Cocaine Wars-Irish Navy

Local-womanizer

I'll throw this up here,good to see the coverage,not sure about them Cork accents though!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/aug/12/ireland-drugs-smuggling-navy

time lord

Well done the Navy. Good clip.

Wicklowrider

Local-womanizer wrote: »

I'll throw this up here,good to see the coverage,not sure about them Cork accents though!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/aug/12/ireland-drugs-smuggling-navy

Good stuff, thanks for posting.
Cmdt Barry - great name for an irish navy man!

Manic Moran

That female boarding team member needs to work on her command voice.

NTM

concussion

That's the first thing I thought aswell. It's a shame they had to simulate most of it, instead of getting a camera in with a live boarding, but one step at a time. Good to see more and more positive media about the DF (Flickr, Facebook, Youtube etc.)

Wicklowrider

Manic Moran wrote: »

That female boarding team member needs to work on her command voice.

NTM

I doubt her elocution matters when that pistol is aimed at you.

concussion

It could be enough to convince someone she isn't prepared to fire her weapon.

Manic Moran

Wicklowrider wrote: »

I doubt her elocution matters when that pistol is aimed at you.

For that to be a valid point, the individual that you are aiming at has to be able to see the pistol. In the dark (esp if a flashlight is blinding you) or if, as in this case, the individual is turned away, the fact that there is a sidearm being aimed could well be overlooked. Sounding authoritive is of great importance.

NTM

BigDuffman

Yeah the voice was something that struck me too, that could be down to the cameras and the team feeling like they were on "show". Also could be down to that horrendous Cark accent. Pablo the drug runenr is going to have a hard time understanding them if we cant! :P

Brilliant piece though, should be more done with it thought to let joe public know what a great job the navy do. Would swiftly shut up one of those trolling "what have the DF done for us?" heads.

Also loving the token hot blonde at 4:14 thrown in for no particular. Win!

Wicklowrider

concussion wrote: »

It could be enough to convince someone she isn't prepared to fire her weapon.

Yes. But never underestimate the warning shot, speaks all languages.

Manic Moran wrote: »

For that to be a valid point, the individual that you are aiming at has to be able to see the pistol. In the dark (esp if a flashlight is blinding you) or if, as in this case, the individual is turned away, the fact that there is a sidearm being aimed could well be overlooked. Sounding authoritive is of great importance.

NTM

Agree, but it was training and presumably she'll improve. In darkness I was trained to shout the standard " Halt or I fire" so I'd have thought this was still SOP.

BigDuffman wrote: »

could be down to the cameras and the team feeling like they were on "show". Also could be down to that horrendous Cark accent. :P
QUOTE]
Thought that re the cameras, kinda like george hook on sky ad when they had to go back and dub it because it was being ridiculed so much.

Rialtas

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Yes. But never underestimate the warning shot, speaks all languages.

In the confines of a vessel which is bouncing around the Atlantic?

deRanged

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sounding authoritive is of great importance.
NTM

not to mention that boats are loud, and windy/stormy weather is really loud.

I expect that off camera a much less stylish roar is employed.

Wicklowrider

Rialtas wrote: »

In the confines of a vessel which is bouncing around the Atlantic?

Did you even watch the video?

What confines a warning shot when there is nothing but the wide blue above? (specific to the challenge MM mentions when the bloke has his back to her)
Put it another way - when did a boarding party, or any other PDF op fail due to a "command voice"? Its an academic, meaningless observation that denigrates people serving my country.
I wouldn't be picky because a woman does't bark like rambo.

Irish_Army01

I do seem to recall them shouting "ARMED NAVY" that will translate into any language !:D

Craigsy

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Did you even watch the video?

What confines a warning shot when there is nothing but the wide blue above?

I'd assume he was referring to if you were inside the vessel rather than on deck as shown in the vid

Rialtas

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Did you even watch the video?

What confines a warning shot when there is nothing but the wide blue above? (specific to the challenge MM mentions when the bloke has his back to her)
Put it another way - when did a boarding party, or any other PDF op fail due to a "command voice"? Its an academic, meaningless observation that denigrates people serving my country.
I wouldn't be picky because a woman does't bark like rambo.

Sorry I don't intend to be smart, but that was only a training exercise? I was talking about vessel interiors, BUT if that was a real op and the boarding party went into contact on the deck of a suspect vessel, shooting upwards would be dodgy. There could easily be rigging over head if it was a trawler or yacht. Rounds could just bounce off these beams and go anywhere. Basically I'm just saying I doubt warning shots are recommended for non compliant customers.

I couldn't tell ya anything about the success or failure of PDF ops or "command voices", was merely referring to the comment about warning shots.

Manic Moran

Wicklowrider wrote: »

What confines a warning shot when there is nothing but the wide blue above? (specific to the challenge MM mentions when the bloke has his back to her)

Fine for the 'going up' bit, as long as they don't get the AW-139 or CASA flying top cover for the raid, but what goes 'up' must come 'down'. What is to happen should the raid take place in harbour or in a bay next to a coastal town? If well trained, they will have repeatedly drilled a process. If that process includes discharing a firearm at first opportunity, that's exactly what they'll default to doing when the blood is hot.

There are more abstract problems as well: In the situations that warning shots are authorised (and there is a school of thought which says that warning shots should never be fired in a policing environment, as if you're going to be shooting, there's going to be a lethal threat to you which results in the trigger being pulled, so deal with the threat), I am unaware of any which authorise the use of warning shots merely as a method of announcing your presence and your resolve.

Put it another way - when did a boarding party, or any other PDF op fail due to a "command voice"? Its an academic, meaningless observation that denigrates people serving my country.

I am unaware of any. Might just mean that they've been lucky, or that raids up until then have generally involved personnel capable of using command voice. However, Rule 2 on Page 1 on the Book of Raids (After 'don't stop in the doorway') is 'rapidly achieve dominance.' An aggressive, intimidating, 'I'm in charge and I'm not in the mood to hang around waiting for you to decide if you feel like complying or not' sort of demeanour is, quite frankly, safer. It works on a primal level. This is not hostage negotiating, this is seizing an objective by force. Verbal and visual force primarily, but force nonetheless.

NTM

brendansmith

Manic Moran wrote: »

That female boarding team member needs to work on her command voice.

NTM

Leave her alone you big bully.

worded

concussion wrote: »

It could be enough to convince someone she isn't prepared to fire her weapon.

She could say "youre busted bi"

Mahatma coat

Have to Agree with Manic, a Warnig Shot is a very specific thing, It is not a Feckin doorbell, its a Warning that the next one goes in yer Skull, hte other part of warnin shots is that you can only really get away with one, Someone gets cocky, Warning Shot, they're still cocky then you have escalated the issue and are now obliged to stick a hole in that person somewhere with hot lead, a second 'warning' will only make them cockier, A competent Boarding crew should be able to take a vessel without Discharging their weapons 99% of the time.

Zambia

As it was for TV I reckon it was toned down and slowed down.

In real life the octaves would go up and a fair bit of swearing and screaming would occur.

petergfiffin

Manic Moran wrote: »

There are more abstract problems as well: In the situations that warning shots are authorised (and there is a school of thought which says that warning shots should never be fired in a policing environment, as if you're going to be shooting, there's going to be a lethal threat to you which results in the trigger being pulled, so deal with the threat), I am unaware of any which authorise the use of warning shots merely as a method of announcing your presence and your resolve.

NTM

Exactly, as per all professional there exists rules around "Escalation of Force", if somebody had their back to you or their weapon was by their side I'd say you'd have a LOT of paperwork to fill out about why you decided to turn a bodarding into an Iraqi wedding because a "hostile" wouldn't do what they were told.

As an aside, I've often wondered why the NS haven't gone for the MP7 like the Garda RSUs

Zambia

petergfiffin wrote: »

Exactly, as per all professional there exists rules around "Escalation of Force", if somebody had their back to you or their weapon was by their side I'd say you'd have a LOT of paperwork to fill out about why you decided to turn a bodarding into an Iraqi wedding because a "hostile" wouldn't do what they were told.

As an aside, I've often wondered why the NS haven't gone for the MP7 like the Garda RSUs

I would imagine that body would go over the side and there would be no paperwork.:rolleyes:

I Jest

xflyer

I agree with MM on the 'command voice' issue. However this was an exercise and they were being filmed. They are sailors not actors so perhaps they held back a bit. If there were a few takes no doubt the aggression level would be upped when they got used to camera.

I was an extra on a re-enactment of a security van robbery. There were a team of us variously armed with handguns an AK-47 and I had an RPG-2. At first our take was akin to running up and politely asking them to hand over the money or we would kill them (politely). But by the end we were in full aggressive mode, memorably one lad ended up pointing the AK at a guy on the ground and screaming that he was going to effing blow his effing head off.

