Telling "friend" from "foe".. armed forces on the street.
Discussion
I will site three instances of non sensitive things that did not impress but are of no benefit to the bad guys.
Police response to shooter, armed two man team advances towards shooting behind a large rumbling shield on castors, steps over casualties, and moves forward.
Army response would be to step over casualties and advance towards shooting using cover and move, however they would have dropped field dressings and CAT's for casualties, on the principle that self help is better than no help, and knowing how ferociously gun shot wounds bleed.
Police are backed up by Ambulance HART's dressed in helmets and body armour, principle being they follow in "on the shoulder" assess, treat and evacuate. Reality was they were a good 40-50 minutes later and were held "round the corner" until command had received notification that the area was secure.
Army are backed up by Patrol Medics who really are on the shoulder and will treat as people fall.
The "Golden Hour" is golden for a reason and the idea of holding back HART medics who volunteer for the role and are wearing the same protective equipment as the police smells of risk aversion, classic case of all the gear but not being allowed to use it.
Police tactical awareness, extremely poor use of cover, darkness or appreciation of "silhouetting" an Army raw recruit straight out of basic training would have a better understanding.
These and other things helped form the opinion I gave earlier about if you're caught up in it, you're on your own till the smoke dies down.
Police response to shooter, armed two man team advances towards shooting behind a large rumbling shield on castors, steps over casualties, and moves forward.
Army response would be to step over casualties and advance towards shooting using cover and move, however they would have dropped field dressings and CAT's for casualties, on the principle that self help is better than no help, and knowing how ferociously gun shot wounds bleed.
Police are backed up by Ambulance HART's dressed in helmets and body armour, principle being they follow in "on the shoulder" assess, treat and evacuate. Reality was they were a good 40-50 minutes later and were held "round the corner" until command had received notification that the area was secure.
Army are backed up by Patrol Medics who really are on the shoulder and will treat as people fall.
The "Golden Hour" is golden for a reason and the idea of holding back HART medics who volunteer for the role and are wearing the same protective equipment as the police smells of risk aversion, classic case of all the gear but not being allowed to use it.
Police tactical awareness, extremely poor use of cover, darkness or appreciation of "silhouetting" an Army raw recruit straight out of basic training would have a better understanding.
These and other things helped form the opinion I gave earlier about if you're caught up in it, you're on your own till the smoke dies down.
mel said:
I will site three instances of non sensitive things that did not impress but are of no benefit to the bad guys.
Police response to shooter, armed two man team advances towards shooting behind a large rumbling shield on castors, steps over casualties, and moves forward.
Army response would be to step over casualties and advance towards shooting using cover and move, however they would have dropped field dressings and CAT's for casualties, on the principle that self help is better than no help, and knowing how ferociously gun shot wounds bleed.
Police are backed up by Ambulance HART's dressed in helmets and body armour, principle being they follow in "on the shoulder" assess, treat and evacuate. Reality was they were a good 40-50 minutes later and were held "round the corner" until command had received notification that the area was secure.
Army are backed up by Patrol Medics who really are on the shoulder and will treat as people fall.
The "Golden Hour" is golden for a reason and the idea of holding back HART medics who volunteer for the role and are wearing the same protective equipment as the police smells of risk aversion, classic case of all the gear but not being allowed to use it.
Police tactical awareness, extremely poor use of cover, darkness or appreciation of "silhouetting" an Army raw recruit straight out of basic training would have a better understanding.
These and other things helped form the opinion I gave earlier about if you're caught up in it, you're on your own till the smoke dies down.
None of the above justifies your comment about cops not laying it on the line in the same way squaddies will. That is what I took exception to. The rest of the above criticises casualty management which, as you say, is the HART teams. If they were held back by their bosses, that's not the fault of cops on the ground. Police response to shooter, armed two man team advances towards shooting behind a large rumbling shield on castors, steps over casualties, and moves forward.
Army response would be to step over casualties and advance towards shooting using cover and move, however they would have dropped field dressings and CAT's for casualties, on the principle that self help is better than no help, and knowing how ferociously gun shot wounds bleed.
Police are backed up by Ambulance HART's dressed in helmets and body armour, principle being they follow in "on the shoulder" assess, treat and evacuate. Reality was they were a good 40-50 minutes later and were held "round the corner" until command had received notification that the area was secure.
Army are backed up by Patrol Medics who really are on the shoulder and will treat as people fall.
The "Golden Hour" is golden for a reason and the idea of holding back HART medics who volunteer for the role and are wearing the same protective equipment as the police smells of risk aversion, classic case of all the gear but not being allowed to use it.
Police tactical awareness, extremely poor use of cover, darkness or appreciation of "silhouetting" an Army raw recruit straight out of basic training would have a better understanding.
These and other things helped form the opinion I gave earlier about if you're caught up in it, you're on your own till the smoke dies down.
They may have used cover poorly on the day, but to suggest you're on your own is what I take exception to. Most armed officers are ex forces so they know what they're doing and have worked in some seriously hostile environments and I know for a fact that not a single armed officer in this country would stand outside while a gunman went on the rampage in somewhere like the Trafford Centre.
mel said:
These and other things helped form the opinion I gave earlier about if you're caught up in it, you're on your own till the smoke dies down.
If the intelligence services haven't put us into a position to prevent such a scenario there's going to be carnage regardless of anything else. I expect the problem for the shooter isn't going to be who is going to stop them, it's going to what they carry on doing once they've expended their ammunition. That'll likely be the reality regardless of who is responding and with what tactics unless they specifically save ammunition.
hora said:
If any ANY armed officer heldback upon hearing gunfire in a UK shopping centre knowing the background of previous and obvious ongoing loss of life I'd like that officer (s) tarred/feathered and flogged. You hold back if its criminal/armed etc as you know standard crims dont indiscriminally shoot women and children. In addition your training goes someway to offset any poorly trained number superiority to a degree.
As I understand his post, I don't think Mel questioned the working of officers on the ground - it was the management structure he was critical of.Mel said:
I have no doubt that the guys on the ground are brave enough but the training is lacking and the management are scared to commit them to risk.
Pepperami said:
Most armed officers are ex forces so they know what they're doing and have worked in some seriously hostile environments and I know for a fact that not a single armed officer in this country would stand outside while a gunman went on the rampage in somewhere like the Trafford Centre.
When did the Met attitude change then.As far as I know they had a zero policy for moving ex forces from the ranks into any firearms role, as their previous training did not fit the armed police role they were being trained for and would bring the "wrong" attitude to the role?
TheProfessor said:
Pepperami said:
Most armed officers are ex forces so they know what they're doing and have worked in some seriously hostile environments and I know for a fact that not a single armed officer in this country would stand outside while a gunman went on the rampage in somewhere like the Trafford Centre.
When did the Met attitude change then.As far as I know they had a zero policy for moving ex forces from the ranks into any firearms role, as their previous training did not fit the armed police role they were being trained for and would bring the "wrong" attitude to the role?
Be interested if this has now changed, saying that, my area has not had a recruiting drive for ages and I believe are not taking new applicants, only PCSO roles.
Subsequent to the Mumbai attacks and other rogue shooter incidents, such as Derek Bird, firearms training has moved from locate, contain, and negotiate to under some circumstances actively engaging the shooter. It includes the use of suppressive fire, which historically was a huge no. It's led to a change in kit too.
Are the police as good at winning the firefight and dominating ground as an infantry section? No. The concept is very new, the training is relatively new, the removal of a level of managerial/tactical oversight is new - it's no wonder there are potentially grounds for improvement.
However, I can guarantee the police are in a much better position to deal with such incidents than 5 years ago and I'm confident will continue to get better. Assuming, that is, after the Duggan/Rodney cases people keep volunteering for AFO roles.
Are the police as good at winning the firefight and dominating ground as an infantry section? No. The concept is very new, the training is relatively new, the removal of a level of managerial/tactical oversight is new - it's no wonder there are potentially grounds for improvement.
However, I can guarantee the police are in a much better position to deal with such incidents than 5 years ago and I'm confident will continue to get better. Assuming, that is, after the Duggan/Rodney cases people keep volunteering for AFO roles.
mel said:
If ever I was caught up in a situation as described, I can honestly say I would much much rather hope that the army were on the way, any soldiers at all would be good it wouldn't have to be SF. In fact I'd rather have the Navy send someone than have the Police turn up, they are so far out of their depth it is painful, with a risk adverse approach that means the public will die rather than armed officers putting it on the line the way squaddies will. The biggest thing I have learnt is that if ever you are unlucky enough to get caught up in something similar, then run away, crawl if you have to but get away from the area by any means legal or not, put yourself and your loved ones first because there is no one coming to help you till the bullets and crying have stopped. I have no doubt that the guys on the ground are brave enough but the training is lacking and the management are scared to commit them to risk.
