What was the most prevalent IRA rifle?

goldie fish

johngalway wrote: »

You might suggest a criminal forum then :rolleyes:

Shooting

RMD

goldie fish wrote: »

Shooting

The shooting forum is a purely sporting forum in relation to target shooting / hunting. The military forum is the most suitable place for IRA related threads seemingly so they're allowed here as long as the IRA Vs Brits crap is left out for the most part and trolling doesn't take over

They were a paramilitary, it's in the name.

Savage93

DublinWriter wrote: »

He also gave them a handful of SAMs which where subsequently ruined due to dampness in underground storage locations.

The provos made extensive use of the Barrett M82 sniper rifle in Armagh, using it typically take out targets at a 1/2 mile range over hilly terrain.

Bull****, the longest hit on a British soldier was less than 300 yards using the Barrett, any decent shot would do this, no "snipers" as we know them, no myths in spite of the roadsigns etc.:D

RMD

Savage93 wrote: »

Bull****, the longest hit on a British soldier was less than 300 yards using the Barrett, any decent shot would do this, no "snipers" as we know them, no myths in spite of the roadsigns etc.:D

Ye, the IRA snipers were piss poor in general considering they had one of the most advanced and powerful sniper rifles of the time. Considering British troops are trained to be effective shooters up to 300 meters with the SA80 (Standard issue Assault Rifle of the BA) and the SA80 itself has an effective range of up to 450m with the ironsights in the right hands, it shows how poor they were with the Barret. Of the 9 soldiers killed by the South Armagh sniper squads (90-97), the majority were within 300 meters. On the other hand though it had a serious moral effect on the BA units within the area and caused foot patrols to be restricted.

harmoniums

RMD wrote: »

Ye, the IRA snipers were piss poor in general considering they had one of the most advanced and powerful sniper rifles of the time. Considering British troops are trained to be effective shooters up to 300 meters with the SA80 (Standard issue Assault Rifle of the BA) and the SA80 itself has an effective range of up to 450m with the ironsights in the right hands, it shows how poor they were with the Barret. Of the 9 soldiers killed by the South Armagh sniper squads (90-97), the majority were within 300 meters. On the other hand though it had a serious moral effect on the BA units within the area and caused foot patrols to be restricted.

I've got to agree with you here that they really didn't accomplish much wrt sniping.
I'm just a civvie who enjoys to shoot once a week or so and I can put 6 rounds into a 12 inch gong at 300 meters using my K31 all day long!

here she is!



having said that, taking the shot and getting home in one piece is a different story.
I heard they took their shots from an up armoured van.

RMD

harmoniums wrote: »

I've got to agree with you here that they really didn't accomplish much wrt sniping.
I'm just a civvie who enjoys to shoot once a week or so and I can put 6 rounds into a 12 inch gong at 300 meters using my K31 all day long!

here she is!



having said that, taking the shot and getting home in one piece is a different story.
I heard they took their shots from an up armoured van.

I'm not sure what type of vehicle it was but it was armoured in the rear with steel plates AFAIK in case the BA returned fire. I'm not in anyway berating you, but if they can't shoot further than 300m effectively with a M-82 .50 cal when a hobby shooter can hit a 12 inch target at 300m with a 7.5 round, it shows how poorly skilled they were. Getting home in one piece obviously was important, but the most important point I'm making is skill.

Dyr

If you read Bandit Country by Toby something-or-other, there was quotes in there from British army sources recognizing that the south armagh sniping teams required a good deal of nerve and skill to do what they did at close ranges. They had reasons for getting that close if I recall correctly

johngalway wrote: »

That's something I've always wondered about, why no SAM (to my very limited knowledge) was used against British air units. Even if they only had a handful of them surely it would have been a PR coup to their minds. I do believe attempts were made to shoot down helicopters with large calibre rifles alright.

The Libyan SAM-7s were shipped with dodgy electrics I think. Plus the provos wouldnt have had the ability to maintain them. The British choppers might have traveled at too low an altitude to be tracked by SAMs anyway.

RMD

Bambi wrote: »

If you read Bandit Country by Toby something-or-other, there was quotes in there from British army sources recognizing that the south armagh sniping teams required a good deal of nerve and skill to do what they did at close ranges. They had reasons for getting that close if I recall correctly

Well I'd say it certainly required a bit of nerve knowing you were within the effective distance of the average soldier but skill in what sense? I doubt it was shooting skills, maybe concealment / evasion perhaps.
I could be completely wrong though.

Bambi wrote:

The Libyan SAM-7s were shipped with dodgy electrics I think. Plus the provos wouldnt have had the ability to maintain them. The British choppers might have traveled at too low an altitude to be tracked by SAMs anyway.

Ye, they were shipped with dodgy electronics and I think without the correct guidance systems or something along those lines. After which I think they were further damaged by moisture, and as you put it the provos weren't capable of maintaining them. In terms of the choppers traveling low though I'm not entirely sure, after the DhsK attacks they began to fly a lot higher AFAIK to avoid ground attacks.

goldie fish

RMD wrote: »

I'm not sure what type of vehicle it was but it was armoured in the rear with steel plates AFAIK in case the BA returned fire. I'm not in anyway berating you, but if they can't shoot further than 300m effectively with a M-82 .50 cal when a hobby shooter can hit a 12 inch target at 300m with a 7.5 round, it shows how poorly skilled they were. Getting home in one piece obviously was important, but the most important point I'm making is skill.

Renault Laguna estate, with firing port out boot door, quite similar to the method used by the washington sniper more recently.

neil_hosey

what a really interesting thread, thanks lads.

Rawhead

Mazda 626 hatchback with steel plate in the boot to act as amour. to the best of my knowledge. The thing with target shooting is that it doesn't come close to replicating the stress of shooting at a live target, who is surrounded by his friends, who are going to be very pissed off that you shot one of them.

Try running as hard as you can for 5 minutes. Give yourself 30 seconds to get into a firing position and fire one shot at a target that can be between 200 and 400 yards. For added spice get a big burly buddy wearing hob nails to stand behind you and give you a swift kick in the "town halls" if you miss.

It mightn't be the longest distance sniping in history but its the environment in which the shots were taken that earned the respect of the British officers.

Manic Moran

goldie fish wrote: »

Why is this thread in "military"?

The PIRA were a criminal organisation, not a military force.

I'm fine with it. The British Army had to deal with them, so it's of relevance.

NTM

goldie fish

Rawhead wrote: »

Mazda 626 hatchback with steel plate in the boot to act as amour. to the best of my knowledge. The thing with target shooting is that it doesn't come close to replicating the stress of shooting at a live target, who is surrounded by his friends, who are going to be very pissed off that you shot one of them.

Try running as hard as you can for 5 minutes. Give yourself 30 seconds to get into a firing position and fire one shot at a target that can be between 200 and 400 yards. For added spice get a big burly buddy wearing hob nails to stand behind you and give you a swift kick in the "town halls" if you miss.

It mightn't be the longest distance sniping in history but its the environment in which the shots were taken that earned the respect of the British officers.

If by respect you mean they caught him he would have choked on his own testicles.
Caoimhin O'Caoilean's brother in law, got 160 years, barely served one.
Ratted out his provo mates though.

goldie fish

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm fine with it. The British Army had to deal with them, so it's of relevance.

NTM

Where is the thread on Afghan IEDs, and which one works best?

Rawhead

goldie fish wrote: »

If by respect you mean they caught him he would have choked on his own testicles.
Caoimhin O'Caoilean's brother in law, got 160 years, barely served one.
Ratted out his provo mates though.

You know I mean a grudging respect. From the few UK security forces lads I would have talked to most would have had a small bit of grudging respect for the likes of this fella or the provos who went toe to toe with them (wasn't often). They held a special hate for the bombers. Having a grudging respect wouldn't stop them killing them though.
I would wager that in your profession that a certain amount of grudging respect would be shown to a well planned and executed heist.
Wouldn't stop you doing your job in arresting them and getting them sent down.

Rawhead

goldie fish wrote: »

Where is the thread on Afghan IEDs, and which one works best?

I don't think the vast majority of people on this thread would in any way, shape or form support the IRA in the past, present or future, I certainly don't.

I do however have a interest in the military and in Irish history. This thread is not glorifying the terrorists but mainly discussing their tactics and weapons.

We could discuss the Chechnya's tactics against the Russians, we could discuss the Algerians tactics against the French or we could discuss the Taliban tactics against the NATO forces but, I for one am Irish and the history and tactics that were used by the PIRA 50 miles from my house are of more interest to me.

Manic Moran

goldie fish wrote: »

Where is the thread on Afghan IEDs, and which one works best?

Don't think anyone's started one.

NTM

flynnlives

IIRC the sanger in Crossmaglen, which was frequently attacked, was at one point attacked with an improvised flamethrower from a slurry tank.
Pretty audacious attack!!
I think there is cctv footage of it.

As regards the sniping i doubt they would have gotten much practice and the practice they got was most likely in underground firing ranges. So its understandable that they were ****.
But the psychological effects were devastating. After the sniping campaign began, the by now famous "sniper at work" signs appeared and where booby-trapped. IIRC two BA soldiers were killed trying to remove the signs.

At their height the IRA only had ~600 active members.

goldie fish

Rawhead wrote: »

I would wager that in your profession that a certain amount of grudging respect would be shown to a well planned and executed heist.
Wouldn't stop you doing your job in arresting them and getting them sent down.

You have that very very wrong.

What's my current profession again?

Rawhead

goldie fish wrote: »

You have that very very wrong.

What's my current profession again?

Stage coach tilter?

Mule skinner?

Chimney sweep?

Or maybe, just maybe, your the last man standing between society and the marauding hoards of criminal scum who are intent on destroying the very fabric of society itself.

goldie fish

Rawhead wrote: »

Stage coach tilter?

Mule skinner?

Chimney sweep?

Or maybe, just maybe, your the last man standing between society and the marauding hoards of criminal scum who are intent on destroying the very fabric of society itself.

Sorry boss
the civil service isn't quite that exciting.....