Can the Defence Forces improve their already high standards.

KickstartHeart · 07-03-2012 4:50pm

cruasder777 wrote: »

Quote Given the the average Cadet or recruit to the Irish army has to be at least as good but most likely is better than anybody joining the British army. Unquote

......What evidence do you have for this ?

The guy who won the medal in Afghanistan recently with the Paras was turned down for the Irish army, I know others turned down who have joined the RMs.

I doubt many joining the Irish army have the fitness levels of those joining the Marines, Paras etc.

Because only 1 in 30 or whatever are accepted into the Irish army, this does not mean the best one gets through and women serve in the infantry, so basic training cant be all that.

Kick start heart

QUOTE When countries send in offensive units like paras and marines to do the kinds of jobs that the Irish Army is top of the table at, things go pear shaped.UNQUOTE

......This is nonsense, the Paras and RMs have far more UN peace keeping operational experience then the Irish army.

No they don't. They do in a historical context. Buts its members themselves do not have the same experience at peace keeping or peace enforcement that Irish soldiers have. You can't argue with the fact that the para's and marines have been committed to war for the past decade. They do not even nearly have the same operational experience at peace keeping or peace enforcement that the Irish Army has. If you don't agree with me, then so be it, but you don't need to call other peoples opinions 'nonsense'.

KickstartHeart · 07-03-2012 4:55pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

Totally agree with you regarding what you say 'elite' gung ho testosterone injected units. Most of them tend to be the bully’s from the rough estate’s and tower blocks and end up labouring on a building site or standing around all day as a security man in a shopping centre.

The memoirs of Lieutenant A.F.N Clarke of 3 Para who completed a tour of duty in Belfast in early 1973. Describing his “peacekeeping role”, he writes: " The whole camp is praying for a contact. For an opportunity to shoot at anything in the street, pump lead into any living thing and watch the blood flow. Toms sitting in their overcrowded rooms putting more powder into baton rounds to give them more poke; some insert pins and broken razor blades into the rubber rounds. Buckshee rounds have had the heads filed down for a dum-dum effect, naughty, naughty, but who's to know when there are so many spare rounds of ammunition floating about?
Lead filled truncheons, Magnum revolvers, one bloke even has a bowie knife.....We have spent months and years training, learning from pamphlets called Shoot To Kill, Fighting In Built Up Areas and others. SO now we're let loose on the streets trained to the eyeballs, waiting for a suitable opportunity to let everything rip.

A few kills would be nice at this stage, good for morale, good to inject some new life into the jaded senses of the company”

Thank you. At least someone agree's with me. Elite offensive aggressive units like para's and marines are not peacekeepers. And they are not peace enforcers. They are fighters.

The phrase goes, 'Peacekeeping is not a soldiers job, but only soldiers can do it'. Soldiers are one thing. But paratroops and marines (who seam to have a history of literally making the situation worse when on peace keeping missions, no matter what countries forces they're from) are no peace keepers.

For someone to come here and claim that para's and marines have more experience at peacekeeping/peace enforcing than the Irish Army is just totally daft. Reason 1) They don't. Reason 2) When they do it, they're not good at it.

Fratton Fred · 07-03-2012 5:04pm

Do Irish soldiers have any experience of peace enforcement?

KickstartHeart · 07-03-2012 5:08pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Do Irish soldiers have any experience of peace enforcement?

EUFOR TChad. That mission lasted for quite a while, and a HUGE amount of the Army got a tour on it. Maybe East Timor too (I'm not sure if that was classed as peace enforcement, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Fratton Fred · 07-03-2012 5:12pm

KickstartHeart wrote: »

EUFOR TChad. That mission lasted for quite a while, and a HUGE amount of the Army got a tour on it. Maybe East Timor too (I'm not sure if that was classed as peace enforcement, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Was Chad classed as peace enforcement? Were there any actual contacts in Chad?

KickstartHeart · 07-03-2012 5:13pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was Chad classed as peace enforcement? Were there any actual contacts in Chad?

Yes, and Yes.

Obviously not regularly or anything. I read an article about when the Chadian army and rebels from Sudan were going toe to toe there was Irish Army units observing it. They came under fire and had to return fire.

Its all still operational experience in a war zone, working for peace

davetherave · 07-03-2012 5:19pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Do Irish soldiers have any experience of peace enforcement?

KFOR, ISAF, Eufor Chad/Minurcat.
Lebanon 06?

Fratton Fred · 07-03-2012 5:21pm

KickstartHeart wrote: »

Yes, and Yes.

Obviously not regularly or anything. I read an article about when the Chadian army and rebels from Sudan were going toe to toe there was Irish Army units observing it. They came under fire and had to return fire.

Its all still operational experience in a war zone, working for peace

Not exactly Afghanistan, the Balkans or Sierra Leone though.

Fair play to the PDF for the role they played out there, but ARW aside, I'd hardly chalk it up as invaluable experience. Now, if they were allowed to go and help out in Afghanistan on the other hand....

Credit to the guys in Lebanon as well, that must be a crappy posting.

KickstartHeart · 07-03-2012 5:21pm

davetherave wrote: »

KFOR, ISAF, Eufor Chad/Minurcat.
Lebanon 06?

Fair point about Lebanon in 06 actually!

KickstartHeart · 07-03-2012 5:27pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I totally agree. Why would any army want a unit, whose primary role is to jump out of an aeroplane behind enemy lines and kill as many bad guys as possible, to be aggressive and "testosterone fuelled".

It would make more sense if they all learnt flower arranging and spent their spare time swapping knitting patterns.

Your'e missing the point. Obviously armies would want units like that, because most armies want the capability to go offensive against others in theatres that warrant the need for airbourne troops and amphibious landings.. But not an army who's role is defensive and peace ops. Its not as black and white as you seam to think.

200yrolecrank · 07-03-2012 5:34pm

The Irish defence forces do a great job assisting with humanitarian and peace keeping missions.
We will not see the day when they are sent to a direct conflict zone in support of another nation and the vast majority of enlisted personnel know this and did not sign up for this.
Ireland is a neutral country and we have a defence force and that is not going to change in our lifetime.

Morpheus · 07-03-2012 5:35pm

definitely peace enforcement in chad... the contact in question is only one of the better known contact as there was a film crew on one of the MOWAGS when that occurred. That doesnt mean it was the only contact nor the biggest, it just happens to be one that was filmed.

we currently have 7 soldiers in Afghanistan serving in an EOD related role.

200yrolecrank · 07-03-2012 5:38pm

Out of the current 7 soldiers in Afghanistan most of them are on a sebatical from other areas in the defence forces either the aircorp or navy and are purely there as back office support and for the extra money.
I know this as a cousin of mine is an officer and volunteered for this as a change from his role.

cruasder777 · 07-03-2012 5:40pm

xflyer wrote: »

Well you can easily surmise they'll be as good as any 'ordinary' British/French/German/US army recruits.

That comment doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't the best applicant be chosen? Or even one of the better applicants? As for the basic training, sure it's not exactly like ARW selection but that's not the point. It's continuation training that would really make the difference.

That's a good illustration right there of what I'm talking about. He personally 'applied' on his own initiative. He could very easily have been turned down. Surely it would be be better if personnnel were expected to take courses like that on a regular and ongoing basis depending on the needs of the service?

It wouldn't require a huge change.

Quote That comment doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't the best applicant be chosen? Or even one of the better applicants? uNQUOTE

.......Are you seriously telling me that guy who won the medal recently with 1 Para the Special Forces support group was not up to serving in the Irish army ?

Obviously it proves the point that the best candidate is not necessarily chosen.

Fratton Fred · 07-03-2012 6:08pm

200yrolecrank wrote: »

The Irish defence forces do a great job assisting with humanitarian and peace keeping missions.
We will not see the day when they are sent to a direct conflict zone in support of another nation and the vast majority of enlisted personnel know this and did not sign up for this.
Ireland is a neutral country and we have a defence force and that is not going to change in our lifetime.

Then what is the point of giving the army guns? Why not just recruit a battalion of nurse maids?

Why do people think soldiers do peace keeping or peace enforcing? Particularly enforcing.

Christ the whole idea is a major force saying to one or two smaller forces "put down your guns or we'll kick your arse. It doesn't matter if that is in Kuwait. Kosovo, Afghanistan or Chad.

If the aggressive army refuses to put down its guns, you need an aggressive response, such as in Afghanistan.

OS119 · 08-03-2012 10:31am

KickstartHeart wrote: »

..When I say peace enforcing I mean the likes of EUFOR Chad. Not the likes of Afghanistan.

i'm not going to get into this idiot argument about comparative experience, but i think you have a horribly misguided view about the requirements of PE/PK Ops vs the requirements of combat operations.

soldiers on PK/PE ops sometimes have to fight in exactly the same way and to the same intensity as those soldiers on convention combat operations, and they almost always have to act as if they are ready and able to carry out the kind of high-intensity combat you might see in Helmand province - as the IA deployment had to do (within some appalling handicaps placed upon it by the IG) in Chad in order to deter any of the various nasties from coming into its AOR.

now, you can have a bias towards this or that concept of operations within your training (as a example - almost all current UK training is focused on a dismounted Inf COIN operation with all arms support - in the 1970's and 80's however it was all about Armoured/Mech Inf manouver warfare with all arms support and whole Regiments of Artillery on single fire missions), but the people you need to do the jobs are the same people and they need the same skills. you need your Inf to be able and willing to engage and kill the enemy, you need your Artillery to be able to find, fix and destroy the enemy with the maximum violence in the minimum time, and you need your Loggies to get stuff where it needs to be, when it needs to be there whether the routes are infested with IED's or local 'bandits' looking to make a quick steal.

there are two types of armies - but not differentiated on the lines you think - one is skilled, professional, disciplined, and the other is sh1t. the IA is not sh1t, and i'm sorry to burst your sanctimonious bubble, but if you took an Irish Inf section and shoved it straight into a British Inf Bn in Helmand it would be as aggressive, as skilled, and as willing and able to engage and kill the enemy as the people around it.

thats not to say that, if asked, there aren't things about the IA that i'd change - but it is a fighting force, a killing, destroying force that happens to do other stuff as well. rather likes its cousin over the water...

200yrolecrank · 08-03-2012 12:25pm

OS119 wrote: »

KickstartHeart wrote: »

..When I say peace enforcing I mean the likes of EUFOR Chad. Not the likes of Afghanistan.

i'm not going to get into this idiot argument about comparative experience, but i think you have a horribly misguided view about the requirements of PE/PK Ops vs the requirements of combat operations.

soldiers on PK/PE ops sometimes have to fight in exactly the same way and to the same intensity as those soldiers on convention combat operations, and they almost always have to act as if they are ready and able to carry out the kind of high-intensity combat you might see in Helmand province - as the IA deployment had to do (within some appalling handicaps placed upon it by the IG) in Chad in order to deter any of the various nasties from coming into its AOR.

now, you can have a bias towards this or that concept of operations within your training (as a example - almost all current UK training is focused on a dismounted Inf COIN operation with all arms support - in the 1970's and 80's however it was all about Armoured/Mech Inf manouver warfare with all arms support and whole Regiments of Artillery on single fire missions), but the people you need to do the jobs are the same people and they need the same skills. you need your Inf to be able and willing to engage and kill the enemy, you need your Artillery to be able to find, fix and destroy the enemy with the maximum violence in the minimum time, and you need your Loggies to get stuff where it needs to be, when it needs to be there whether the routes are infested with IED's or local 'bandits' looking to make a quick steal.

there are two types of armies - but not differentiated on the lines you think - one is skilled, professional, disciplined, and the other is sh1t. the IA is not sh1t, and i'm sorry to burst your sanctimonious bubble, but if you took an Irish Inf section and shoved it straight into a British Inf Bn in Helmand it would be as aggressive, as skilled, and as willing and able to engage and kill the enemy as the people around it.

thats not to say that, if asked, there aren't things about the IA that i'd change - but it is a fighting force, a killing, destroying force that happens to do other stuff as well. rather likes its cousin over the water...

It's a bit like a skilled force always in exercise but never actually being able to show doubters what's it's made of except for peace keeping and it's proven it's record there.
Were a neutral country with a small size defence force who on a world scale does not have the same capability as a non neutral country but we don't need it,never will have it and will always have a friend to call in case the big boys ever did come knocking.

Morpheus · 08-03-2012 1:18pm

It's a bit like a skilled force always in exercise but never actually being able to show doubters what's it's made of except for peace keeping and it's proven it's record there.

Were a neutral country with a small size defence force who on a world scale does not have the same capability as a non neutral country but we don't need it,never will have it and will always have a friend to call in case the big boys ever did come knocking.

Firstly, we arent a f**king neutral country, so stop saying it, go read the constitution.

secondly, being neutral has f**k all to do with it, look at finland or switzerland, they have DEFINED neutrality as being able to defend oneself. with the search for natural resources ramping up we will have to further erode our non alignment with foreign military forces or else expand our own capabilities should gas, oil etc be found in massive quantities off our coastlines.

if we were a neutral country, we would have to quadruple the size of our defence forces to protect our neutrality, patrol our seas, police our territory and enforce the security of our skies instead of putting our hand out to generous neighbours like the UK everytime we needed long distance top cover and SAR or needed a QRF interception in Irish airspace. since 2001 theres been an understanding with the UK that we can request them to provide fast jets to protect our airspace as we have nothing capable of doing the job ourselves due to our poxy cringeworthy embarrassingly paltry % of GDP spent on defence mostly due to a nation with a general attitude of "ah sure everyone loves the irish, the brits yanks and frenchies will help us out if we need it..."

you go and ask someone in the army if they train to be peace keepers, or peace enforcers, you'll be answered with "I train to be a f*cking soldier" shortly followed by 2 in the face for being asking a stupid question. No army trains its men to be a peace keeper...

imagine the scene:

somewhere in the wicklow foothills an Irish army infantry patrol are out trying to deny the use of part of the mountain range to an enemy rebel force which parachuted in over night...

The Irish soldiers are carrying steyr 5.56, m203 grenade launchers, SRAAW anti armour weapons, HE and smoke grenades, bayonettes, NVE, radios and GPMG 7.62 machine guns....

Suddenly the quiet evening is shattered as rounds snap whine and crack overhead churning the ground up around the soldiers feet. a gurgling scream goes up as the section commanders training kicks in...

"CONTACT LEFT"

as one the patrol jumps into cover...

"rounds continue to tear the air above their heads as the section commander screams "why is nobody firing?"

One of the men looks at him and shrugs, " well are we peace keeping or peace enforcing?, cant have soldiers from a neutral country killing innocent enemy soldiers corporal?"....

we all know that this doesnt happen, these are "soldiers" of the Irish army, as much as any Irish citizen wants to smoke pot, hug trees and save the lesser spooted wicklow snail and imagine that our army clean up snow and clean bins, we are SOLDIERS. we are TRAINED - as in taught - to close with and KILL (yes f**king bring horribly disfiguring death and mortal destruction and desecration to human bodies in ANY possible way, preferrably as violently and aggressively as possible) the enemy in all circumstances and under any conditions. I am not trained to be a peace keeper or peace enforcer... we ARE trained in these roles however and to a very high standard, but understand that the primary role in an army is to soldier first, just like the UK and the US and every other neutral and non neutral army in the world and to do it as aggressively etc as they do. We operate under a strict set of R.O.E depending on the mandate of the mission which can at times mean that when under fire we may not even be able to fire back.

Sorry for the rant, but it makes me sick, embarrassed and left wondering if the majority of this nation are totally non patriotic bordering on insanely internationally retarded, especially when they talk about our imaginary neutrality. if I had a time machine, i would PERSONALLY neuter devaleras parents over that one.

KickstartHeart · 08-03-2012 5:07pm

Lads I think I gave the wrong impression on what I think of the PDF. I didn't in any way mean to say that they would not be as capable as an other military in the likes of Helmand province. I do know that they are actually just as good man for man as armies like the BA. I know a guy who was in the Marines in the UK for 10 years and he sings praise of the PDF. I'd hate for people to think that I was trying to put down the PDF. That's definitely not what I'm trying to do.

Obviously the PDF are extremely capable and professional and have showed that on tours.

My over-all point that I was trying to make is that the Irish Defence Forces doesn't need a marine corps or a para regiment simply because of its roles. Defence of the state, and the op's they are involved in oversea's.

My other point was that units like para's can be trained very aggressively and would be of no use to the Army on peace ops. I was just using military's like the Belgian's and the British to point out how units like para's have a not so clean history of service when on peacekeeping operations because of their aggressive nature.

Perhaps I don't have an over all knowledge of what constitutes peace operations etc. because I am not in the military. Sorry if I seamed like an idiot and kinda took this thread off topic, I was just going with what I, as a civillian with an interest in the military, thought was peace operations, and what I thought I knew about it. Obviously now I see that I was wrong, and peace operations is a very wide spanning term for types of operations.

I hope I haven't come across as some Walter Mitty wannabe ars***le on this thread. Clearly a lot of you guys definitely know a good deal more about this kind of stuff than me. Sorry again.

Maoltuile · 09-03-2012 2:34am

Morphéus wrote: »

ha!

He can't be ARW - clearly, no green shemagh.

I call fake!

Crann na Beatha · 09-03-2012 2:40am

This post has been deleted.

Poccington · 09-03-2012 5:38pm

I have to ask this... Where are people getting the idea from that troops within the DF are trained purely for a defensive role or trained and brought through Recruit training with a "Defensive soldier" mindset being put in place?

Just last week I took part in a live fire Platoon raid... Between Steyr's, GPMG's, 203's, SRAAW's and Snipers, there was **** all defensive about it.

Of all the people saying that Irish soldiers have a defensive mindset or are trained solely for defence, how many of you are actually serving members of the PDF and regularly taking part in exercises?

Poccington · 09-03-2012 5:40pm

On a Mod note, I'm just back from a rather long two weeks with work... I'll clean up some of this train wreck of a thread after I get a bit of honk.

Try actually discuss the original topic rather than turning it into the usual DF/BA nonsense. Not everything has to be a dick measuring contest or a chance to get a dig in. **** sake.

Morpheus · 09-03-2012 6:24pm

ICEBERG DEAD AHEAD!!! HARD TO STARBOARD, STARBOARD ENGINES FULL REVERSE....

Dragging us back on topic

Well of course the DF could improve, every army can improve - with training - but with improved training you need to fund it and to be honest, other than continuously training as we are I dont see a way for this to happen with the current reduced budget.

Only improvements to be made are with current processes being reanalysed and if found wanting, then revised and improved IMO

anyway gents, ladies, have a nice weekend, tty monday.

Achilles1599 · 09-03-2012 9:57pm

i always think that all the defence forces need are more funds, a shame theyll never get those funds

Poccington · 10-03-2012 3:52pm

Lads, I've had to delete over 40 off topic posts concerning the usual DF/BA bull**** that is starting to become a real problem in this forum.

I've tried to refrain from giving infractions because I don't particulalrly like them but after countless warnings on various topics about the DF/BA and Brit Bashing nonsense, the next person to try drag a thread off topic by bringing either up is getting a ban straight off the bat.

I'm sick of it and I'd imagine the vast majority of users are too. You're all adults, so let's try act like it and have some actual civilised discussions.

Poccington · 10-03-2012 4:02pm

xflyer wrote: »

It's difficult to get into the Defence Forces. Every vacancy is oversupplied with applicants to the point that the military can be very choosy about the people who are accepted. You only have to look at the thread about the guy who was rejected by the army on the basis of his childhood asthma who went on to be a Para and a war hero. The British forces are well supplied with highly regarded Irish servicemen whose only reason they are there is because for one reason or another were turned down by the Irish army.

Look at the difficulty in getting a Cadetship? Even enlisting as a private is competitive. You could probably fill all vacancies three times over with quality applicants.

So in theory only the best make it into the Defence Forces.

Which begs the question. Why aren't the Defence Forces one of the best armires in the world? Surely the potential is there?

We all know of course there are budget and equipment issues. But is there any reason the standard of training couldn't be increased to the point where any member of the army is expected to be somewhat equivalent of an Airborne or Marines or Ranger unit? Particularly for the front line units, like Infantry or Cavalry.

It would be easy enough to apply this standard to new recruits.

Any thoughts?

It comes down to doctrine really. The DF has no need to have 9 Para Bn's or a 75th Ranger Regiment with 9 Bn's in it.

1 Bn of the Para's is the SFSG, 75th Ranger Regiment is an SOF unit and the RM's have F Coy in the SFSG.

The Para's, Rangers and RM's have very specific taskings which fall outside of conventional infantry taskings.

Could the DF look to raise some sort of Commando unit within the DF to support the ARW? Perhaps.
Could the likes of Recce Platoon's, FOO's etc. look at improving their capabilities using some of the lessons the above units learned through experience? They should.
Is there a doctrinal need to turn all Line unit into something akin to the Unit's you mentioned above? No.

Personally, what I'd like to see the DF do is look at developing a true ethos and sense of Esprit de Corps both in training and in units.

OS119 · 12-03-2012 9:20am

Poccington wrote: »

...Personally, what I'd like to see the DF do is look at developing a true ethos and sense of Esprit de Corps both in training and in units.

i think, unfortunately, that this can only ever go so far while IA overseas deployments are undertaken by composite units rather than single, formed units.

its a military, doctrinal issue, but its also a political issue - formed Bn groups require everyone in that Bn group to be based together, which means far fewer barracks spread throughout the land, and it also means not leaving parts of the formed unit behind to cover all the miriad MACP tasks that the IA gets lumped with.

it is, you would think, a silly little thing - an internal housekeeping matter - but while TD's think that the Army exists to provide customers for their local town centres its not going to happen.

E2A: there are ways you can get around this - not perfect, but useful - such as large scale, extended training as a formed unit. unfortunately the IA doesn't have a training area big enough to throw a full Battlegroup in and leave it there for a month - the answer of course is simple, send them to BATUS, or Kenya, or the states...

Can the Defence Forces improve their already high standards.

Comments