Can the Defence Forces improve their already high standards.

xflyer

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?

Jawgap

They don't, and will never get, to do the type of operation that would develop a truly widespread 'elite' ability.

However, 'elite' can many different things to different people, and there are certainly areas where they can and do excel, for example in peace keeping and peace enforcement - if the political will and money was available they could siginificantly expand their capabilities in that area.

thecommietommy

Cannot see the need, the PDF already fulfill the role the Irish Govt wants them to do i.e. UN duty, etc Why do we need 10,000 Rambos, the present lads fulfill their duty ?

thecommietommy

Jawgap wrote: »

They don't, and will never get, to do the type of operation that would develop a truly widespread 'elite' ability.

However, 'elite' can many different things to different people, and there are certainly areas where they can and do excel, for example in peace keeping and peace enforcement - if the political will and money was available they could siginificantly expand their capabilities in that area.

From what I can see, the 'elite' aren't so elite as their friendly press make out them to be a lot of the time. Sure they perform some very daring missions e.g. Seal Team 6 and the killing of Bin Laden, Israeli raid on Entebbe etc But lets not mention disasters like Tehran hostage rescue attempt in 1980*, the the Gaza flotilla raid, Bravo Two Zero etc

I happen to think that the 'elite' aren't always what they are cracked up to be, be it through over hype and confidence in their own abilites or underestimation of the enemy. A bit like the old saying, it's not the dog in the fight but the fight in the dog. History is full of it, whether it be peaseants in the Viet Cong or republicans at Kilmicheal.


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

thecommietommy

feeney92 wrote: »

They are not an elite army at this stage, the recruitment process is a little unfair to be honest ( but thats the world we live in ) who says the smart lad with the Honours Degree or PHD in is any more better inclined to be a better soldier than the lad who lives in a bad area and wants to get out of it, In these times Its not what you know its who you know, Ive seen many guys I know go for the DF and not get it simply because of their education, I know damn well they'd make good soldiers but its the men with the big hot shot degrees in finance and accounting that get it.....

I doubt if they could become an ' elite army ' unless they happen to be regularly getting into wars around the world as nothing beats real practise. A bit like a boxer, no matter how much he works out on the bags, speed ball etc, he still has to get ring time.

xflyer

Let's not go off topic straight away commietommy. I'm not talking about turning the whole army into an ARW/SAS/Special Forces/Spetsnaz unit. Simply that it could be a higher quality conventional forces in the Para/Ranger/Marine mould. In fact all three.

You don't need to go to war every week to have high quality armed forces.

And please don't start with Brit/USA bashing. This is about the Irish army.

neilled

feeney92 wrote: »

They are not an elite army at this stage, the recruitment process is a little unfair to be honest ( but thats the world we live in ) who says the smart lad with the Honours Degree or PHD in is any more better inclined to be a better soldier than the lad who lives in a bad area and wants to get out of it, In these times Its not what you know its who you know, Ive seen many guys I know go for the DF and not get it simply because of their education, I know damn well they'd make good soldiers but its the men with the big hot shot degrees in finance and accounting that get it.....

If you have two candidates being equal in fitness, enthusiasm and at the various criteria as required in any recruitment system, then those with their big "hot shot degrees" or relevant experience will swing it for them in the recruitment process for any organisation. All employers have to think of what a person can bring to the organisation and what the persons potential to develop and take on more advanced roles within the organisation is and in general education is a requirement for this.

Victor

xflyer wrote: »

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

The reason there is over-subscription at the moment is because there are too many people unemployed and too few places.

xflyer wrote: »

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?

A few main factors.

We draw from a population of 4.5 million, the British 60 million and the Americans 300+ million.

Cost.

Use. Training people to be "elite" and then having them on basic duties leads to bored soldiers. Bored soldiers leads to trouble.

xflyer wrote: »

Marines

Marines are assault troops, they aren't "elite".

feeney92 wrote: »

the recruitment process is a little unfair to be honest ( but thats the world we live in ) who says the smart lad with the Honours Degree or PHD in is any more better inclined to be a better soldier than the lad who lives in a bad area and wants to get out of it

While having a degree would be useful for being an officer or certain specialist functions, it may be seen as a draw back for someone going for an ordinary infantry position.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

bwatson

Surely to become an army with multiple elite regiments, Irish forces would have to start proving its worth in warzones across the globe - something I do not doubt its infantrymen could do.

Sure, the Irish Army could copy royal marines' training and the commando course but until its soldiers have proven themselves in combat would they really be regarded as elite? I'm sure its all well and good being fit as a fiddle and having an knowledge of how to carry out many types of operations, but until you or those commanding you have actually been there, done it, and truly experienced it I'm not so sure a force would be considered truly elite.

Just taking the marines as an example, since the second world war they have served in Korea, Suez, Indonesia, Malaya, the Falklands, Northern Ireland, the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan. Building a reputation takes time. It takes experience, with knowledge being passed down by battle hardened soldiers and the ethos which has evolved over time.

Added to that, budgets would need to be increased massively to afford such things - is the irish government at this time going to contemplate such a move?

KickstartHeart

My aunt was married to a US marine. When I was 13 years old I knew more about the M16 rifle than he did, and he was apparently quite good at what he did.

They are not elite.

To quote an ex british marine I spoke to only recently who trained with the US Marines on exercise "They have all the money in the world, gucci kit, and quite good training. Thats why we couldn't figure out why they were such s*** soldiers."

Interesting thread though OP. I think its fair to say that the Irish DF is only over subscribed at the moment. It hasn't always been like that, and it won't always be like that. So turning the whole army into a more elite force isn't really feasible, or even necessary. The Irish Defence Forces is there as deterrant. Its not expected to actually win a war if someone invades, but it is going to do some damage. Thats the deterrant factor covered. Also the Irish state, with its supranational commitments for defence, needs to a maintain an army, a navy, and an air corps. Nothing more. So they will provide nothing more.

Also Ireland's military is a defence force. Units like marines, rangers and paratroops are for offensive ops usually. So really no need. The Irish Defence Forces is well capable of making a marine corps style unit and a para style unit, but they would have no need to.

Still though, your question poses food for thought

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Jawgap

thecommietommy wrote: »

From what I can see, the 'elite' aren't so elite as their friendly press make out them to be a lot of the time. Sure they perform some very daring missions e.g. Seal Team 6 and the killing of Bin Laden, Israeli raid on Entebbe etc But lets not mention disasters like Tehran hostage rescue attempt in 1980*, the the Gaza flotilla raid, Bravo Two Zero etc

I happen to think that the 'elite' aren't always what they are cracked up to be, be it through over hype and confidence in their own abilites or underestimation of the enemy. A bit like the old saying, it's not the dog in the fight but the fight in the dog. History is full of it, whether it be peaseants in the Viet Cong or republicans at Kilmicheal.


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

To quote Al Pacino in the Recruit - "our failures are known; our successes are not" - I reckon there is a whole heap of operations that get carried out day in day out that we never get to hear about.

Also elite forces evolve over time - there could have been no Operation Neptune Spear to kill OBL without the failure of Eagle Claw considering how it led directly to the development of equipment and formations capable of executing such missions.

PS - you forgot Nimrod - the assault on the Iranian Embassy

KickstartHeart

Your'e right feeney92.

Its particularaly annoying for those of us who want to join, for only one reason, to be in the Irish Defence Forces, and serve IRELAND, and have wanted it since Ireland was one of the worlds richest countries with plenty of places going in the DF and not many people going for it and making competition just so they can have a steady job.

If only I was the age I am now with the education I have now 10 years ago.

xflyer

Let's not get all hung up over the term 'elite' or their supposed roles. Generally in military history elite troops were just better trained or equipped or just better paid than the average foot soldier. Grenadiers for example.

Maybe we should looks at something along the lines of the household regiments of the British army. Whether they're better than some random county regiment is neither here nor there. It's the ethos of being part of something better than average. Also while Paras/Rangers/Marines are offensive troops. They fit the criteria of being better than ordinary line regiments. What's wrong with training an offensive spirit into troops anyway?

You don't need to throw money at it either. This is more of a question of instilling the attitude among recruits that they're now a member of something to be proud of and reinforcing this by making the training hard enough that not everyone can make it.

It would be good for the army and those who serve.

beco2010

xflyer wrote: »

You don't need to throw money at it either. This is more of a question of instilling the attitude among recruits that they're now a member of something to be proud of and reinforcing this by making the training hard enough that not everyone can make it.

It would be good for the army and those who serve.

i think this is somthing to think about why shouldnt traing be hard enough that some cant do it wouldnt this help with recruiting as well give more ppl the chance to take the places of those that failed i know it might cost more but wouldnt it be fair for all that the best got the job not just the lucky or far more educated then needed im not saying that we dont have a DF that has not top quility solders cos we do but wouldnt it make the person who completed training have that bit more respect for what there part of

cruasder777

xflyer wrote: »

Let's not go off topic straight away commietommy. I'm not talking about turning the whole army into an ARW/SAS/Special Forces/Spetsnaz unit. Simply that it could be a higher quality conventional forces in the Para/Ranger/Marine mould. In fact all three.

You don't need to go to war every week to have high quality armed forces.

And please don't start with Brit/USA bashing. This is about the Irish army.

"Simply that it could be a higher quality conventional forces in the Para/Ranger/Marine mould. In fact all three."


......................They cost double to train compared to ordinary infantry and whats the point if Ireland would never use them in the purpose they are trained for ?

neilled

feeney92 wrote: »

true indeed, but the ones with degrees already are being given preference over the candidates that dont, not when the "academically weaker " candidate equals the "smarter" candidate, I suppose its to do with the budget, look at the cadets as an example, they will 100% choose a person with a degree over one who does'nt,
simply because they do not have to pay for their education, its not that they "might" be a better soldier, they are just not given a chance. thats all im trying to say!! nothing about knocking the DF..........

No, i get where your coming from, though I'm speaking in more general terms - take a school hiring for example someone to cover materinity. They can hire a newly qualified teacher, or someone with years of experience, numerous references and a good track record with a good few extra quals under their belt. Unfortunately the newbie probably isn't going to get it - creating the conundrum of "how the hell am I ever going to get experience?"

If you look at the professional officer corps of most developed countries, most are third level educated, either though a service academy programme that is 3-4 years academic/military/tactics such as West Point/Anapolis, St Cyr (France), The Thereisan Academy (Austrian) or come in with their studies completed - sandhurst for instance has 80% of its intake as graduates.

The ability to handle the type of information and learning ability that is required for third level education is being increasingly deemed necessary for strategic thinking and planning in modern military operations - your not going to be operating at the tactical level forever, indeed many of the US general's are PHD holders these days!

neilled

bwatson wrote: »

Surely to become an army with multiple elite regiments, Irish forces would have to start proving its worth in warzones across the globe - something I do not doubt its infantrymen could do.

Sure, the Irish Army could copy royal marines' training and the commando course but until its soldiers have proven themselves in combat would they really be regarded as elite? I'm sure its all well and good being fit as a fiddle and having an knowledge of how to carry out many types of operations, but until you or those commanding you have actually been there, done it, and truly experienced it I'm not so sure a force would be considered truly elite.

Just taking the marines as an example, since the second world war they have served in Korea, Suez, Indonesia, Malaya, the Falklands, Northern Ireland, the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan. Building a reputation takes time. It takes experience, with knowledge being passed down by battle hardened soldiers and the ethos which has evolved over time.

Added to that, budgets would need to be increased massively to afford such things - is the irish government at this time going to contemplate such a move?

