Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Irishmilitaryonline.com Submission to Green Paper/White Paper on Defence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by kaiser View Post
    the last bit is
    not true
    Well it is has the money has been safe!

    Comment


    • #47
      the money has been safe yes
      but our cit,s have been challenged on several occasions
      Last edited by Turkey; 25 June 2013, 22:50.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        No DF cash escort has been challenged
        count yourselves lucky no CIT has been challenged because with soldiers sat side by side like sitting ducks with little or no SA and terrible arcs of fire in a vehicle with no armour - it would be a tragedy.

        in Iraq i've seen whole Close Protection teams wiped out in similar vehicles by just a some well aimed bursts from a couple of AK's - it's easily done and too late when it happens even once.

        if they are going to escort cash in TRANSIT (the clue is in the name) - then equip them properly and give them anything better than a 4x4 taxi that only allows the soldiers to become effective after they de-bus.

        besides, most would say escorting cash is a job for security men and police men, not soldiers.

        however if the government say there is a requirement for armed soldiers to follow cash around the country then it should not be a token effort and they need vehicles in which they can be both defensive and offensive from.

        Snatch would be perfect in this role.

        this is a dig at government and policy not the soldiers doing the job, and i hope someone in government sees sense and removes soldiers from this demoralising inappropriate task.

        either that - or hopefully the top brass in the ONH, encouraged by constructive criticism from SNCO's and JNCO's doing the actual job, are kicking off to get the government to provide vehicles to meet the task.

        you can not simply match a threat with a presence, that presence needs to be able to fend, and fight, and whilst sitting in a standard soft skinned vehicle without any SA enhancements or firing positions - you can do neither.
        Last edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 24 June 2013, 21:46.
        RGJ

        ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

        The Rifles

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by apod View Post
          I am sorry you feel that....I am talking about what happens should the country face an all out anarchy situation IE police stations being burned,police killed and a total breakdown of law and order.In that situation a countries army is its last best hope of restoring order.(Fat lot of good your navy will be then).
          I get what you mean. In such a situation all bets are off.
          I wonder, on a tangent...in a country like ours there is less of a social divide between serving soldier and civilians as most soldiers don't live in barracks. Would the kind of widespread deterioration in the state's authority that such a situation implies have an effect on the loyalty of significant numbers of the DF because of this? But that's way off topic.
          But again, my background is infantry even if it was RDF and the army would be the only service I would choose. But apocalyptic collapse of law and order aside, I still think the navy is the most important service for an island state. That's not the same as not wanting an army. I'd love a navy with four destroyers, airbus a400ms, tigers and a few gripens for the air corps and a four-brigade army with self propelled artillery, helicopter transport and enough AFVs for all, but "hovertank" style wishlists didn't seem appropriate for this thread.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by ropebag View Post
            i think whts really gone is the time when the Gardai can set defence policy by deciding that they aren't going to be armed, meaning someone else has to do the 'Armed' bit of policing.
            Am I not right in thinking that the armed escorts are cash neutral because the banks pay for it?

            In which case, as part of Shatter's "smart policing" program, could this task not be given to the Gardai who's numbers would be increased to fulfil the tasking at no extra burden to the taxpayer?

            You end up with more police available (with firearms training), the army aren't dicked with such a resource consuming task, and can instead concentrate on more mission readiness training.

            I'd side with RGJ on this. If the Army are doing the job of escorting and aren't rolling in a high profile, up armoured "don't fĂșck with us" manner, then it may as well be a few cops with a few gats in the 4x4s tailing the cash in transit.

            After the incident with the fuel truck being stolen from a barracks, it would only take one unfortunate incident for one crew to get the upper hand on a CIT patrol, and the Defence Forces will have lost all credibility regardless of all the good it has done and continues to do.

            Best leave the core role of domestic security to the AGS and private security companies and soldiering to soldiers.
            Last edited by SwiftandSure; 25 June 2013, 00:13.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
              count yourselves lucky no CIT has been challenged because with soldiers sat side by side like sitting ducks with little or no SA and terrible arcs of fire in a vehicle with no armour - it would be a tragedy.

              in Iraq i've seen whole Close Protection teams wiped out in similar vehicles by just a some well aimed bursts from a couple of AK's - it's easily done and too late when it happens even once.

              if they are going to escort cash in TRANSIT (the clue is in the name) - then equip them properly and give them anything better than a 4x4 taxi that only allows the soldiers to become effective after they de-bus.

              besides, most would say escorting cash is a job for security men and police men, not soldiers.

              however if the government say there is a requirement for armed soldiers to follow cash around the country then it should not be a token effort and they need vehicles in which they can be both defensive and offensive from.

              Snatch would be perfect in this role.

              this is a dig at government and policy not the soldiers doing the job, and i hope someone in government sees sense and removes soldiers from this demoralising inappropriate task.

              either that - or hopefully the top brass in the ONH, encouraged by constructive criticism from SNCO's and JNCO's doing the actual job, are kicking off to get the government to provide vehicles to meet the task.

              you can not simply match a threat with a presence, that presence needs to be able to fend, and fight, and whilst sitting in a standard soft skinned vehicle without any SA enhancements or firing positions - you can do neither.
              Yes Snatch would be perfect.

              Can't keep up with the vehicles it's escorting
              Top cover and leaving the rear doors open is the only SA (would look well on the M50)
              Hard top vehicles were purchased because of an accident involving a soft top land rover


              Originally posted by SwiftandSure View Post
              Am I not right in thinking that the armed escorts are cash neutral because the banks pay for it?

