the Garda with an 105/120mm guns/mortars). With current equipment stocks they would only be able to field one Reinforced light infantry Battlegroup each and possibly one from DFTC. Has the opportunity been lost for the DF to deploy a 105mm gun battery along with its commitment with Nordic Battlegroup?.
    Last edited by Stevo768; 20th December 2014 at 14:39.

  29. #120
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,528
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Stevo768;421220]
    Quote Originally Posted by WhingeNot View Post
    Similar thoughts towards (whatever) DF units been retained widely dispersed around the country. QUOTE]

    I always wondered in the decision to disband the 4th infantry battalion in cork. In its area of responsibility there's cork airport and port the later being the second largest in the island. Some people will say well Collins barracks is home to 1st brigade headquarters/cavalry/artillery etc. but those are support units. Would two brigades of 4 infantry battalions each be better.
    There wasn't any sense to it, but in light of closing Clonmel and relocating its people to Limerick, closing Limerick within a year of Clonmel would have made a mockery of the reasons to close Clonmel.
    Had nothing to do with sense or logic, just politics.
    Time for another break I think......

  30. #121
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevo768 View Post
    In my opinion the two brigades that are currently are designed for Admin and Internal security (How often do the army support the Garda with an 105/120mm guns/mortars).
    The question is, of often should they support the Gardai with them?
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  31. #122
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    The question is, of often should they support the Gardai with them?
    I asked a Rhetorical question hence the Brackets()

  32. #123
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Does any comparable army have their light armoured recce element and light artillery in 1 unit?
    The Austrians Have Artillery and Recon Battalions They Have a Headquarters Company two Recce Company's/Squadrons 1 Long range Squadron and Two Artillery batteries in its Orbat

  33. #124
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevo768 View Post
    The Austrians Have Artillery and Recon Battalions They Have a Headquarters Company two Recce Company's/Squadrons 1 Long range Squadron and Two Artillery batteries in its Orbat
    They must be task org'ed that way, rather than established, the Australian Army website says otherwise.

  34. #125
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Valley of the Shadow of Death
    Posts
    3,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevo768 View Post
    The Austrians Have......
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    They must be task org'ed that way, rather than established, the Australian Army website says otherwise.
    I think you're looking at the wrong website DeV.

  35. Likes na grohmití, The real Jack liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •