Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Warrenpoint: A case of a Paramilitary force against a conventional army.
-
12-08-2010 5:43pm#1First off I would rather this thread doesn't become a debate on the politics behind the attack and whether it was justified or not. Or on the PIRA or for that matter the BA and their justification in being in the North in the first place(and all the usual jazz that seems to pop up whenever the BA or the PIRA are mentioned). This is intended to be a general discussion on a conventional army(in this case the BA) fighting against a paramilitary organization(the PIRA). I chose Warrenpoint as an example because it is one of the best known incidents between the two belligerents and was the PIRAs biggest victory.
Warrenpoint attack: A excellently planned and executed guerrilla attack or a series of BA blunders?
From Wikipedia:
I find it interesting the idea of a large conventional army fighting against a small force. How were the PIRA able, in enemy controlled territory so to say, to construct such large bombs find out the BAs route and position bombs?At 16:40 a 500 pounds (227 kg) fertiliser bomb hidden in a lorry loaded with strawbales, parked close to Narrow Water Castle, was detonated by remote control as an army convoy of a Land-Rover and two four-ton trucks drove past on the A2 road. The explosion caught the rear truck in the convoy killing six members of 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment.[13]
After the first explosion the British soldiers, believing that they had come under attack from the IRA, began firing across the narrow maritime border with the Republic of Ireland, a distance of only 57 m (187 feet).
At 17.12, thirty two minutes after the first explosion, a second device concealed in milk pails exploded against the gate lodge on the opposite side of the road, completely destroying it. The IRA had been studying how the British Army acted after a bombing and correctly assessed that the soldiers would set up an Incident Command Point (ICP) in the nearby gate house.
The second explosion, caused by an 800 pounds (363 kg) fertiliser home-made bomb, killed twelve soldiers - ten from the Parachute Regiment died along with the two Queen's Own Highlanders soldiers.
Was the high causality rate a result of BA errors(such as not checking for the second bomb) Did the BA follow correct procedures? Was the attacks success a result of catastrophic intelligence failure and lax security?
Personally I feel that the troubles are a very interesting case of a paramilitary organization causing major problems for a conventional army. How could the BA have acted differently and more effectively combated them? Have lessons been learned from the troubles and have they influenced the BAs operations in the Middle East?
What should the BA have done differently in combating this particular paramilitary force?
Hopefully this can be an interesting discussion.1
Comments
-
As the OP has pointed out, this is a topic for discussing the military side of the conflict between convential forces and a paramilitary force.
Any of the usual nonsense that usually comes with the organisations mentioned in this thread will not be tolerated.0 -
As far as the murdering bastards ambush was concerned :mad:... the PIRA had a good day out.
Think that about sums it up really Mus. The dicker must
Have shot his wad when the 2nd device went off.
Tactically you could call it a success if planting large amounts of explosives at two locations and managing to kill or maim with both.
Using I phone..having a rant while out and about, isn't technology amazing,
I think that was a very restrained and levelheaded response considering the subject matter.0 -
Never read much about the ambush, but at a first glance, looks to me like good example of one of I think it was von Clausewitz' sayings about avoiding prolonged conflict with an enemy, as they will get to know your tactics and strategies.
I'll do some more reading, and try to correctly attribute that quotation, and see if my opinion changes.0 -
I would say it was a well planned exercise, but one which would only work once. I presume that just as the IRA studied the mo of the British army, the BA would have learnt from this so that they wouldn't get caught in the same way again.0
-
^ Wot Fred Said.
I'm sure you could look up the after action reports from Iraq and Afghanistan to see if the insurgents there were able to take advantage of a weakness in established procedures by the US Army or BA, and where those procedures were changed.0 -
Advertisement
-
Poccington wrote: »As the OP has pointed out, this is a topic for discussing the military side of the conflict between convential forces and a paramilitary force.
Any of the usual nonsense that usually comes with the organisations mentioned in this thread will not be tolerated.
I think some things do need to be addressed. This thread should not be used as a glorification or justification for what the PIRA did, their "victory" did involve the murder of 18 soldiers after all.
In terms of the ambush itself, it does seem to have been meticulously and expertly planned. The site of the ambush could not have been more ideal, the gate lodge conformed to what the normal BA procedures followed.
A second bomb seems to have been something new for the PIRA and the BA seem to have made assumptions that the next potential action of the PIRA was sniper fire rather than a follow up bomb so they used the gate lodge as a command post. They should have checked the area for booby traps but it wasn't the PIRA's standard procedure to leave them so why bother?
Theres a good summation of what happened on the day by General Sir Mike Jackson who served with the Paras at the time here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562283/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-relives-IRA-Paras-bombs.html0 -
In terms of an operation it was a well planned attack, its a pity some are so full of hate they cant move on and a memorial to the dead and wreaths to the dead get destroyed, cant be very nice for their families.
An article there talks about the desecration of a memorial to mark the 25th anniversary of that day."The Massacre at Warrenpoint"http://assolutatranquillita.blogspot.com/2009/08/warrenpoint-remember-these-names.html
27th August 1979 - 18 people dead
also known as the 'Narrow Water Bombing'
Republicans attack and destroy the 25th Anniversary Memorial less than too days after the anniversaryThe destruction of the Narrow Water memorial and a nearby Orange Hall in Co Down has left unionists "sickened and appalled". The 25th anniversary of the Narrow Water atrocity was marked at the site, near Warren-point, by wreath-laying ceremonies on Friday. But less than two days later, the wreaths and crosses were scattered.0 -
TBH I fail to see how that is relevant to the theme of the thread which is not about the politics, but the military aspects.troubleshooter wrote: »In terms of an operation it was a well planned attack, its a pity some are so full of hate they cant move on and a memorial to the dead and wreaths to the dead get destroyed, cant be very nice for their families.
An article there talks about the desecration of a memorial to mark the 25th anniversary of that day."The Massacre at Warrenpoint"http://assolutatranquillita.blogspot.com/2009/08/warrenpoint-remember-these-names.html
27th August 1979 - 18 people dead
also known as the 'Narrow Water Bombing'
Republicans attack and destroy the 25th Anniversary Memorial less than too days after the anniversaryThe destruction of the Narrow Water memorial and a nearby Orange Hall in Co Down has left unionists "sickened and appalled". The 25th anniversary of the Narrow Water atrocity was marked at the site, near Warren-point, by wreath-laying ceremonies on Friday. But less than two days later, the wreaths and crosses were scattered.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »I would say it was a well planned exercise, but one which would only work once. I presume that just as the IRA studied the mo of the British army, the BA would have learnt from this so that they wouldn't get caught in the same way again.
i agree with FF. the lessons learned in the north are and have been used in Iraq and elsewhere and Tim Collins ex SAS and RIR mentions this in his book.0 -
It was a great military victory, 18 killed without 1 Ira member even being wounded. Sadly people always seem to forget the 2 innocent tourists shot by the BA after the initial bomb, one later died.
The reason the Ira thrived in Northern Ireland is because they were fighting in their own backgarden so to speak, quite often these were local lads who knew the lay of the land better than any foreign soldiers.0 -
Advertisement
-
It was a great military victory, 18 killed without 1 Ira member even being wounded. Sadly people always seem to forget the 2 innocent tourists shot by the BA after the initial bomb, one later died.
The reason the Ira thrived in Northern Ireland is because they were fighting in their own backgarden so to speak, quite often these were local lads who knew the lay of the land better than any foreign soldiers.
ONE English tourist 300 yards away who was fishing was shot dead, in the confusion he was shot because he was holding a fishing rod, soldiers throught he had detonated the bomb by radio control.
The fact after the first explosion, the PIRA ASU waited 20 minutes before detontonating the second shows how confident they were in their escape across the border. This was a major factor in there success in many of their operations.
Great military victory? A well planned and carried out attack yes. But it simply turned more Catholics against the PIRA, the following evening hundreds attented a mass at the scene.
Foreign soldiers who never knew the land? Tell that to John Green et al, lol.0 -
didnt that tourist get slotted after the PIRA opened up with an MG from the Republic side of the narrow water and the BA returned fire? caught in the crossfire as such. i may be wrong. a spectacular for the PIRA,18 dead paras,but when you factor in the mountbaton hit that occured at the same time i dont think it did too much for popular support!0
-
didnt that tourist get slotted after the PIRA opened up with an MG from the Republic side of the narrow water and the BA returned fire? caught in the crossfire as such. i may be wrong. a spectacular for the PIRA,18 dead paras,but when you factor in the mountbaton hit that occured at the same time i dont think it did too much for popular support!
There is confusion over that, if the PIRA opened fire or not, and Im not sure if the tourist was shot after the first or second explosion.
If the bombers waited 20 minutes to detonate a second device its unlikely they opened fire after the first explosion.
Some say the fact ammunition was cooking off gave the impression in the confusion of being under fire.0 -
Warrenpoint /Mountbatten was a massive coup and I believe touted as revenge for bloody sunday.
Don't mean to 'derail' the thread but I thought this one also technically impressive :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Cloghogue_checkpointThe attack on Cloghogue checkpoint was an elaborate attack carried out on 1 May 1992 by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) against a British Army permanent vehicle checkpoint (PVCP). The compound, located near Killean, County Armagh, was obliterated by the explosion.
Checkpoint
The checkpoint was erected in 1988 at a place on the main Belfast-Dublin road next to the South Armagh / Republic of Ireland border that had seen three serious IRA attacks. Four RUC officers were killed in 1985, Lord Justice Gibson and his wife were killed in 1987 and Robin and Maureen Hanna, and their six-year-old son David were killed in 1988 after their car was mistaken for one belonging to a senior judge.[1]
The attack
During the late hours of 1 May, a party of four IRA volunteers held a family hostage in Killeen and stole a mechanical excavator. This heavy vehicle was to be used to build a makeshift ramp aimed at the Dublin–Belfast railway line crossing the Belfast-Dublin highway. At the same time, other members of the organisation stole a van in Dundalk, which was then loaded with 2,200 lb (1,000 kg) of Semtex. The van was equipped with wheels fitted to run on the rails. The excavator, moving along the ramp, lifted the van onto the railway, which was then driven to a hill some 800 metres north, where a mile-long wire attached to a triggering device was added to the van. Meanwhile, IRA support teams set up roadblocks in order to prevent civilians from approaching the area.
Around 2:00 AM, the vehicle was clamped into first gear and directed at the checkpoint. A British patrol heard the noise of a 'train' heading towards the checkpoint, which was immediately alerted. The sentry at Cloghogue, Fusilier Andrew Grundy, spotted the incoming threat and alerted the other soldiers in the checkpoint who were able to take shelter from the bomb. Meanwhile an IRA member, from the high terrain south of the position, waited for the van to reach its target. At 2:05, the explosive went off, demolishing the British permanent vehicle check point. Fusilier Grundy died almost instantly. The rest of the soldiers, all inside a reinforced concrete facility, survived without injuries, despite the blast.[2]
[edit] Aftermath
Fusilier Grundy was mentioned in dispatches for his courageous actions in raising the alarm before the explosion.[3]
The official report about this incident stated: "This was a well-planned and well-executed attack indicative of the imaginative, innovative and capable nature of South Armagh PIRA."[4]
The checkpoint, reduced to rubble, was never re-opened. Another smaller PVCP was built a few miles to the west; the new checkpoint cost ₤7 million, only to be removed by 1998.[5]
There was also a technically impressive baader meinhoff one from the early 1970's which involved a bicycle parked at a strategic point on the road. The satchel on the bicycle contained bomb that held a sheet of thick metal and a shapecharge on the other side. This was detonated as an armoured limousine drove past it fired like a projectile and entered the passenger armoured door of the vehicle killing all inside including it's intended target. For it's time and all things considered that was a very capable incident that was probably not indicative of their general abilities. I have never seen an account of that one in print - only in a documentary shown in the mid-late 90's.0 -
Warrenpoint /Mountbatten was a massive coup and I believe touted as revenge for bloody sunday.
Don't mean to 'derail' the thread but I thought this one also technically impressive :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Cloghogue_checkpoint
There was also a technically impressive baader meinhoff one from the early 1970's which involved a bicycle parked at a strategic point on the road. The satchel on the bicycle contained bomb that held a sheet of thick metal and a shapecharge on the other side. This was detonated as an armoured limousine drove past it fired like a projectile and entered the passenger armoured door of the vehicle killing all inside including it's intended target. For it's time and all things considered that was a very capable incident that was probably not indicative of their general abilities. I have never seen an account of that one in print - only in a documentary shown in the mid-late 90's.
There is no way the PIRA would have known they were hitting the Paras, the route that day was random, it could have been the Queens own Highlanders or another unit deployed in the area that day travelling on that road. They got lucky with hitting the Paras as a target.
And while it was a propaganda victory for them and the 20% of Catholics in border areas who were supporters, it alienated the vast majority even more, in terms of them not supporting terrorism.0 -
troubleshooter wrote: »There is no way the PIRA would have known they were hitting the Paras, the route that day was random, it could have been the Queens own Highlanders or another unit deployed in the area that day travelling on that road. They got lucky with hitting the Paras as a target.
I said it was touted as being revenge for bloody sunday. Which it was. If they had hit someone else then it possibly wouldn't have been but they did and it was.
I just found something on the Baader Meinhof one - it was not the 1970's after all ;
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2008/09/raf-baader-meinhof-gang.htmlAlfred Herrhausen (30 January 1930 - 30 November 1989) was a German banker and Chairman of Deutsche Bank. From 1971 onwards he was a member of the bank's board of directors.
Herrhausen fell victim to a sophisticated roadside bomb shortly after leaving his home in Bad Homburg on 30 November 1989. He was being chauffeured to work in his armoured Mercedes-Benz, with bodyguards in both a lead vehicle and another following behind. The bomb had been hidden in a saddle bag on a bicycle next to the road that the assassins knew Herrhausen would be traveling in his three-car convoy. In the bag was a 20 kg bomb that was detonated when Herrhausen's car interrupted a beam of infrared light as it passed the bicycle. The bomb and its triggering mechanism were quite sophisticated. The bomb targeted the most vulnerable area of Herrhausen's car—the door where he was sitting—and required split-second timing to overcome the car's special armour plating. The bomb utilized a Misznay-Schardin mechanism. A copper plate, placed between the explosive and the target, was deformed and projected by the force of the explosion. It is unlikely that this improvised explosive device had the precise engineering required to form the liner into a more effective slug or "carrot" shape (as in a shaped charge or an EFP)[citation needed] but in any case, the detonation resulted in a mass of copper being projected toward the car at a speed of nearly two kilometers per second, effectively penetrating the armoured Mercedes. Herrhausen's legs were severed and he bled to death.
No one has ever been charged with the murder. For a long time, the German federal prosecutor office listed Andrea Klump and Christoph Seidler of the Red Army Faction as the only suspects. The Federal Criminal Police Office (Germany) presented a chief witness Siegfried Nonne who later retracted his statements in which he claimed to have sheltered four terrorists in his home. His half-brother Hugo Föller (died 23 January 1992) furthermore declared that no other persons had been at the flat at the time. German Television on 1. July 1992 broadcast Nonne's explanations how he was coached and threatened by the Verfassungsschutz, the German internal intelligence agency, to become the main witness. In 2004 the federal prosecutor dropped the charges against the Red Army Faction; the investigation was to continue without naming a suspect.0 -
As I said they got lucky with hitting the Paras, revenge for bloody sunday? No thats just more of their lies, they planted bombs and targeted the army and civilians before bloody sunday.
They never knew they were targetting the paras, so their claim the action was planned in revenge for bloody sunday cant be true.
One of the bombers later blew himself up with his own bomb, poetic justice I suppose.
According to a Para who survived 2 Irish lads were serving alongside that day.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article474931.ece?token=null&offset=24&page=3
"Among his comrades on the patrol were two young Irishmen, he recalls; one a Protestant, and the other a Roman Catholic. “So it’s difficult for me to feel anger or hate.”
Came across this.
Gardai are accused of destroying evidence which could have convicted the IRA men who killed 18 soldiers at Narrow Water in 1979. "The bombing at Warrenpoint was the worst single casualty toll sustained by the Army during the Troubles. A retired senior forensics officer in the Republic has gone - on record over his deep concerns that two IRA men who allegedly triggered the two 800 lb bombs were never charged because there was substantial scientific evidence gathered from the scene. Jim Donovan said there was more forensic evidence than was required to convict the bomber behind the killing of Lord Mountbatten and three others on the same day, August 27,1979. The IRA attacked an Army convoy from the Republic side of Carlingford Lough at Narrow Water. A bomb was detonated on the Ulster side, killing six soldiers. A gun battle then raged and as soldiers took cover a second device went off killing another half-a-dozen men. The two IRA men one of whom was Brendan Burns, later killed in 1988 when a bomb he was handling went off-were stopped by gardai heading away from Narrow Water on a motorcycle. Later a search of the area is believed to have found the IRA vantage point and discarded cigarette butts and lemonade bottles. These items and the bike were vital to forensics. A source said: "Burns and (his accomplice) were arrested on the southern side. They were taken in for questioning and that's when the forensics was matched on them. "There were lemonade bottles found at the scene with their fingerprints on them as well, and found on the bombers' clothing and the motorbike were traces of ammonium nitrate and firearms residue. "The evidence was held in Dundalk Garda station until allegedly renovations were taking place and it was literally dumped in a skip. "They had actually held the bike as evidence and it was dumped too. "For a senior forensics officer to come out and openly question this suggests something was seriously wrong there." The IRA men at Narrow Water went on to be involved in further atrocities. It is feared that the garda who was believed to be the IRA's senior link in Co Louth was involved in the Narrow Water investigation and was involved in the cover-up.0 -
Well the context in which Warrenpoint happened was in revenge for Bloody Sunday when the murdering ba$tards of the parachute regiment murdered 13 civil rights marchers, Mountbatten was for giving the Officer in command that day an OBE :mad:.
One of the main men behind the attacks was legedary South Armagh IRA commander Brendan Burns. He with another man standing guard, triggerd the bombs from the Louth side of the border and escaped to Dundalk on a motorbike. The Provos had made use of TV repair techs around the country to use remote control devices for model aeroplanes etc to trigger the bombs.
The first bomb was hidden in a trailer full of hay which had been left there for several days. How the IRA knew what time a patrol would be passing at that time I cannot say, obviously their formidable spy system was on the ball. It became quite a common tatic for the IRA to have 2 bombs ready, one to obviously inflict on the passing patrol or whatever, and then sometimes a 2nd one to get the British forces who turned up in the clear up operation. The second bomb was hidden in milk churns near an entrance to a farm, the IRA had suspected that the survivng brits would take cover behind the entrances stone walls and hence detonated the 2nd bomb as this was exactly how they had reacted.
BTW, it was the biggest single loss of life inflicted on the Brit forces in Ireland since the Kilmicheal ambush in 1920.0 -
PatsytheNazi wrote: »Well the context in which Warrenpoint happened was in revenge for Bloody Sunday when the murdering ba$tards of the parachute regiment murdered 13 civil rights marchers, Mountbatten was for giving the Officer in command that day an OBE :mad:.
One of the main men behind the attacks was legedary South Armagh IRA commander Brendan Burns. He with another man standing guard, triggerd the bombs from the Louth side of the border and escaped to Dundalk on a motorbike. The Provos had made use of TV repair techs around the country to use remote control devices for model aeroplanes etc to trigger the bombs.
The first bomb was hidden in a trailer full of hay which had been left there for several days. How the IRA knew what time a patrol would be passing at that time I cannot say, obviously their formidable spy system was on the ball. It became quite a common tatic for the IRA to have 2 bombs ready, one to obviously inflict on the passing patrol or whatever, and then sometimes a 2nd one to get the British forces who turned up in the clear up operation.
BTW, it was the biggest single loss of life inflicted on the Brit forces in Ireland since the Kilmicheal ambush in 1920.
The lie that the CO of the Paras got an OBE for bloody sunday has been proven as a lie on here before as you know, but dont let that get in the way of repeating it.
The PIRA did not know the time a unit would pass by or this is another lie, units changed times and routes.
The problem was there were only a few routes into Newry.
The PIRA controlled most of the TV repair shops in the south, this is true.
Obviously someone must have turned a blind eye.
And lets not forget 3 children and an 80yr old woman were blown up along with mountbatten by your heros.0 -
troubleshooter wrote: »And lets not forget 3 children and an 80yr old woman were blown up along with mountbatten by your heros.
Or the tourist shot dead by yours.0 -
Advertisement
-
Or the tourist shot dead by yours.
Shooting someone after a bomb goes off and ammunition is cooking off beacuse they are holding a fishing rod and in the confusion you mistakenly think they have detonated the bomb by remote control, ie that the fishing rod is an aeriel, is very tragic, but very different then planting a bomb in a boat watching 3 children and an 80 yr old woman get on board then detonating it.0 -
A bit off topic, but total bollox as you know well, the CO at Bloody Sunday Derek Wilford was awarded an OBE in the Queens New Year's Honours List later that year. I suppose now though he'll tell us it was for humanitarianism or something :rolleyes:troubleshooter wrote: »The lie that the CO of the Paras got an OBE for bloody sunday has been proven as a lie on here before as you know, but dont let that get in the way of repeating it.
Obviously the IRA knew a lot more about when the Brits would be passing that spot then you do. So now he's going to tell us bomb 1, bomb 2 and Mountbatten all going off within minutes of each other wasn't wasn't a coordinated operation ? :rolleyes:The PIRA did not know the time a unit would pass by or this is another lie, units changed times and routes.
The problem was there were only a few routes into Newry.0 -
If britain or the us armed forces had killed a target in this manner then militarily I think the term which would be used would be 'collateral damage'. Oh and I think you are forgetting that mounbatten was on that boat also.
What I think is that if you get killed by one side or another in a conflict then all the contextualising and excuse making and finger pointing (by advocates and supporters of either side) in the world is not going to make an awful lot of difference.0 -
didnt that tourist get slotted after the PIRA opened up with an MG from the Republic side of the narrow water and the BA returned fire? caught in the crossfire as such. i may be wrong. a spectacular for the PIRA,18 dead paras,but when you factor in the mountbaton hit that occured at the same time i dont think it did too much for popular support!
Yes the paras thought that they were under gun fire as the ammunition in the lorry was going off due to the fire caused by the explosion. The English civilian killed by the paras on the Irish side of the border by coincidence was the son of a coachman at Buckingham Palace. Not that this was the first or last civilain murder by the trigger happy Parachute regiment, however no OBE was given out of for this particuliar murder.troubleshooter wrote: »Shooting someone after a bomb goes off and ammunition is cooking off beacuse they are holding a fishing rod and in the confusion you mistakenly think they have detonated the bomb by remote control, ie that the fishing rod is an aeriel, is very tragic, but very different then planting a bomb in a boat watching 3 children and an 80 yr old woman get on board then detonating it.0 -
That really is twisting something to ones own means.PatsytheNazi wrote: »A bit off topic, but total bollox as you know well, the CO at Bloody Sunday Derek Wilford was awarded an OBE in the Queens New Year's Honours List later that year. I suppose now though he'll tell us it was for humanitarianism or something :rolleyes:0 -
If britain or the us armed forces had killed a target in this manner then militarily I think the term which would be used would be 'collateral damage'. Oh and I think you are forgetting that mounbatten was on that boat also.
What I think is that if you get killed by one side or another in a conflict then all the contextualising and excuse making and finger pointing (by advocates and supporters of either side) in the world is not going to make an awful lot of difference.
this thread IS starting to devolve into what the OP said he DIDN'T want it to get into. I've held my thoughts in check as I have some strong opinions on what I think of the PIRA, I'd suggest other people do the same and stick to the facts only. Getting into the justication game/condemnation game is going to get all of us nowhere.0 -
I'm thinking that they picked a route that is used a lot, put a bomb on it, and another bomb nearby, and waited a while, until someone went by. If this was true, it would be a "huge victory", but not an "excellently planned and executed guerrilla attack", as clicking the trigger the moment someone goes by the bomb is hoping for the best. It's also risky, as the trigger men could be found before the bomb is denotated.troubleshooter wrote: »The problem was there were only a few routes into Newry.0 -
PatsytheNazi wrote: »Yes the paras thought that they were under gun fire as the ammunition in the lorry was going off due to the fire caused by the explosion. The English civilian killed by the paras on the Irish side of the border by coincidence was the son of a coachman at Buckingham Palace. Not that this was the first or last civilain murder by the trigger happy Parachute regiment, however no OBE was given out of for this particuliar murder.
It was an accidental death not a murder and getting facetious about it does not honour his memory. The paras didn't go "Oh look theres a civilian lets kill him", he was just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. The only murders that day were of the 18 BA soldiers.0 -
If britain or the us armed forces had killed a target in this manner then militarily I think the term which would be used would be 'collateral damage'. Oh and I think you are forgetting that mounbatten was on that boat also.
What I think is that if you get killed by one side or another in a conflict then all the contextualising and excuse making and finger pointing (by advocates and supporters of either side) in the world is not going to make an awful lot of difference.
If the bomber had not known that Mountbatten had company that day, then you could write it off as collaterol damage. the fact that he stood on the bank and watched the people on board the boat before detonating the bomb suggests that he went ahead knowing full well innocent people (and lets face it, other than being a member of the royal family, what crime had mountbatten commited?) were going to be killed, which to me makes it murder.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »If the bomber had not known that Mountbatten had company that day, then you could write it off as collaterol damage. the fact that he stood on the bank and watched the people on board the boat before detonating the bomb suggests that he went ahead knowing full well innocent people (and lets face it, other than being a member of the royal family, what crime had mountbatten commited?) were going to be killed, which to me makes it murder.
Can you just confirm here, do you think say, in Iraq during the height of the early war, or in Afghanistan would the special forces of the west refrain from killing a high value target if there was going to be 3 or 4 civilians killed ?
I do think there is a point at which they would refrain . . . . if it meant taking out say a wedding party or 40-50 innocent people (though depending on the target perhaps they would not), but in the scenario above of 3-4 innocent people would they always be relied upon to refrain from that and hold off until another day that might not come ?
Now consider the size of their forces and their military capapbility compared to that of the then IRA. Personally I don't think it is as clear cut as you would make out.0 -
Can you just confirm here, do you think say, in Iraq during the height of the early war, or in Afghanistan would the special forces of the west refrain from killing a high value target if there was going to be 3 or 4 civilians killed ?
I do think there is a point at which they would refrain . . . . if it meant taking out say a wedding party or 40-50 innocent people (though depending on the target perhaps they would not), but in the scenario above of 3-4 innocent people would they always be relied upon to refrain from that and hold off until another day that might not come ?
Now consider the size of their forces and their military capapbility compared to that of the then IRA. Personally I don't think it is as clear cut as you would make out.
who knows. There is footage available of an RAF pilot steering a smart bomb into the desert because the car it is tracking is headed into a bult up area and he can't be sure there would be no civilian casualites, so there is an example of this. I guess it also comes down to orders as well. if the general order is to avoid civilian casualties at all costs then that makes a huge difference as well.
Lastly, an operation to take out a miklitary commander is somewhat different to a revenge attack on an innocent man.
Lets face it, the IRA made a huge PR mess up killing Mountbatten and the story afterwards about it being revenge for an OBE i=was just a hastily made up story.
They killed him because he was a member of the Royal Family and they had the means to do it. It was a terror attack, not a military one.0 -
Can you just confirm here, do you think say, in Iraq during the height of the early war, or in Afghanistan would the special forces of the west refrain from killing a high value target if there was going to be 3 or 4 civilians killed ?
I do think there is a point at which they would refrain . . . . if it meant taking out say a wedding party or 40-50 innocent people (though depending on the target perhaps they would not), but in the scenario above of 3-4 innocent people would they always be relied upon to refrain from that and hold off until another day that might not come ?
Now consider the size of their forces and their military capapbility compared to that of the then IRA. Personally I don't think it is as clear cut as you would make out.
Your morally twisting things, Mountbatten was an 80 yr old man not a dangerous Islamic terrorist. And no I dont think the SAS would blow up a boat with British children on board to take out a target.
Thats what the PIRA did they blew up a boat with Irish children on board to get their target.0 -
Well it was well planned and clever that they had observed the Brits activities and correctly guessed that a command post would be set up at the gate house. The second bomb is the most interesting thing about the ambush imo. Does anyone know if the BAs response to bombings re setting up command posts changed in light of the attack?I'm thinking that they picked a route that is used a lot, put a bomb on it, and another bomb nearby, and waited a while, until someone went by. If this was true, it would be a "huge victory", but not an "excellently planned and executed guerrilla attack", as clicking the trigger the moment someone goes by the bomb is hoping for the best. It's also risky, as the trigger men could be found before the bomb is denotated.
Guys this thread is about the PIRA and the BA and how they engaged each other, not about Mountbatten.0 -
Does anyone know if the BAs response to bombings re setting up command posts changed in light of the attack?
It has. Check out '8 Lives Down', a book written by a BA Ammunition Technical Officer who served in NI and Iraq. He obviously doesn't go into specifics but there's some good general information in it. (Although I wouldn't discount there being dis-information thrown in also!)0 -
troubleshooter wrote: »Your morally twisting things,
No it is not. The discussion has moved to a point of the acceptable level of civilian casualties. The point was made that the IRA were prepared to kill innocent people to achieve their aim, the counter point was made that so are the british and america etc armies. In that context it is a perfectly valid point to make.0 -
Advertisement
-
I would agree with the OP that this is going off track & I don't want to contribute to that any further so unless it is to respond directly to a point made in my direction I will probably stay off the thread from here on out. It is an interesting area of general discussion imo.0
-
I would agree with the OP that this is going off track & I don't want to contribute to that any further so unless it is to respond directly to a point made in my direction I will probably stay off the thread from here on out. It is an interesting area of general discussion imo.
Its something that comes up in every contentious thread and gets at what the difference between the military and politics forum is (or should be).
Some people want to talk about what happened in a factual and objective way, discuss what happened and why it happened by sticking to the facts whereas some people prefer to talk about who was right and wrong and the morality of what happened. Both discussions have their place....as long as it is done in the right place.0 -
Perhaps somone could start another thread then?BlaasForRafa wrote: »Its something that comes up in every contentious thread and gets at what the difference between the military and politics forum is (or should be).
Some people want to talk about what happened in a factual and objective way, discuss what happened and why it happened by sticking to the facts whereas some people prefer to talk about who was right and wrong and the morality of what happened. Both discussions have their place....as long as it is done in the right place.0 -
Perhaps somone could start another thread then?
For those who want to they should go ahead. I have little interest in debating the morality as my decision has already been made, I'm more interested in teasing out the facts. Its something that plagues every Israel thread, some people go on and on about the morality of whatever event which is really a kind of boring "I'm right and you're wrong" never-ending type of argument.
While facts are always up for debate a lot of the time a consensus can be achieved when people stick to the evidence.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »For those who want to they should go ahead. I have little interest in debating the morality as my decision has already been made, I'm more interested in teasing out the facts. Its something that plagues every Israel thread, some people go on and on about the morality of whatever event which is really a kind of boring "I'm right and you're wrong" never-ending type of argument.
While facts are always up for debate a lot of the time a consensus can be achieved when people stick to the evidence.
I'm not sure it is that easy to seperate the two.
The inference from the OP is that the operation was a brilliant tactical military exercise, but would a professional army employ the tactics employed by the IRA? it is much easier to plan and carry out an operation like this when you have no regard for other human life, which is wrong.
The rights and the wrongs of it must come in to play, because if the IRA played by the same rules that the British Army were expected to adhere to, then it would have been very difficult to pull off an operation like this.
I'm not sure what the OP is trying to gauge here and how much scope for discussion there is (if kept tightly on the subject).0 -
Advertisement
-
So an " accidental death " was it ? (A) Soldier sees unarmed civilian on Co. Louth side across the lough. (B) Soldier carefully takes aim down the sight of his rifle for several seconds (C) Soldier carefully squeezes trigger shooting civilian dead. That's what I call the deliberate shooting of an unarmed civilian and hence murder.BlaasForRafa wrote: »It was an accidental death not a murder and getting facetious about it does not honour his memory. The paras didn't go "Oh look theres a civilian lets kill him", he was just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. The only murders that day were of the 18 BA soldiers.
BTW, his cousin also was shot but survived. And don't give me this sh!te that he had a fishing rod and they thought he was triggering the bomb that troubleshooter posted earlier. I read about Warrenpoint before, have the TV3 programme recorded on DVD and NEVER heard of this fishing rod BS. He's always posting excuses for the Brits like the shooting of 16 year old John Boyle on another thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66741230&postcount=960 -
I posed the question about whether it was a brilliant tactical military exercise or did the BA mess up.Fratton Fred wrote: »I'm not sure it is that easy to seperate the two.
The inference from the OP is that the operation was a brilliant tactical military exercise,
I would say yes, in the instance of Warrenpoint anyway. Particularly in an instance of a small force fighting against a much bigger better equipped enemy.but would a professional army employ the tactics employed by the IRA?
Is it much different than dropping a bomb or firing a missile? I say no.it is much easier to plan and carry out an operation like this when you have no regard for other human life, which is wrong.
Not in this thread they needn't.The rights and the wrongs of it must come in to play,
Its pretty obvious if you read the OP. This is intended to be a discussion on the military actions(in the Military forum) and the lessons learned from them and not the morals or the rights and wrongs of the troubles(try the Politics forum).I'm not sure what the OP is trying to gauge here and how much scope for discussion there is (if kept tightly on the subject).0 -
PatsytheNazi wrote: »So an " accidental death " was it ? (A) Soldier sees unarmed civilian on Co. Louth side across the lough. (B) Soldier carefully takes aim down the sight of his rifle for several seconds (C) Soldier carefully squeezes trigger shooting civilian dead. That's what I call the deliberate shooting of an unarmed civilian and hence murder.
BTW, his cousin also was shot but survived. And don't give me this sh!te that he had a fishing rod and they thought he was triggering the bomb that troubleshooter posted earlier. I read about Warrenpoint before, have the TV3 programme recorded on DVD and NEVER heard of this fishing rod BS. He's always posting excuses for the Brits like the shooting of 16 year old John Boyle on another thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66741230&postcount=96
Is there anything you can get right?
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/NARROW-WATER-ANNIVERSARY-Beauty-spot.5593522.jp
An uninvolved civilian, Michael Hudson, 29, an Englishman whose father was a coachman at Buckingham Palace, was killed by British forces during the shooting, and his cousin Barry Hudson injured. The dead man was at first suspected of being a dead terrorist but it was later revealed that Mr Hudson had been on a fishing holiday in Co Louth.
....Think about it brainiac, a bomb goes off, your deaf, there is carnage, body parts, metal and smoke everywhere, ammo cooking off, you think your under fire and possibly are, you are in a state of shock, 300 yards away a guy is fishing, easy to think in the chaos he is part of the bombing that the fishing rod is a radio antenna.0 -
You want to hide behind teh rights and wrongs because you just want to rant about that the IRA were inhuman baby eaters and drag the discussion into the gutter just like you did with the Did the PIRA have an official uniform thread. As the OP Morlar in post #43 states above, "The rights and the wrongs of it must come in to play, Not in this thread they needn't. "Fratton Fred wrote: »I'm not sure it is that easy to seperate the two.
The inference from the OP is that the operation was a brilliant tactical military exercise, but would a professional army employ the tactics employed by the IRA? it is much easier to plan and carry out an operation like this when you have no regard for other human life, which is wrong.
The rights and the wrongs of it must come in to play, because if the IRA played by the same rules that the British Army were expected to adhere to, then it would have been very difficult to pull off an operation like this.
I'm not sure what the OP is trying to gauge here and how much scope for discussion there is (if kept tightly on the subject).
And as for " no regard for other human life ", God that's rich coming from a supporter of those murdering ba$tards the Parachute regiment.0 -
PatsytheNazi wrote: »You want to hide behind teh rights and wrongs because you just want to rant about that the IRA were inhuman baby eaters and drag the discussion into the gutter just like you did with the Did the PIRA have an official uniform thread. As the OP Morlar in post #43 states above, "The rights and the wrongs of it must come in to play, Not in this thread they needn't. "
And as for " no regard for other human life ", God that's rich coming from a supporter of those murdering ba$tards the Parachute regiment.
OK Patsy, what ever you say:rolleyes:0 -
The guy was standing on over in Co. Louth, whether he had a fishing rod or not - well I certainly have never heard the they thought he was holding an antennae to trigger the bomb excuse :rolleyes: And anyway, what was to make them think it was done by an antennae and jump to the conclusion that a guy standing on a sea bank or pier was holding a detonating attentae and not a fishing rod standing there for all the world to see him ? :rolleyes: They could also have thought it might have been a command wire, trip wire, even a timed device. Excuses, excuses, excusestroubleshooter wrote: »Is there anything you can get right?
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/NARROW-WATER-ANNIVERSARY-Beauty-spot.5593522.jp
An uninvolved civilian, Michael Hudson, 29, an Englishman whose father was a coachman at Buckingham Palace, was killed by British forces during the shooting, and his cousin Barry Hudson injured. The dead man was at first suspected of being a dead terrorist but it was later revealed that Mr Hudson had been on a fishing holiday in Co Louth.
....Think about it brainiac, a bomb goes off, your deaf, there is carnage, body parts, metal and smoke everywhere, ammo cooking off, you think your under fire and possibly are, you are in a state of shock, 300 yards away a guy is fishing, easy to think in the chaos he is part of the bombing that the fishing rod is a radio antenna.0 -
Well maybe it should be out of respect for the OP rather than me.Fratton Fred wrote: »OK Patsy, what ever you say:rolleyes:0 -
fair enough,I posed the question about whether it was a brilliant tactical military exercise or did the BA mess up.
firing a missile or dropping a bomb isn't the problem, it is where you fire it and at whom.Is it much different than dropping a bomb or firing a missile? I say no.
How many bombs did the British Army use in Northern Ireland by the way? just to compare tactics.its pretty obvious if you read the OP. This is intended to be a discussion on the military actions(in the Military forum) and the lessons learned from them and not the morals or the rights and wrongs of the troubles(try the Politics forum).
Maybe I didn't make my point well.
One of the learning curves th British army had to go through was to understand exactly what lengths the IRA would go to and what depths they would stoop to. Warrenpoint helped them understand that.0 -
PatsytheNazi wrote: »The guy was standing on over in Co. Louth, whether he had a fishing rod or not - well I certainly have never heard the they thought he was holding an antennae to trigger the bomb excuse :rolleyes: And anyway, what was to make them think it was done by an antennae and jump to the conclusion that a guy standing on a sea bank or pier was holding a detonating attentae and not a fishing rod standing there for all the world to see him ? :rolleyes: They could also have thought it might have been a command wire, trip wire, even a timed device. Excuses, excuses, excuses
You obviously dont know the location, there is no pier or sea bank there, theres a river with rolling countryside and hills behind it.
Hence the name narrrowater.0 -
As I said earlier I don't want to get into a debate about whether it was justified or not.Fratton Fred wrote: »fair enough,
firing a missile or dropping a bomb isn't the problem, it is where you fire it and at whom
The BA and the PIRA were completely different. We are talking about a conventional army fighting a paramilitary one. Of course they used different tactics. I could easily say "they just shoot innocent protesters, scumbags!" but thats the type of slagging match I dont want this thread to descend into. It is blatantly obvious that you do want it to descend into just that, that much is obvious from the Uniform thread, and your comments so far here.How many bombs did the British Army use in Northern Ireland by the way? just to compare tactics.
If you want to go start the usual sh!tstorm over on politics and debate the justifications of x and y then go ahead, I may drop by.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement