Thanks Thanks:  34
Likes Likes:  92
Dislikes Dislikes:  7
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 154
  1. #51
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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


    Quote 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 fúck 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; 26th June 2013 at 15:31.

  2. #52
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    534
    Post Thanks / Like
    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; 25th June 2013 at 04:20.

  3. #53
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  4. #54
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    534
    Post Thanks / Like
    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; 25th June 2013 at 12:49.

  5. #55
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Villa Straylight
    Posts
    2,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  6. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  7. #56
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Valley of the Shadow of Death
    Posts
    3,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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?

  8. #57
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  9. #58
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  10. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  11. #59
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Villa Straylight
    Posts
    2,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  12. Thanks apod thanked for this post
  13. #60
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    534
    Post Thanks / Like
    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....

  14. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  15. #61
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,759
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Yes Snatch would be perfect.
    yes it would - in response to your points

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Can't keep up with the vehicles it's escorting
    i've personally driven a Snatch along the M1 in Northern Ireland at over 70Mph - how fast do you want it to go?

    Snatch (or similar i.e. Tavern) can operate within legal speed limits so what's the problem?

    if the Garda or CIT wagon are driving beyond the speed limit then they have already abandoned any protection offered by any security escort.

    and it should be the CIT wagon keeping up with the escort vehicle in front of it, not vice versa.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Top cover and leaving the rear doors open is the only SA (would look well on the M50)
    you can leave top-cover up at that speed if required - it isn't very effective but offers as much SA as any man on a motorbike, under normal SOP's we would have top-cover down then but the top-hatch would be open and 2 soldiers could respond if necessary - in the meantime they are protected from small arms fire and limited blast / fragmentation.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Hard top vehicles were purchased because of an accident involving a soft top land rover
    good, but the task should be the driving force behind the decision.

    so yes indeed Snatch would be a massive leap forward in capability for this task compared to what is currently in use.

    it's a pity the ONH never bought any of our Taverns before they were decommissioned - they were brilliant vehicles, much better than Snatch.
    RGJ

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

    The Rifles

  16. #62
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Doing 70mph with top cover out?

    They may be better protected but their SA is limited to the 1 front and 2 sides windows!

    I'm not talking about during a contact and the escort doesn't leave the vehicle being protected.

  17. #63
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,150
    Post Thanks / Like
    We are not talking about huge numbers of escorts annually by the way:

    CIT Escorts - approx 2000
    Prison Escorts - approx 150
    Explosive Escorts - approx 6

    Then of course there are (but there are issues there which are Opsec):
    Central Bank Patrols - 730
    Public Buildings Patrols - 730

  18. #64
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,759
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    their [Snatch] SA is limited to the 1 front and 2 sides windows![at speed]
    as opposed to a Pajero with 1 front and 4 side windows (and a rear view mirror)?

    i'll have my Snatch with 1 front and 2 side windows, along with light armour and SA with firing positions covering 360 if required (even at speed) - not to mention it's very effective fire-suppression system.
    RGJ

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

    The Rifles

  19. #65
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
    SA with firing positions covering 360 if required (even at speed).
    Only if they expose themselves to fire by going top cover or dismounting all together

  20. #66
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,759
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Only if they expose themselves to fire by going top cover or dismounting all together
    as opposed to sitting tight inside a Pajero where the soldiers are entirely exposed, instead of getting into a good fire position by just having to raise their upper body and weapon above the parapet of the Snatch's (or other similar LPPV) armour which protects the rest of their body?

    yes I'll definitely have the Snatch thanks.

    there is no tactical advantage of a Pajero type vehicle over an LPPV for that task, other than better protection from the rain and the cold.

    anyhow we are slightly digressing - my point is - if you do this task then the government needs to take it seriously and provide you with effective vehicles not token vehicles - any vehicle is 'adequate' until challenged, as we have sometimes experienced in the past in the British Army, but to be honest a kid throwing a stone could challenge a Pajero full of troops.
    RGJ

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

    The Rifles

  21. #67
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Villa Straylight
    Posts
    2,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    One minor issue with your idea RGJ - this isn't Northern Ireland or Basra - its a relatively well policed western european country with a low crime rate, a largely unarmed police force and a small but still present vestigial paramilitary problem. Having (amongst other things) a number of armed troops on hand and with the shipments has proven to be sufficient for over 30 years (during much of which the threat level was far higher). And now you think the DF should go all Rambo on it?

    Having troops driving around in armoured Land Rovers in Dublin or Cork wouldn't just look strange or inappropriate, it'd be complete overkill. The international experience elsewhere in Europe suggests something similar. Do the Met firearms teams use Warrior IFVs in London (parts of which are far more dangerous than anywhere here)? As far as I know, they take their lives into their hands in BMW 530Ds. The horror!

  22. Thanks DeV, apod thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  23. #68
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    130
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi Guys I thought the Green paper was coming out today but I havnet seen anything about it on any of the Gov. websites. Can anyone who knows please confirm when the paper is due to be published? Many thanks in advance.

  24. #69
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,819
    Post Thanks / Like
    Google seems to suggest its going to Cabinet next week
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  25. #70
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by trellheim View Post
    Google seems to suggest its going to Cabinet next week
    Annex A (The White Paper) to be published the day after haha

  26. #71
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Valley of the Shadow of Death
    Posts
    3,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Aidan View Post
    Having troops driving around in armoured Land Rovers in Dublin or Cork wouldn't just look strange or inappropriate, it'd be complete overkill.
    I think the point is that the DF should be the armed response/deterrent of last resort.

    By having them dedicated to this task in such a vulnerable manner means that if challenged and defeated the Government has little scope for escalation and public confidence in our armed forces will take a nose dive.

    It only takes one nutter with a firearm/IED and premeditated plan to get the better of a CIT patrol once for the whole security of the State to be brought into question.

  27. Thanks RoyalGreenJacket thanked for this post
    Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  28. #72
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Villa Straylight
    Posts
    2,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    It only takes one nutter with a firearm/IED and premeditated plan to get the better of a CIT patrol once for the whole security of the State to be brought into question.
    Sorry, but nope. Leaving aside the fact that in 30+ years, no one has ever had an overt pop at a CIT patrol (which should tell you something), the threat assessment simply doesn't require armoured vehicles - if anything, the more pressing question is as to whether DF involvement in CIT is required (again, not Basra or even Belfast). Going the other direction, using LTAVs or something similar on visible public ops would be far more likely to have a detrimental effect on the image and reputation of the DF.

    But even if someone did have a go, and did manage to kill irish soldiers, it would hardly undermine the State - after all the British Army relatively recently lost two Sappers outside a Barracks in N.I. and the fabric of society didn't crumble overnight. And the same goes for more recent unfortunate events in London. A tragic waste of human life certainly, but capable of undermining the fabric of the State? Doubt it.

  29. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  30. #73
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,277
    Post Thanks / Like
    Guys, the topic! The green paper is high level document, at best it will address whether or not the DF should secure CITs. It will not refer to the type of vehicles used or the colour of Jocks the troops will be wearing.

  31. Thanks DeV, Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes paul g, DeV, Turkey liked this post
  32. #74
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    RGJ started it. He wants us to do CIT in (british built) tanks.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  33. Thanks RoyalGreenJacket thanked for this post
    Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  34. #75
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    moving rapidly away.......
    Posts
    2,590
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    RGJ started it. He wants us to do CIT in (british built) tanks.
    Ya forgot to mention the Eurofighter Typhoons for air cover.....
    "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
    Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  35. Thanks RoyalGreenJacket thanked for this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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