Defence Forces troops to be deployed to UNDOF

sparky42 · 03-09-2014 6:40pm

Local-womanizer wrote: »

It was reported on after it had happened. First time the video has been made public

I remember the online comments about the mine, I meant more the attacks on the troops and the base, I don't remember seeing much commenting on those? Maybe I just missed it.

Local-womanizer · 03-09-2014 7:41pm

Reggie. wrote: »

There was a black out on the media so it would have been very little mentioned about it

It was all over rte website and the journal when it happened. It got back to the media not long after it happened from someone in Syria.

sparky42 wrote: »

I remember the online comments about the mine, I meant more the attacks on the troops and the base, I don't remember seeing much commenting on those? Maybe I just missed it.

Ah yea, there hasn't been much about that but then again the media never are too inclined about any incident involving irish troops anywhere.

gizmo555 · 03-09-2014 8:24pm

A senior Irish Army officer will become the deputy force commander of the under pressure United Nations deployment in the Golan Heights, Syria.

Brig Gen Tony Hanlon, logistics director at Defence Forces Headquarters in Dublin, is preparing to take up his post during a tense period for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) . . .

. . . Col Ezra James Enriquez, the Filipino chief of staff with UNDOF, has now left his post in Syria.

Reports from Manila suggest he has taken leave in protest at the UN’s Indian force commander Lt Gen Iqbal Singha’a order that two groups of Filipino troops who found themselves surrounded last Friday by hundreds of al Qaeda-linked rebels should surrender their posts.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/irish-officer-to-take-deputy-lead-of-un-golan-heights-mission-1.1916908

sparky42 · 03-09-2014 9:21pm

I love how this is being covered by crime reporters on RTE and the papers.

Manic Moran · 03-09-2014 9:45pm

Larry Drab Pear wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXqm2hAF7BU

Can't say I'm impressed. The "Low Ammo" sign isn't reassuring, and after the patrol takes contact, the gunner doesn't seem to bother spending much effort scanning for threats. Unless there's something I'm missing, that doesn't seem particularly competent.

sparky42 · 03-09-2014 9:49pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Can't say I'm impressed. The "Low Ammo" sign isn't reassuring, and after the patrol takes contact, the gunner doesn't seem to bother spending much effort scanning for threats. Unless there's something I'm missing, that doesn't seem particularly competent.

About the low ammo, I can only hope that it was at the end of the contact and they'd been lashing out the rounds? Otherwise yeah, a good question about how much logistic support they have? Fair point as well about the focus, unless this vehicle was at the end of the patrol and they knew that they weren't in danger?

Local-womanizer · 03-09-2014 9:54pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Can't say I'm impressed. The "Low Ammo" sign isn't reassuring, and after the patrol takes contact, the gunner doesn't seem to bother spending much effort scanning for threats. Unless there's something I'm missing, that doesn't seem particularly competent.

The story is that one vehicle put down suppressing fire in great volumes once the contact started (small arms fire) on an enemy position that they were taking fire from. Once the mowag struck the mine they started to recieve small arms fire and it and a mowag next to it returned fire while getting out of there.

One can assume that the low ammo was a result of the suppressive fire! They must have fired a serious amount of rounds all the same!

Reggie. · 03-09-2014 10:00pm

Local-womanizer wrote: »

The story is that one vehicle put down suppressing fire in great volumes once the contact started (small arms fire) on an enemy position that they were taking fire from. Once the mowag struck the mine they started to recieve small arms fire and it and a mowag next to it returned fire while getting out of there.

One can assume that the low ammo was a result of the suppressive fire! They must have fired a serious amount of rounds all the same!

It wouldn't take long to empty the rounds anyways. A few minutes continuous fire and you will eat through it

Manic Moran · 04-09-2014 2:37am

Can't say that helps. If the situation is dicey enough that it's not safe to put a new belt or two into the ammo bin, I'd be burning out the RWS's motors and the FLIR toggle switch looking for whatever deserves those last few rounds. Otherwise, reload! Either way, the gunner wasn't scanning, and the ammo was indicating low pretty much the full duration of that video.

Morpheus · 04-09-2014 8:21am

He seemed to have tunnel vision on the junction alright. Im no MOWAG crewman but even as a gunner on the ground, you'd be scanning all over the crest of that road and ridgeline left and right looking from where the fire was coming from. Serious luck and I suppose decent design that the mowag survived and was able to move with seven wheels...

According to the news report, the vehicle commander was the injured party when he was ejected from the hatch he was standing in when the blast struck.... now explain to me what the commander would be doing in an open hatch or with an open hatch, when the convoy had already received and returned fire prior to the IED?

Local-womanizer · 04-09-2014 8:40am

He wasn't out of the hatch but was thrown against the interior if the hatch when they hit the mine and he suffered back injuries as a result.

Morpheus · 04-09-2014 9:24am

Cheers thanks for clearing that one up for me. the way the article is written it sounds like it was open which didnt sound right. heard he was back to work pretty soon afterwards, glad everyone walked away from it.

Michael O Toole · 04-09-2014 9:35am

sparky42 wrote: »

I love how this is being covered by crime reporters on RTE and the papers.

There has long been a tradition that crime reporters cover military affairs. I think it goes back to the start of the troubles when most of the DF activity was related to that. We all cover defence.

Michael O Toole · 04-09-2014 9:51am

Morpheus wrote: »

Cheers thanks for clearing that one up for me. the way the article is written it sounds like it was open which didnt sound right. heard he was back to work pretty soon afterwards, glad everyone walked away from it.

In part of the footage we didn't run, you can see a soldier standing in the hatch of the MOWAG that is filming the incidennt.

Reggie. · 04-09-2014 10:05am

Michael O Toole wrote: »

In part of the footage we didn't run, you can see a soldier standing in the hatch of the MOWAG that is filming the incidennt.

That's because the mowag filming is a CRV not a troop carrier and has no turret only two hatches. So a crew man was probably using the good old MK1 eyeball to look for threats.

Morpheus · 04-09-2014 10:39am

It has a remote weapon system. surely he should have been scanning for targets using the RWS's optics?

Reggie. · 04-09-2014 10:53am

Morpheus wrote: »

It has a remote weapon system. surely he should have been scanning for targets using the RWS's optics?

True but when you zoom in you lose situational awareness. Ya can beat the eyeball for over watch and zoom in on something then

sparky42 · 04-09-2014 1:26pm

Michael O Toole wrote: »

There has long been a tradition that crime reporters cover military affairs. I think it goes back to the start of the troubles when most of the DF activity was related to that. We all cover defence.

I didn't actually know that, Cheers.

Wicklowrider · 04-09-2014 1:39pm

Morpheus wrote: »

It has a remote weapon system. surely he should have been scanning for targets using the RWS's optics?

Hi, I was gone before those apc's were deployed. What are the 2 optics?
Is the large one an optical sight? Is the sight digital?
I presume one is where that video posted by Mak was filmed?
Thanks

Manic Moran · 04-09-2014 3:57pm

Reggie. wrote: »

True but when you zoom in you lose situational awareness. Ya can beat the eyeball for over watch and zoom in on something then

Disagree. The MkI eyeball is nowhere as good as a modern RWS for scanning.

There is a very common misconception that the contrast/sensitivity/brightness mix should turn the terrain in FLIR/Thermals into basically black-and-white TV (even amongst vehicle crewmen, who should know better). This is incorrect. You set it for hot spots, particularly in daytime. You may not be able to see much of anything that's not alive, but tune it in before you go on patrol so that a human body (or warmer) is bright and shiny, and most everything else is dark. Scan with this, and quickly, people (and critters) will jump out at you. When a hot spot is identified, flip to visual (daylight) mode to figure out what it is you've just spotted. This is why night vision is listed in the manual for us as the preferred scanning mode, even in daylight.

Even if you're scanning in daylight mode, your Mk1 eyeball is not stabilized like an RWS (Which, again, seems disabled on that video). If the vehicle moves, that's the end of your effective scanning barring something really bloody obvious like a missile.

Finally, the gunner scanning the RWS does not preclude the TC or even a passenger from sticking his head out the hatch for the Mk1 scan in addition.

I was considering the possibility that the vehicle was filmed from an ICV, not a CRV, and I'm not familiar with the turret capabilities of the ICV but the position of the .50 cal in the max zoom-out indicated it was an RWS-equipped vehicle, not a turreted one. I'm not even sure how easy it is for a CRV gunner to get from his controls to a hatch.

Is the large one an optical sight? Is the sight digital?

If memory serves, small one up top is daylight/visual, the larger one is the thermal.

explain to me what the commander would be doing in an open hatch or with an open hatch, when the convoy had already received and returned fire prior to the IED?

Only in times of the greatest threat did I ever close my hatch (Usually indirect fire), and even then only to open protected. Most firefights, I left my hatch open, easier to stick my head out for scanning as required and if I felt safe enough to do so. Indeed, the only time I buttoned up at all not under indirect fire was in Yarmouk Traffic Circle in Mosul, a notorious sniper hotspot.

Manic Moran · 04-09-2014 4:06pm

Michael O Toole wrote: »

There has long been a tradition that crime reporters cover military affairs. I think it goes back to the start of the troubles when most of the DF activity was related to that. We all cover defence.

In fairness, I can't imagine there's enough business to justify keeping a dedicated military reporter on staff.

Defence Forces troops to be deployed to UNDOF

Comments