Did the .50 Cal change the game in NI?

yubabill1 wrote: »

Remember soldiers refusing to go out on patrol for fear of snipers or helicopters making "forced landings"? Discuss.

That is a very broad statement to discuss.

Perhaps you could provide evidence for both events taking place.

So, where is the connection with 50 cal guns. There are any number of reasons for unplanned landings and because a landing is flagged as "emergency" does not necessarily mean it is one.
No evidence, no discussion!!

Keep following the news as they are well known as being the purveyors of truth and are also well connected to the military.

Take to someone who has first hand knowledge of what happened there and how many "emergency" landings were just that. But if believe the tales in news, good for you.

The OP is talking about the deployment of a "Sniper" team/s by PIRA in south armagh in the early 1990's who were armed with Barrett .05 rifles and used a car (a mazda if i recall correctly) with a hole cut in the boot and a drop down number plate.

Was it a game changer?

Psychologically it was a problem and soldiers were allegedly disciplined over refusing to carry out patrols or the fabrication of patrols they were assigned to carry out.

The 0.5/12.7 round is normally used against aircraft, soft skinned vehicles and light armour for the purpose of carrying out a mobility kill - nothings going anywhere if there's a round through the engine block.

There was wild speculation about the identity of the snipers and the tabloids had a field day with all kinds of fanciful stories, none of them close to the truth. The republican media for obvious reasons encouraged these stories. Part of the psychological fear of the 0.5 rifles was that in theory as a British soldier you could be plodding along and wham, your buddy could explode in a welter of blood and guts and the sniper could be firing from outside the range in which you could engage them (incidentally now a problem in Afghanistan) as most assault rifles are effective up to 300m (as individual firers).

Similarly body armour was for the most no good either (and still isn't) most modern kevlar body armour will only stop pistol rounds and the plates commonly used by most military forces will only stop what the majority of their enemies use - for NATO thats typically 7.62 russian rounds. Body armour that can protect against rounds like the 0.5 is exceptionally heavy and restricts its wearer to largely static roles and isn't commonly issued. Of course if the round strikes anywhere other than the plate, the wearer is also in severe trouble as round will easily penetrate soft armour.

Having said all that

The PIRA teams weren't snipers in the classical sense, they were carrying out attacks well within range of standard infantry weapons 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds and relied on a system of "dickers" and clever concealment in their car. Had they fired at an inopportune moment or been spotted then they would have been in trouble.

However, one must look at what was going on behind the scenes as both sides were sending out the feelers towards a negotiated settlement or ceasfire at least. Furthermore it might be noted that these incidents of ill discipline were few and there was no widespread breakdown of military discipline in British forces deployed on the border area.

The British Army have always been content to loose people on training accidents and on operations, Northern Ireland was no exception and loosing a few enlisted men and junior officers would have not bothered them.

yubabill1 wrote: »

At last!

Well argued, neilled.

My heli argument has been strongly denied by the HM source I talked to.....

If i recall correctly the team fired at the Royal Naval vessel in carlingford.... and missed. Sweet FA chance of them hitting a helicopter moving in the way the army air corps were trained to do, to minimise the chances of being shot down.

A more real threat to rotary wing aviation would have been the use of the Libyan supplied Dshk machine guns to bring down a helicopter (this was tried and failed) or the acquisition or building of a modern SAM system with sufficient quantities of missiles which also failed. If UK forces had lost control of the skies it could well have been a game changer.

Regardless of the entry of this new weapon into the mix, during the late 1980's both sides had came to the realisation that a purely military victory was going to be impossible and it was only a matter of time before an attempt at a ceasefire or settlement would have to be made.

Youtube and wikipedia are your friend. Lots of stuff on there from all sides in the conflict. 50 cals, heavy Russian 12.7mm, GPMG's, barrack busters. Some of the heavies are filmed during attacks on helicopters and it all can be viewed on youtube, inc the DSHK's. Just put in the usual buzz words. South Armagh, bandit country.

I know of an RAF Puma that was hit by a mk15 barrack buster either going in or coming out of Newtownhamilton. It was a miracle everybody got out of that alive, remember seeing in lying in afield on its side before it was recovered.

There's was a very big hole in a wall at the square in Crossmaglen (XMG to some). I'm not sure if it's still there, It's the result of a .50 cal round which had gone through the body armour of a soldier that the round killed.

Looking at the wall after that event every time you went out on foot patrol I'm sure wasn't great for morale.

I suppose in some ways the .50 cal and 12.7mm were a game changer, but not a game winner. It's a fact that the IRA in that part of the world were very intent on shooting down as many military heli's as they could. It's also a fact the the British military took that threat very seriously.

Being from that part of the world it was very obvious that British military heli's started to get a lot of "extras" bolted on, in and around the time claims were been made of the acquisition of SAM's and HMG's by the IRA. These "extras" could be seen on both AAC heli types, the Lynx and Gazelle. Not so much on the RAF Puma's and Wessex, but there all the same.

Flight operation also changed. The aircraft either flew very high ( out of range from small arms fire ) or very, very low and with that very fast.
"Flights of three" now became the norm. That is two AAC Lynx helicopter gunships providing top cover shadowing RAF Helis as they went about in the support helicopter role.

The Puma that made the forced landing at Newtownhamilton was as the result of either a direct to indirect hit from a barrack buster damaging the tail rotor. I'm nearly sure it was departing at the time.

Had the mortor exploded while the heli was on the pad embarking and disembarking troops it would have caused in all likelyhood a lot of fatalities with the loss of an airframe, possibly making the HMG'S redundant as an anti aircraft weapon in that part of the world.

smcgiff wrote: »

Tac,

You may be a little too trusting of the officers sitting in comfort directing troop movements - history for sure, but hardly ancient - think of the soldiers sent over the top in WW1.

That was way back when, a hundred years next year, in fact, and throughout WW1, many regimental commanders - Colonels and Lt Colonels - went over the top with their men, and died alongside them.

I was an NCO, SNCO and WO in the British Army - every rank from Private to Warrant Officer 1st Class over a period of sixteen and half years, and then served a further for sixteen years as an officer, and can tell you most sincerely that unless you led from the front, you wouldn't have lasted two minutes.

In the Northern Ireland 'troubles', the subject of this rather odd thread, EVERY patrolling and or search/ATO unit on the ground was led by a Lt or 2/Lt, sometimes a Captain - taking the same risks as his men.

Please let me know when you find any British Army officer 'content' to take casualties. :mad: x 10

I'm waiting right here.

tac

smcgiff wrote: »

There are officers and there are officers, and I don't have the same faith in HQ command as you seem to have. I'm not picking on the BA here, it's just I think it's a little naive to think HQ would not risk men for a potential strategic gain. Even if only a slight chance of a gain.

And humans haven't developed much in a 100 years, although I'd accept the BA is more professional now. It would have been hard not to.

You have still missed the point entirely.

I never said that risk is not part of any potential military gain.

What I said was the the British Army does not have people in positions of command who are content - if you look up the word to see what it actually means - to see casualties in either training or operations. Your obviously low opinion of the British Army should not allow you to mistake 'acceptance' for 'content'.

I do not believe that this forum should be made a bandstand for anti-British feeling or apparent glee and delight in the fate of those who serve their country. If, however, this should be the case - and I look to you as a moderator to either confirm or deny it - then it would be best if I left you to it.

tac