              In which case, as part of Shatter's "smart policing" program, could this task not be given to the Gardai who's numbers would be increased to fulfil the tasking at no extra burden to the taxpayer?

              You end up with more police available (with firearms training), the army aren't dicked with such a resource consuming task, and can instead concentrate on more mission readiness training.

              I'd side with RGJ on this. If the Army are doing the job of escorting and aren't rolling in a high profile, up armoured "don't fĂșck with us" manner, then it may as well be a few cops with a few gats in the 4x4s tailing the cash in transit.

              After the incident with the fuel truck being stolen from a barracks, it would only take one unfortunate incident for one crew to get the upper hand on a CIT patrol, and the Defence Forces will have lost all credibility regardless of all the good it has done and continues to do.

              Best leave domestic security to the AGS and private security companies and soldiering to soldiers.
              Yes this is a job for armed GS but it is cheaper for the Government to use the DF!
              They already have the personnel, training, vehicles, weapons and equipment.
              Guess what the big save is? Wages and overtime!

              The only reason the DF got any equipment in the 70s and 80s was nothing to do with overseas.

              Oh get rid of ATCP and ATCA and you will lose a brigade!
              Last edited by Turkey; 26 June 2013, 14:31.

              Comment


              • #52
                I tend to agree, a determined and tooled-up heist gang would likely make mincemeat of the escort, at least the first time.
                But correct me if I'm wrong on the following two points; the main reason for army escorts was the provo threat, and IRA general order number 8 forbade engaging our forces. This meant they couldnt raid without breaking the order and possibly risking another round of internment so just by being there ready to fight, the army reduced the threat to CIT.
                Last edited by expat01; 25 June 2013, 03:20.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                  I tend to agree, a determined and tooled-up heist gang would likely make mincemeat of the escort, at least the first time.
                  But correct me if I'm wrong on the following two points; the main reason for army escorts was the provo threat, and IRA general order number 8 forbade engaging our forces. This meant they couldnt raid without breaking the order and possibly risking another round of internment so just by being there ready to fight, the army reduced the threat to CIT.
                  Correct x 2

                  Mainly the IRA but also other terrorist groups, now I would say whoever wants it (included organised gangs).

                  It didn't stop them murdering Gardai, who are covered by that as well

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Current practice here, where CIT heist attempts average around the 250 a year mark, seems to be that the van is heavily armoured and the guards heavily armed. Security guards seem to have good drills here, there is still a large if aging reserve of combat-experienced ex-conscripts to draw on for training in the private sector. But there are still only two or three in a van and they try to sit tight until the police special task force (unlike the average cop they are very good) fly in to the rescue. Late last year such an intervention resulted in 6 dead and 9 injured for no losses on the side of law and order.*

                    *both 'law' and 'order' being relative terms....
                    Last edited by expat01; 25 June 2013, 11:49.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      On CIT (and lets keep it general), you have to remember that the Gardai have long worked the other side of the coin extensively as well in terms of intelligence gathering and surveillance on criminal gangs. So as well as the deterrent effect of knowing that there is x number of armed soldiers, there has also long been the deterrent of knowing that the ERU could well be laying in wait, followed by a long spell in Portlaoise (or worse). It doesn't always work, but at least it pushed criminals towards lower value targets (regardless of whether they profess a political ideology or not). The safe knowledge that the State would react (forcefully and politically) if Irish soldiers were killed also helped to focus minds, I'm sure.

                      The volumes of cash in circulation are going down, so it is easy to see a future where CIT ceases to be carried out by the DF. However that type of ATCP/Gendarmerie type function could always pop back up again, and so a contingent military capacity in this space is always going to be required. It's either that or create a para-military element to the GS, and that would be politically and logistically unpopular.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by DeV View Post
                        Guess what the big save is? Wages and overtime!
                        Charge the banks more, it'll still be cheaper than going privately, and with no armed private security they'd have no other option anyway. Unless they're not overly bothered about having armed guards, in which case, why are we bothering??

                        Oh get rid of ATCP and ATCA and you will lose a brigade!
                        Isn't a 'One Brigade DF' the duty rumour in the upper echelons anyway?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by SwiftandSure View Post
                          Charge the banks more, it'll still be cheaper than going privately, and with no armed private security they'd have no other option anyway. Unless they're not overly bothered about having armed guards, in which case, why are bothering ?
                          Firstly CIT escorts are a Government requirement, not a bank one ?

                          Giving that the Government owns a medium percentage of most of the main banks, it is now paying itself.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Aidan View Post
                            However that type of ATCP/Gendarmerie type function could always pop back up again, and so a contingent military capacity in this space is always going to be required. It's either that or create a para-military element to the GS, and that would be politically and logistically unpopular.
                            I agree the army should never lose that capacity, but I think it doesn't do the service good for that to be the main function.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I think it doesn't do the service good for that to be the main function.
                              As far as I know it hasn't been the main function for at least a decade.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                True, but a lot of people focus on this role, and in these days of budget cuts I fear that if all anyone talks about is internal security, some bright spark in Finance will decide that's all we need to be equipped for, and sure we can always send a company overseas in their nightshirts for a nod to the UN. Focus the Defence Forces on a wider role, and you by default have the capacity for domestic trouble if the need arises.
                                I know, I know....kak in one hand and wish with the other, see which fills first....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X