Agree with all, other than 'rather have the Navy send someone'....ever seen a Matelot with a gun?! Carnage said:
Subsequent to the Mumbai attacks and other rogue shooter incidents, such as Derek Bird, firearms training has moved from locate, contain, and negotiate to under some circumstances actively engaging the shooter. It includes the use of suppressive fire, which historically was a huge no. It's led to a change in kit too.
Are the police as good at winning the firefight and dominating ground as an infantry section? No. The concept is very new, the training is relatively new, the removal of a level of managerial/tactical oversight is new - it's no wonder there are potentially grounds for improvement.
However, I can guarantee the police are in a much better position to deal with such incidents than 5 years ago and I'm confident will continue to get better. Assuming, that is, after the Duggan/Rodney cases people keep volunteering for AFO roles.
All of that would tally with the view I've got, my opinions were formed as an observer at close quarters during a marauding terrorist exercise, in fairness in the debrief opinions and feedback were sought, listened to and I would hope learnt from. I have no doubt that improvements will be made from what was learnt and they will continue to improve it just fell massively short of the standard we were expecting. Are the police as good at winning the firefight and dominating ground as an infantry section? No. The concept is very new, the training is relatively new, the removal of a level of managerial/tactical oversight is new - it's no wonder there are potentially grounds for improvement.
However, I can guarantee the police are in a much better position to deal with such incidents than 5 years ago and I'm confident will continue to get better. Assuming, that is, after the Duggan/Rodney cases people keep volunteering for AFO roles.
Pepperami said:
Most armed officers are ex forces so they know what they're doing and have worked in some seriously hostile environments and I know for a fact that not a single armed officer in this country would stand outside while a gunman went on the rampage in somewhere like the Trafford Centre.
If the ones I watched were "ex forces" then I'd guess they'd worn a shade of blue all their careers, because there is no way that anyone who'd been through any sort of infantry or close quarters training would have moved across the ground the way they did. mel said:
If the ones I watched were "ex forces" then I'd guess they'd worn a shade of blue all their careers, because there is no way that anyone who'd been through any sort of infantry or close quarters training would have moved across the ground the way they did.
There's not a huge amount of ex-military AFO's these days. When I joined the police an ex-forces background was desirable. Its quite the opposite now. In my force the majority of ex-forces were snowdrops.I imagine, as a senior officer, it takes something of a shift in mindset after a career trying to avoid any form of controversy to running a firearms job which might result in a firefight in a shopping centre, let alone the concept of acceptable casualties to achieve the objective. Hence the value of running the exercises and honest feedback.
I think we're all in agreement regarding not wanting the RN to turn up...
I think the immediate aftermath of a major incident is pretty easy to predict. Some sort of containment exercise until such time as a specialist military team could get on-site. No doubt there's a chance of individual acts of courage but the official line would be containment. Sadly I think there's a ghastly inevitability about it and I'm grateful I don't have any responsibility for preventing it or dealing with it. I fecking hate terrorists.
I can't account for the Met, but in my force around 50-50% of AFOs are ex forces.
mel said:
In fact I'd rather have the Navy send someone than have the Police turn up, they are so far out of their depth it is painful, with a risk adverse approach that means the public will die rather than armed officers putting it on the line the way squaddies will.
That was the specific line I took offence at mel said:
If the ones I watched were "ex forces" then I'd guess they'd worn a shade of blue all their careers, because there is no way that anyone who'd been through any sort of infantry or close quarters training would have moved across the ground the way they did.
Yes I'd imagine the concept of advancing fire would be alien to most AFO's, and would go contrary to their containment tactics taught in the classroom and on the range.Carnage said:
There's not a huge amount of ex-military AFO's these days. When I joined the police an ex-forces background was desirable. Its quite the opposite now. In my force the majority of ex-forces were snowdrops.
I imagine, as a senior officer, it takes something of a shift in mindset after a career trying to avoid any form of controversy to running a firearms job which might result in a firefight in a shopping centre, let alone the concept of acceptable casualties to achieve the objective. Hence the value of running the exercises and honest feedback.
I think we're all in agreement regarding not wanting the RN to turn up...
Unless from Lympstone or Poole perhaps...I imagine, as a senior officer, it takes something of a shift in mindset after a career trying to avoid any form of controversy to running a firearms job which might result in a firefight in a shopping centre, let alone the concept of acceptable casualties to achieve the objective. Hence the value of running the exercises and honest feedback.
I think we're all in agreement regarding not wanting the RN to turn up...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff