Arw selection/training

Hagar

Quis Seperabit wrote:

Its just a pity the ARW and IA in general don't operate as part of NATO and alongside British and other NATO forces, thats my opinion.

I suspect our neutrality has less to do with not being in NATO than the political situation vis a vis Northern Ireland. Even if there was a United Ireland by consent it will be some time before the IDF and the BA can lie down together in the same trench facing a common enemy and honestly consider themselves brothers-in-arms. The trust/respect from both sides simply won't be there for a long time to come.

In the meantime our so-called neutrality is going to be a stumbling block for the training of the ARW. We can't become the best working in isolation, we need to learn from those who already have the knowledge and the only way to do that is by training with them.




My personal opinion not a mod opinion.

Quis Separabit

twinytwo wrote: »

Fact is Ireland is netural as we all no..For us to deploy with NATO would cause alot more trouble than its worth... Why do u think our troops are respected all over the world.. cause we dont go getting involved in other countries business.

(Reply to Hagar)
The Irish army have served alongside UK forces on UN missions, including Bosnia, aer corps members have been sent to the UK for training courses.

The Irish army shoots at Bisley, including in the past winning events, and the EU Nordic battle group is under joint British command.

The claims of hostility from UK forces to the defence forces or the Republic in general are a myth.put out by those with a political agenda, I think most would love to see what they can do, such is the competitive nature of the BA.



(Reply to above twinytwo)
So France, Britain and others whos forces are NATO members and who also take part on UN missions don't get any respect ?

I don't think the Muslims were to bothered when they tried to kill Irish troops with an IED the other week in Palestine.

Anyway, you don't have to become a full member and deployment is at the discretion of the individual member country.

If the republic joined to it get some serious hardware.

The reality is for the past 50 years the republic has been unofficially and strategically defended by NATO as its NATOs western flank,mostly via the Royal Navy and RAF.

The neurality thing is not reality, in the cold war, and before that WWII, the territory of the republic was under the unofficial protection of Britain and later NATO.

minidazzler

Quis Separabit wrote: »

(Reply to above twinytwo)
So France, Britain and others whos forces are NATO members and who also take part on UN missions don't get any respect ?

I don't think the Muslims were to bothered when they tried to kill Irish troops with an IED the other week in Palestine.

I respect how clean france keep their white flags (joking)

and

I dont the muslims were specifically aiming for Irish Soldiers. They were aiming at UN troops. I find there to be a difference when on UN missions.
Sounds stupid I know but still there is a difference between going into a country as an Irish Soldier and going into a country as a UN soldier.

Ronan Raver77

minidazzler wrote: »

I respect how clean france keep their white flags (joking)

and

I dont the muslims were specifically aiming for Irish Soldiers. They were aiming at UN troops. I find there to be a difference when on UN missions.
Sounds stupid I know but still there is a difference between going into a country as an Irish Soldier and going into a country as a UN soldier.

Eh your point is a bit questionable!!!!
Are you saying an Irish Soldier on a UN mission is not a target for any mad insurgent/hostile force but the soldiers(IRISH UN SOLDIER) fellow soldiers from a different nation IS....obviously the troops in Chad are under a EUFOR mandate....
Basicly you are saying caus the soldiers are Irish they are bullet proof???? That your opinion????

twinytwo

Ronan Devitt wrote: »

Eh your point is a bit questionable!!!!
Are you saying an Irish Soldier on a UN mission is not a target for any mad insurgent/hostile force but the soldiers(IRISH UN SOLDIER) fellow soldiers from a different nation IS....obviously the troops in Chad are under a EUFOR mandate....
Basicly you are saying caus the soldiers are Irish they are bullet proof???? That your opinion????

Its not that they are bullet proof... like take rebels who are fighting anywhere on the planet if they had a choice to shoot at irish troops or say american troops... i think america wins hands down... like is Kosavo instead of trying to go throught the irish troops mortar rounds were fired over them instead.. Obviously Africa is a whole different ****hole and considering most of the fighting thats going on is caused by guys that cant tell their ass from their elbow the fact that the troops are irish counts for nothing

cp251

As a matter of historical fact. Ireland couldn't join NATO because it was a requirement for NATO members to recognise the current borders as they stood. Impossible at the time because of the Northern Ireland thing. We even tried to set up a separate alliance with the USA at the time. Imagine having US bases in Ireland!

Our so called neutrality is therefore a sham and always was. We are simply non aligned and pick and choose our battles. In practical terms with the changing situation in NI we are free to move on.

Any respect the Irish army has around the world is no different to the respect there is for Danes or Norwegians. Both Nato members but small countries too with little or no colonial baggage.

twinytwo

cp251 wrote: »

As a matter of historical fact. Ireland couldn't join NATO because it was a requirement for NATO members to recognise the current borders as they stood. Impossible at the time because of the Northern Ireland thing. We even tried to set up a separate alliance with the USA at the time. Imagine having US bases in Ireland!

Our so called neutrality is therefore a sham and always was. We are simply non aligned and pick and choose our battles. In practical terms with the changing situation in NI we are free to move on.

Any respect the Irish army has around the world is no different to the respect there is for Danes or Norwegians. Both Nato members but small countries too with little or no colonial baggage.

I really cant see why they would want to put bases in ireland... cept for the fact that our government seems to lick americas ass every chance it gets.. i mean the whole shannon thing was a joke.. They didnt even need to use the airport in the first place. I think America holds a lot more over us than some seem to realise. . .

twinytwo

Quis Separabit wrote: »

(Reply to Hagar)





So France, Britain and others whos forces are NATO members and who also take part on UN missions don't get any respect ?

No.. I mean that Ireland never got involved in anything colonial we have never invaded anyone.. started wars.. surpressed people.. we have never stepped on anyones toes or ****ed anyone over.. as the british, americans,french etc etc have done once or numerous times in history.. The fact thats its UN has nothing to do with it.. A british soldier is a british soldier to them weather he/she wears a blue beret or a red one

Quis Separabit

cp251 wrote: »

As a matter of historical fact. Ireland couldn't join NATO because it was a requirement for NATO members to recognise the current borders as they stood. Impossible at the time because of the Northern Ireland thing. We even tried to set up a separate alliance with the USA at the time. Imagine having US bases in Ireland!

Our so called neutrality is therefore a sham and always was. We are simply non aligned and pick and choose our battles. In practical terms with the changing situation in NI we are free to move on.

Any respect the Irish army has around the world is no different to the respect there is for Danes or Norwegians. Both Nato members but small countries too with little or no colonial baggage.

But Greece and Turkey are in territorial dispute with each other and are both NATO members.

The problem is in the republic is full of left wing high and mighty know it all types, who are anti military, etc, and I say that as an Irish person.

Hagar

Quis Separabit wrote: »

But Greece and Turkey are in territorial dispute with each other and are both NATO members.

To get bases in those countries that close to what was the old USSR NATO would have bent every rule and overlooked anything.

Quis Separabit wrote: »

The problem is in the republic is full of left wing high and mighty know it all types, who are anti military, etc, and I say that as an Irish person.

And as another I disagree. I can't see any basis for that statement.

Quis Separabit

Hagar wrote: »

To get bases in those countries that close to what was the old USSR NATO would have bent every rule and overlooked anything.


And as another I disagree. I can't see any basis for that statement.

If the republic wanted to join NATO it would be allowed to, especially during the cold war, Its the gateway to NATOs westernflank. Infact NATO senior figures are on record during the cold war as stating, Irelands sea and air space was of major stategic importance.

As for the other claim, there is an anti military under current in the republic, especially against Britain, the US and NATO and spending money on defence.

Hagar

Quis Separabit wrote: »

As for the other claim, there is an anti military under current in the republic, especially against Britain, the US and NATO and spending money on defence.

That's not anti-military that's economics, It's very hard to justify spending on military equipment that may never be used in anger when there are so many people ie voters on hospital waiting lists.

Fratton Fred

twinytwo wrote: »

No.. I mean that Ireland never got involved in anything colonial we have never invaded anyone.. started wars.. surpressed people.. we have never stepped on anyones toes or ****ed anyone over.. as the british, americans,french etc etc have done once or numerous times in history.. The fact thats its UN has nothing to do with it.. A british soldier is a british soldier to them weather he/she wears a blue beret or a red one

30 years ago maybe, but the world has changed. Do you really think they teach the history of Ireland in a pakistani madras, all they teach is believers and non believers. Most Muslim fundementalists weren't even born when Bobby Sands was on hunger strike or the Paras were shooting people in Derry. that means nothing to them, all they care about is their own war against the west.

Quis Separabit

Hagar wrote: »

That's not anti-military that's economics, It's very hard to justify spending on military equipment that may never be used in anger when there are so many people ie voters on hospital waiting lists.

This warrants a new thread (world military expenditure).

And why some countries spend less then the republic but have much more hardware.

eroo

twinytwo wrote: »

I really cant see why they would want to put bases in ireland... cept for the fact that our government seems to lick americas ass every chance it gets.. i mean the whole shannon thing was a joke.. They didnt even need to use the airport in the first place. I think America holds a lot more over us than some seem to realise. . .

Well,seeing as US multinationals/corporations have plants here that is quite true.But what do you suggest,we tell US to jog on.That was what I used to believe but fact is,without US investment,our economy(and most economies) would be up **** creek without a paddle!
As for Shannon,you pull out US military flights and Shannon loses millions in contracts.
You plan on joining the DF twinytwo?I'd keep opinions like that to yourself mate if you get in..they might think your another Ed Horgan:eek::p:D

tribulus

Question about the article; why don't the officers go on to do the skills course as well?

twinytwo

eroo wrote: »

Well,seeing as US multinationals/corporations have plants here that is quite true.But what do you suggest,we tell US to jog on.That was what I used to believe but fact is,without US investment,our economy(and most economies) would be up **** creek without a paddle!
As for Shannon,you pull out US military flights and Shannon loses millions in contracts.
You plan on joining the DF twinytwo?I'd keep opinions like that to yourself mate if you get in..they might think your another Ed Horgan:eek::p:D

Ya im thinking bout joining... but i was refering to them transfering prisoners through shannon when there was no real need to..and then having the nerve to turn around and tell customs to **** off and not inspect the plane...I mean its all good having all that money coming in till the fundamentalists decide to start blowing things up becasue we are aiding the americans..

twinytwo

Quis Separabit wrote: »

This warrants a new thread (world military expenditure).

And why some countries spend less then the republic but have much more hardware.

Id say that what ever you can say about the rest of the country when the army buys something its usually good quality stuff... We dont have loads of stuff floating around the place but at least what we do have works and we use it... Unlike the Goverment thats spends millions on stuff we will never use

NoQuarter

tribulus wrote: »

Question about the article; why don't the officers go on to do the skills course as well?

officers if they pass are RTU'd (returned to original unit) where they wait for a position to open up in the unit and then they are called.

Quis Separabit

twinytwo wrote: »

Id say that what ever you can say about the rest of the country when the army buys something its usually good quality stuff... We dont have loads of stuff floating around the place but at least what we do have works and we use it... Unlike the Goverment thats spends millions on stuff we will never use

Good when it was first bought, but, as an example, FV101 Scorpion light tanks were withdrawn many years ago, they have no NBC capability. They are still in use with the IDF.


"The Scorpion has been withdrawn from service in 93 by the British army (the chief reason being that the 76mm gun had no fume extractor and could suffocate the crew if the vehicle was closed down for NBC protection)."


Another example :


Bofors EL-70 40mm Air defence Gun[4]Still in use with the IDF.


The L/60 saw active service with the Royal Navy in the 1982 Falklands War and continued to be used into the 1990s, when it was replaced by modern 20- and 30-mm artillery.


The Canadian Forces also used Bofors on their surface fleet, but removed the guns in the late 1980s when they were considered to be outdated.


......I could go on.


The problem is 22, you keep continually making big claims.

twinytwo

Quis Separabit wrote: »

Good when it was first bought, but, as an example, FV101 Scorpion light tanks were withdrawn many years ago, they have no NBC capability. They are still in use with the IDF.


"The Scorpion has been withdrawn from service in 93 by the British army (the chief reason being that the 76mm gun had no fume extractor and could suffocate the crew if the vehicle was closed down for NBC protection)."


Another example :


Bofors EL-70 40mm Air defence Gun[4]Still in use with the IDF.


The L/60 saw active service with the Royal Navy in the 1982 Falklands War and continued to be used into the 1990s, when it was replaced by modern 20- and 30-mm artillery.


The Canadian Forces also used Bofors on their surface fleet, but removed the guns in the late 1980s when they were considered to be outdated.


......I could go on.


The problem is 22, you keep continually making big claims.

And what is ur point.... just cause we still use it does that mean its not good quality.. tried and tested... and by the way IDF stands Israeli Defence Force....

Quis Separabit

IDF also refers to the Irish defence forces, its alot more accurate then your term, English army.

twinytwo

Quis Separabit wrote: »

IDF also refers to the Irish defence forces, its alot more accurate then your term, English army.

The Irish military is called PDF Permanent Defence Force... This is what the Government,Soldiers and Civilians call it... The PDF is never refered to the IDF by anyone

Hagar

For future reference let's all try to stick to the following to avoid confusion.

PDF = Permanent Defence Force (Ireland)
RDF = Reserve Defence Force (Ireland)
IDF = Isreali Defence Force (Isreal)

Pathfinder

Hagar wrote: »

For future reference let's all try to stick to the following to avoid confusion.

PDF = Permanent Defence Force (Ireland)
RDF = Reserve Defence Force (Ireland)
IDF = Isreali Defence Force (Isreal)

Fair enough, but in the BA it was referred to as to IDF.

twinytwo

Pathfinder wrote: »

Fair enough, but in the BA it was referred to as to IDF.

oh look its Quis Separabit.... wait i mean pathfinder

Hagar

Do I look stupid from over there?

I know exactly who it is. Pathfinder had a seven day ban at the start of Feb which has elapsed.

End of story.

No back seat modding thanks.

biggun

Riddle101 wrote: »

What weapons do the ARW fire? I heard they don't fire the Styer, and are the others

They use a selection.

1) MP5
2) G3 H&K
3) Combination of 9mm & .40 S&W
4) Benelli/Remington shotgun


Mainly they are to become proficient in a variety and selction of modern semi and fully automatic weapons. Ive even seen them use AK, fired on full auto they are a blast to use.

eroo

WTF is up with the ARW wiki page????http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Army_Rangers#Training

''They learn how to make up for the lack of food by eating their dead comrads''

''These men and woman are trained to kill ruthlessly. They kill aribic islamic black and white people.But they learn to do craps in big rivers and also piss on the locals''

Hagar

Not any more it doesn't.