Speaking of AKs, they do seem undergunned, with only pistols. I would have thought one or other of them should at least have a some form of compact assault rifle or sub-machine gun? Drug traffickers might easily be carrying assault rifles.

Wicklowrider

[

Manic Moran wrote: »

Fine for the 'going up' bit, as long as they don't get the AW-139 or CASA flying top cover for the raid, but what goes 'up' must come 'down'. What is to happen should the raid take place in harbour or in a bay next to a coastal town? If well trained, they will have repeatedly drilled a process. If that process includes discharing a firearm at first opportunity, that's exactly what they'll default to doing when the blood is hot.
NTM

PDF blood is never hot. Every operation carried out is done so in level headed professional manner. As for low flying aircraft etc, are you seriously doubting that PDF personnel aren't trained to handle loaded weapons? Again I find myself challenging you to point me to where a PDF member screwed up an operation by dangerously discharging?
Quit the condensending - we are discussing proven professionals.

Manic Moran wrote: »

There are more abstract problems as well: In the situations that warning shots are authorised (and there is a school of thought which says that warning shots should never be fired in a policing environment, as if you're going to be shooting, there's going to be a lethal threat to you which results in the trigger being pulled, so deal with the threat), I am unaware of any which authorise the use of warning shots merely as a method of announcing your presence and your resolve.NTM

Thats part of your problem. You keep going abstract. I beg to differ re warning shots. I fired warning shots once in a built up area. Two idiots are alive because I chose to fire and they chose to be compliant.
Seen as how you wish to be condensending an trite I will also point out trained personnel don't PULL triggers.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am unaware of any. Might just mean that they've been lucky, or that raids up until then have generally involved personnel capable of using command voice. However, Rule 2 on Page 1 on the Book of Raids (After 'don't stop in the doorway') is 'rapidly achieve dominance.' An aggressive, intimidating, 'I'm in charge and I'm not in the mood to hang around waiting for you to decide if you feel like complying or not' sort of demeanour is, quite frankly, safer. It works on a primal level. This is not hostage negotiating, this is seizing an objective by force. Verbal and visual force primarily, but force nonetheless.
NTM

You know full well why you are unaware of any. And you know luck doesn't last as long as we've been in business. So quit the condendsending lecturing and keep your "Book of raids" for incompetants of which you will find many in your own service.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Have to Agree with Manic, a Warnig Shot is a very specific thing, It is not a Feckin doorbell, its a Warning that the next one goes in yer Skull, hte other part of warnin shots is that you can only really get away with one, Someone gets cocky, Warning Shot, they're still cocky then you have escalated the issue and are now obliged to stick a hole in that person somewhere with hot lead, a second 'warning' will only make them cockier, A competent Boarding crew should be able to take a vessel without Discharging their weapons 99% of the time.

Try 100% of the time. Their record is brilliant. Belittling their work over a trite cheap shot is just silly. I am familiar with what a warning shot is - in my experience using warning shots saved two idiots lifes.

petergfiffin wrote: »

Exactly, as per all professional there exists rules around "Escalation of Force", if somebody had their back to you or their weapon was by their side I'd say you'd have a LOT of paperwork to fill out about why you decided to turn a bodarding into an Iraqi wedding because a "hostile" wouldn't do what they were told.

Iraqi wedding? Now who did that? I'll give you a clue - it was not the Irish navy, so I'd say servants of foreign masters should look to their own mess ups before slagging off proven professionals. I wish the navy luck and safety to match their skill and experience. I wish the rest of you would think before you post crap pulled out of thin air - its disrepectful to people doing exemplerary work

Zambia

Wicklowrider wrote: »

[
PDF blood is never hot. Every operation carried out is done so in level headed professional manner. As for low flying aircraft etc, are you seriously doubting that PDF personnel aren't trained to handle loaded weapons? Again I find myself challenging you to point me to where a PDF member screwed up an operation by dangerously discharging?
Quit the condensending - we are discussing proven professionals.

I have never known Manic to be condesending or belittle the standard of the PDF troops. I also found nothing of the sort in his posts here. Plus I call shenagins on your cliam the PDF never get their blood up. Are the PDF immune from Adrenline?

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Thats part of your problem. You keep going abstract. I beg to differ re warning shots. I fired warning shots once in a built up area. Two idiots are alive because I chose to fire and they chose to be compliant.
Seen as how you wish to be condensending an trite I will also point out trained personnel don't PULL triggers.

Manic is right in a policing role legal warning shots do not exist. You may not fire a weapon unless a threat is real and imminent. If it is you fire to stop. However in the role here or what you where involved in things could be or may have been different.

Wicklowrider wrote: »

You know full well why you are unaware of any. And you know luck doesn't last as long as we've been in business. So quit the condendsending lecturing and keep your "Book of raids" for incompetants of which you will find many in your own service.

Once again your attacking sound logic. The person in the clip is not using a command voice chances are thats for the camera. In a real scenario chances are this would all be done at a higher Volume and speed with no less a desirable outcome.

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Try 100% of the time. Their record is brilliant. Belittling their work over a trite cheap shot is just silly. I am familiar with what a warning shot is - in my experience using warning shots saved two idiots lifes.

Sorry shenagins again, if the defending crew is armed and not willing to be taken how is that possible? To take the crew without firing a shot?

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Iraqi wedding? Now who did that? I'll give you a clue - it was not the Irish navy, so I'd say servants of foreign masters should look to their own mess ups before slagging off proven professionals. I wish the navy luck and safety to match their skill and experience. I wish the rest of you would think before you post crap pulled out of thin air - its disrepectful to people doing exemplerary work

I think you are mis-reading the posts you quoted. I have seen no disrespect in this thread to the Irish Navy them.

Manic Moran

Wicklowrider wrote: »

PDF blood is never hot.

Of course not. They are mindless robots who are completely emotionally detached from their situation. However, that is the point of training: So that even if the hot blood does show up, that the service(')men will always react the same way. Train as you fight, so that you fight as you train, as the phrase goes.

Every operation carried out is done so in level headed professional manner.

I would hope so. Which I would then suggest should involve a capability to conduct a situation without resulting in the discharge of firearms if at all possible.

As for low flying aircraft etc, are you seriously doubting that PDF personnel aren't trained to handle loaded weapons?

Not at all. Are you seriously suggesting that before firing the warning shot that the PDF personnel would take the time to scan the skies above before firing said shot? One would have thought that if a warning shot were to be fired, that there would be some need of haste.

'Big Sky, Little Bullet' is a very well-known philosophy. And it has been discounted by any country that cares about its aviation assets. For example, the US military does not fire artillery rounds until it has confirmed that there is no friendly aviation in the area (Due to the relative lack of Irish military aviation, I'm not sure that Irish artillerymen bother with this check. Anything flying is likely to be enemy anyway.) Sometimes the need for a shot is greater than the hazard caused by it, but why not do everything you can to avoid the need?

Again I find myself challenging you to point me to where a PDF member screwed up an operation by dangerously discharging?

The Spanish might suggest that the 600 or so small arms, MG and cannon rounds fired against Sonia were perhaps a little excessive and that the ship sinking later that day in bad weather might possibly have been related. (Of course, hot blood on account of the perception of nearly being rammed could not possibly account for the amount of expenditure, as there is no such thing as hot blood in the PDF) The use of 600 warning shots, especially after 595 had thus far proven ineffective, was completely justifiable under any rational basis.

Thats part of your problem. You keep going abstract. I beg to differ re warning shots. I fired warning shots once in a built up area. Two idiots are alive because I chose to fire and they chose to be compliant.

I'm not saying that warning shots are always bad. I've fired a few in my time as well. I've also been in situations where the firing of warning shots was expressly prohibited. Interestingly, the express prohibition was in the 'lower key' situation of a domestic policing, not foreign military operation.

BTW, before you fired those warning shots, did you try a vocal warning? If so, was it a nice quiet voice, or was it your slightly more commanding voice?

All this discussion of warning shots is somewhat beside the point anyway. The whole idea is to avoid the need for them in the first place.

Seen as how you wish to be condensending an trite I will also point out trained personnel don't PULL triggers.

Oddly enough, they should. Though the commonly used term is 'squeeze', a 'pull' is mechanically more accurate a term, as you want the angle of pressure to be directly perpendicular to the trigger, not the result of a simple compression of the index finger. (Or middle finger, if you're one of the real old-timers). Do you 'pull' the stock into your shoulder, or do you 'squeeze' the stock into your shoulder? The vector of pressure should be the same.

Try arguing the 'optical' vs 'telescopic' sight on the Steyr thing, that's always good for a terminological laugh. On a related level, you should see the arguments I have with US tankers about the difference between neutral steer and pivot steer. Just because it's what it's called doesn't make it mechanically correct. How many mils are in a circle?

You know full well why you are unaware of any. And you know luck doesn't last as long as we've been in business

Doubtless you will also know that for as long as the US has been in the business of conducting armed raids (both police and military), we've had plenty more opportunity to evaluate just what does work. Put simply, we've got a much large sample size to work from.

There is evidence to suggest that a 'take charge' voice works, little evidence to suggest that it is detremental, so not to use one is stupid.

Try 100% of the time. Their record is brilliant.

So is the record of the SAS, and they're not particularly quiet when they go about their business. And 100% of 'not very many' isn't particularly statistically significant, especially given we don't know how many of those did not use a rather forceful method of giving instruction. LAPD SWAT probably have more experience of raids than the Irish military, but there are plenty enough demonstrations on Youtube of non-US organisations conducting such operations going from 'forceful vocal' straight to 'kill' to give an evidence that there's probably something to it. How many warning shots were fired by the ERU at Abbeylara?

NTM

petergfiffin

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Iraqi wedding? Now who did that? I'll give you a clue - it was not the Irish navy, so I'd say servants of foreign masters should look to their own mess ups before slagging off proven professionals. I wish the navy luck and safety to match their skill and experience. I wish the rest of you would think before you post crap pulled out of thin air - its disrepectful to people doing exemplerary work

Been having a bad day?? :mad:
As a person who has done said work the last thing I would be is disrespectful so perhaps you should actually start reading what's been written before you go attacking posters. My reference to "Iraqi Weddings" is a reference to the tradition of firing into the air rather than any events involving the US.

Wicklowrider

petergfiffin wrote: »

My reference to "Iraqi Weddings" is a reference to the tradition of firing into the air rather than any events involving the US.

Sorry. I did misunderstand your reference.

Wicklowrider

Zambia232 wrote: »

I have never known Manic to be condesending or belittle the standard of the PDF troops. I also found nothing of the sort in his posts here.

Fair enough, you don't and I do - if MM feels he needs to point out the very basics to experienced and proven people I find that as good a definition of condesending as any. But thats academic so I'll leave it now.

Manic is right in a policing role legal warning shots do not exist. You may not fire a weapon unless a threat is real and imminent. If it is you fire to stop. However in the role here or what you where involved in things could be or may have been different.

Again, I'd differ. IMO provided you aren't endangering anyone including your comrades(by delay) warning or containing shots can stop a situation and save lives. Although I believe I was a competant soldier i was in no rush to take life.


Sorry shenagins again, if the defending crew is armed and not willing to be taken how is that possible? To take the crew without firing a shot?

Read what I said again - I am referring to their record as I understand it - to date I am unaware of a drug boat boarding party forced to open fire. I guess I need to work on my communication skills as I don't seem to be getting my message across.

I think you are mis-reading the posts you quoted. I have seen no disrespect in this thread to the Irish Navy them.

Thanks - apologise for misunderstanding you.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would hope so. Which I would then suggest should involve a capability to conduct a situation without resulting in the discharge of firearms if at all possible. NTM

Come on! You know as well as I do that its seldom that we have escalated any situation and when it happens it has been well measured and justified.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not at all. Are you seriously suggesting that before firing the warning shot that the PDF personnel would take the time to scan the skies above before firing said shot? One would have thought that if a warning shot were to be fired, that there would be some need of haste. NTM

Its not as if they blast off warning shots with abandon, its seldom and only when warranted and I am unaware of there ever having been an error.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sometimes the need for a shot is greater than the hazard caused by it, but why not do everything you can to avoid the need?NTM

Don't you think this goes without saying when addressing trained and experienced services? Do you think such people might find this condecending? No offence intended to you but I find your need to put such basic concepts insulting.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Spanish might suggest that the 600 or so small arms, MG and cannon rounds fired against Sonia were perhaps a little excessive and that the ship sinking later that day in bad weather might possibly have been related. (Of course, hot blood on account of the perception of nearly being rammed could not possibly account for the amount of expenditure, as there is no such thing as hot blood in the PDF) The use of 600 warning shots, especially after 595 had thus far proven ineffective, was completely justifiable under any rational basis.
NTM

Nice spin on the facts ( You got any spanish blood there hombre? )

You know as well as I do that the spanish made several attempts to ram the Aisling. Any other force would have blown it out of the water. whether its sinking was result of naval damage I honestly don't know - but if it was they got what they spent hours looking for.

anyway, interesting discussion, thanks for your time. I'll take your word about the physics of trigger pulling v squeezing, its something I am unlikely ever to do again anyway.