The Irish Army (with the exception of the artillery) does not have a regimental system and you can't really call them a regiment in the British sense of the varying traditions, drills and customs.

The oft purported internet warrior "not elite until tested under combat" purport is pointless when looking at realpolitik. States do not deploy soldiers and spend blood and treasure for creating a label, of elite to satisfy keyboard warriors they do it when their own interests and ambitions are at stake, based on the realist school of international relations.

There's a reason for all of those battles you listed - the UK had interests to protect and maintain in these countries - to keep allies in power, maintain influence, to secure resources and supply lines or whatever other policy objective it achieves. It does not happily send its men into harms way for the sake of adding another battle honour to the regimental colours.

So what are the "elite" units? Depends what way you want to differentiate them.

Broadly you can look at splitting them into two types

SOF/Commando type forces - I think there's no need to elaborate further as why these chaps are special, they do special jobs above and beyond the normal and have went through training much more demanding than their "line" counterparts. It takes a pool of many line soldiers to get a few SOF types out and the attritian rate during training and selection is much higher. The US SOCOM budget is bigger than many EU national defence budgets - it shows you the level of resources you need in order to attain that standard.

or Historical Elites - Particularly Household/Presidential Guards etc - units charged with protecting a prestigious office of state and who have a long history going back hundreds of years - often units with a heavy emphasis on unwavering discipline who would have been the lynchpin of the battleline in days gone by when warfare consisted of manoeuvring onto the field and taking turns to shoot at each other. These units now carry a certain amount of prestige and the fact that societys elite send their sons to be officers in these units allow them a certain amount of pull, and possibly the plum roles in the armed forces.

In the British Army the prefix "Royal" would be awarded to a regiment for particularly valiant actions etc. however with the creation of "super regiments" this distinction is pretty much null and void.

beco2010

can i ask as this thread is about making the DF into an elite force what the training is curently by this i mean how hard from getting out of bed to getting to go back to bed

Sgtslaughter

I know of a young guy from the curragh that wore 5 different berets (black, glen garry, blue, red and arw green) before he had 3 years service, how can we ever become elite with all the double jobbing??? Nobody is left to specialise, im just Rdf but that is my understanding of the df as a whole, to many jack of all trades!

KickstartHeart

I'll say it again. No need for para's or marines.


Last time I checked the defence of the republic of Ireland does not require the ability to mount invasions on other peoples countries. Try and remember that the countries that keep forces like para's and marines have them for offensive ops.


Irish Defence Forces training is tough and s*** loads of people quit it. What ever gave everyone here the impression that it was easy in any way? I don't get that bit. The way this thread is going you'd swear the army trained like the RDF do or something.

Hasn't anyone read the article in the latest An Cosantoir magazine where a Sergeant from the cadet school did the company sergeants course this year with the British army and said it was easy for him to "mix and match" with an army that is 'seen as one of the worlds best'. Of the over 30 guys on the course, he was one of the 5 that were recommended to made INSTRUCTORS in the course.

Lads just because the Irish Army is part of a defence forces doesn't mean that its not an ARMY made of up of extremely well trained professional soldiers...And that training is not easy.

You don't need to have offensive units like para's and marines in the Irish Defence Forces to have highly trained soldiers.

Try to remember what the Irish Army is for. Defence of the state, and peace support operations. 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. See Belgian paratroops in Kigali, Rwanda and British Para's in NI being encouraged by their officers to "get kills". Offensive 'elite' gung ho testosterone injected units like that are a liability in an army that isn't used for invading other countries.

EDIT: I just want to point out I'm NOT having an immature dig at the British army or anything like that with my comment about the para's. Its just the operation banner in the north is the perfect example of when troops that are trained to attack other countries and go in first to wipe out an enemy were used in operations that should have been manned by troops that are trained soldiers but that also train in peace ops. I was just using it to re-iterate my point the Irish Army does not need para battalions or marines. I most certainly didn't mean to be offensive to anyone in the para's or anything like that.

Also, as I have said, Irish Army training is hard and challenging, but even if soldiers want to take that further, there is units and courses they can go on for the same kind of challenge, and an even harder challenge than you would get in a marine corps or the para's.

ALSO, The Irish Army does have para trained soldiers and does run para courses. It just doesn't need a defined para unit. And it does train in sea landings etc. (not to the extent or the same way that a marine unit would but still relevant )

xflyer

KickstartHeart, Sigh:(, let my clarify once and for all. I'm not suggesting turning the army into an elite offensive unit ready to drop into enemy territory at a moment's notice or train it for amphibious warfare so we can invade small countries.

My suggestion is that given the relatively high standard of recruits and officers that it could be trained to a higher standard than it is now. That there would be higher expectation of performance. Not only would it be good for morale. It would be good for the status of the army as a whole.

I'm not saying standards are low, they're not. But the given the quality of recruits there is considerable potential for it to be higher.

Your example of the Sergeant doing well in Britain is no surprise. But frankly they wouldn't have sent someone who wasn't expected to do well. So it's hardly surprising he impressed. The question arises though what happened to him when he came back. To what extent is his training now been used to improve things back home?

You mention the courses soldiers can do, challenging courses. But they're voluntary. Why not make them part of training for everyone? So everyone capable of it gets a parachute course or diving course or specialist firearms and explosives? Make it compulsory that personnel must chose one, two, three or more courses.

Mainly my suggestion is to generally upgrade standards in the army from it's decent light infantry standard to something a little better to the point where they can stand with any unit of any army and say to themselves. 'We're as good as them'.

We don't have a regimental system, we don't need one. The army itself is small enough for everyone to see themselves as part of something to be proud of.

It wouldn't take much, just a change of attitude. Which it seems is the biggest problem. Why not seek to improve things?

The British Army as you point out like to be

'seen as one of the worlds best'

. 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. Then there is absolutely no reason why the Irish army couldn't be the best small army in the world. Am I wrong?

KickstartHeart

xflyer wrote: »

KickstartHeart, Sigh:(, let my clarify once and for all. I'm not suggesting turning the army into an elite offensive unit ready to drop into enemy territory at a moment's notice or train it for amphibious warfare so we can invade small countries.

My suggestion is that given the relatively high standard of recruits and officers that it could be trained to a higher standard than it is now. That there would be higher expectation of performance. Not only would it be good for morale. It would be good for the status of the army as a whole.

I'm not saying standards are low, they're not. But the given the quality of recruits there is considerable potential for it to be higher.

Your example of the Sergeant doing well in Britain is no surprise. But frankly they wouldn't have sent someone who wasn't expected to do well. So it's hardly surprising he impressed. The question arises though what happened to him when he came back. To what extent is his training now been used to improve things back home?

You mention the courses soldiers can do, challenging courses. But they're voluntary. Why not make them part of training for everyone? So everyone capable of it gets a parachute course or diving course or specialist firearms and explosives? Make it compulsory that personnel must chose one, two, three or more courses.

Mainly my suggestion is to generally upgrade standards in the army from it's decent light infantry standard to something a little better to the point where they can stand with any unit of any army and say to themselves. 'We're as good as them'.

We don't have a regimental system, we don't need one. The army itself is small enough for everyone to see themselves as part of something to be proud of.

It wouldn't take much, just a change of attitude. Which it seems is the biggest problem. Why not seek to improve things?

The British Army as you point out like to be . 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. Then there is absolutely no reason why the Irish army couldn't be the best small army in the world. Am I wrong?

Actually. You're right. I see/agree with what you're saying. :O

Those improvements could definitely be made.


Also.. I just want to point out one thing about the Sergeant who did the course with the Brits, He wasn't 'sent', he personally applied and did the course.

Although I agree with you... I don't think the dosh is there for it

At the moment they're just trying to keep the PDF ticking over

neilled

xflyer wrote: »

.

Your example of the Sergeant doing well in Britain is no surprise. But frankly they wouldn't have sent someone who wasn't expected to do well. So it's hardly surprising he impressed. The question arises though what happened to him when he came back. To what extent is his training now been used to improve things back home?

You mention the courses soldiers can do, challenging courses. But they're voluntary. Why not make them part of training for everyone? So everyone capable of it gets a parachute course or diving course or specialist firearms and explosives? Make it compulsory that personnel must chose one, two, three or more courses.

Not sure if you can see the online version of the article, but if you can you'll see that the sgt in question is based in the Cadet School in the Military College. This means that this experience gets fed back into the training system and is used to train future leaders in the DF.

That suggestion that you made about the courses you mentioned comes down to the same old chesnut in all armed forces worldwide - money. Even the British Para Units these days aren't even getting to make annual jumps because of cutbacks - in effect the parachute is fast becoming a regimental totem pole, an item that the the regiments members worship like the hand of Danijou of the Foreign Legion as something that sets them apart from "line" infantry. The days of massed jumps are over - as the means to support such operations and provide an "airhead supply" to an independent airborne force are beyond most military forces bar that of the USA and perhaps Russia. Such units survive because they are useful and good that what they are trained for - highly aggressive and tough light infantry.

beco2010

what seems to be coming up mostly is the cost dont the DF train ppl to dive already dont they tain ppl to be specialists in firearms and explosives i dont see why they couldnt make it that every one had to do these courses would it cost that much more as they are paying to train recruits any way

cruasder777

xflyer wrote: »

KickstartHeart, Sigh:(, let my clarify once and for all. I'm not suggesting turning the army into an elite offensive unit ready to drop into enemy territory at a moment's notice or train it for amphibious warfare so we can invade small countries.

My suggestion is that given the relatively high standard of recruits and officers that it could be trained to a higher standard than it is now. That there would be higher expectation of performance. Not only would it be good for morale. It would be good for the status of the army as a whole.

I'm not saying standards are low, they're not. But the given the quality of recruits there is considerable potential for it to be higher.

Your example of the Sergeant doing well in Britain is no surprise. But frankly they wouldn't have sent someone who wasn't expected to do well. So it's hardly surprising he impressed. The question arises though what happened to him when he came back. To what extent is his training now been used to improve things back home?

You mention the courses soldiers can do, challenging courses. But they're voluntary. Why not make them part of training for everyone? So everyone capable of it gets a parachute course or diving course or specialist firearms and explosives? Make it compulsory that personnel must chose one, two, three or more courses.

Mainly my suggestion is to generally upgrade standards in the army from it's decent light infantry standard to something a little better to the point where they can stand with any unit of any army and say to themselves. 'We're as good as them'.

We don't have a regimental system, we don't need one. The army itself is small enough for everyone to see themselves as part of something to be proud of.

It wouldn't take much, just a change of attitude. Which it seems is the biggest problem. Why not seek to improve things?

The British Army as you point out like to be . 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. Then there is absolutely no reason why the Irish army couldn't be the best small army in the world. Am I wrong?

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.

xflyer

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

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

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 (hard).

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.

Also.. I just want to point out one thing about the Sergeant who did the course with the Brits, He wasn't 'sent', he personally applied and did the course.

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.

thecommietommy

KickstartHeart wrote: »

Try to remember what the Irish Army is for. Defence of the state, and peace support operations. 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. See Belgian paratroops in Kigali, Rwanda and British Para's in NI being encouraged by their officers to "get kills". Offensive 'elite' gung ho testosterone injected units like that are a liability in an army that isn't used for invading other countries.

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”

Fratton Fred

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”

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.

KickstartHeart

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

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

Do Irish soldiers have any experience of peace enforcement?

KickstartHeart

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

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

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

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Do Irish soldiers have any experience of peace enforcement?

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

Fratton Fred

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

davetherave wrote: »

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

Fair point about Lebanon in 06 actually!

KickstartHeart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morphéus wrote: »

ha!

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

I call fake!