The Army take to the streets of London....
Discussion
dai1983 said:
citizensm1th said:
RAF regiment are the UK's premier elite regiment for guarding stuff
Fourth corner of the UKSF triangle and they stand toe to toe with the Paras and Marines in the bar after the Five Miles of Death.And they will nick all the ice cream before you can blink
Para's air mobile troops who dont like wearing hats but never jump out of serviceable aeroplanes any more.
Marines rock hard scummpy drinking wurzzel fans, but you would not want them lingering near any women's lingerie outlets
S.A.S death dealing stealthy ninja's of the night because in daylight they have a sop of wearing the dreaded black nasty on their faces which impinges on performance some what .
citizensm1th said:
RAF regiment are the UK's premier elite regiment for guarding stuff
ARRSE have a rather less flattering viewpoint:https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/RAF_Regiment
https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/II_Squadron_RAF_Regim...
Halmyre said:
citizensm1th said:
RAF regiment are the UK's premier elite regiment for guarding stuff
ARRSE have a rather less flattering viewpoint:https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/RAF_Regiment
https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/II_Squadron_RAF_Regim...
king tcitizensm1th said:
Halmyre said:
citizensm1th said:
RAF regiment are the UK's premier elite regiment for guarding stuff
ARRSE have a rather less flattering viewpoint:https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/RAF_Regiment
https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/II_Squadron_RAF_Regim...
gothatway said:
Can anyone translate those last couple of posts into some resemblance of English, please ?
The RAF Regiment imagine they are some sort of elite fighting force, at the very least on a par with the paras or marines, but probably on a par with the SAS or SBS.Everyone else thinks they are on a par with tescos security guards.
Edited by 98elise on Friday 26th May 11:41
Ayahuasca said:
A round from our previous infantry rifle the 7.62 calire FN FAL (our SLR aka L1A1) would indeed have gone through brick walls after passing through its target. However iirc (at the risk of being shot down by GG15G) the 5.56mm round used in the AR and SA80 family of weapons (!) tends to break up in its target and doesn't have the same force to smash through walls. F=MA and all that.
There was a story the other day that the US military is considering going to 7.62mm as they are finding that it takes two or three shots from their M-16 (and derivative family of weapons) to put someone down.
The benefit of 5.56 over 7.62 is that for a given weight an infantryperson (!) can carry a greater number of rounds and automatic fire is more viable. At 7.62 the same weight means fewer rounds, and only semi-automatic fire was possible (in the UK version of the FAL).
The MAIN practical issue with troops guarding stuff is that they are not trained for the job. A maroon beret and an automatic weapon may look intimidating, but all they have is a deterrent effect. It is not as if a standard section attack, with screaming, smoke, covering fire and bayonets would be much good at stopping a terrorist in central London.
5.56 is an effective and capable round, in the right scenarios. However, it was found in Afghanistan (a more open conflict than Iraq) that it was being used at the limit of its effective range. Hence the sharpshooter rifle was brought into units and more accurate use of the GPMG. There was a story the other day that the US military is considering going to 7.62mm as they are finding that it takes two or three shots from their M-16 (and derivative family of weapons) to put someone down.
The benefit of 5.56 over 7.62 is that for a given weight an infantryperson (!) can carry a greater number of rounds and automatic fire is more viable. At 7.62 the same weight means fewer rounds, and only semi-automatic fire was possible (in the UK version of the FAL).
The MAIN practical issue with troops guarding stuff is that they are not trained for the job. A maroon beret and an automatic weapon may look intimidating, but all they have is a deterrent effect. It is not as if a standard section attack, with screaming, smoke, covering fire and bayonets would be much good at stopping a terrorist in central London.
It's unlikely that 7.62 will become the defacto infantry round again, it's too heavy. But there's a lot of work going into an intermediate ~6 mm round that could offer the range of 7.62 and the practicalities of 5.56.
Regarding training, units undergo training for a wide variety of scenarios. The wider army won't necessarily have trained for it, but this is a planned response and units are trained accordingly.
Evanivitch said:
Ayahuasca said:
A round from our previous infantry rifle the 7.62 calire FN FAL (our SLR aka L1A1) would indeed have gone through brick walls after passing through its target. However iirc (at the risk of being shot down by GG15G) the 5.56mm round used in the AR and SA80 family of weapons (!) tends to break up in its target and doesn't have the same force to smash through walls. F=MA and all that.
There was a story the other day that the US military is considering going to 7.62mm as they are finding that it takes two or three shots from their M-16 (and derivative family of weapons) to put someone down.
The benefit of 5.56 over 7.62 is that for a given weight an infantryperson (!) can carry a greater number of rounds and automatic fire is more viable. At 7.62 the same weight means fewer rounds, and only semi-automatic fire was possible (in the UK version of the FAL).
The MAIN practical issue with troops guarding stuff is that they are not trained for the job. A maroon beret and an automatic weapon may look intimidating, but all they have is a deterrent effect. It is not as if a standard section attack, with screaming, smoke, covering fire and bayonets would be much good at stopping a terrorist in central London.
5.56 is an effective and capable round, in the right scenarios. However, it was found in Afghanistan (a more open conflict than Iraq) that it was being used at the limit of its effective range. Hence the sharpshooter rifle was brought into units and more accurate use of the GPMG. There was a story the other day that the US military is considering going to 7.62mm as they are finding that it takes two or three shots from their M-16 (and derivative family of weapons) to put someone down.
The benefit of 5.56 over 7.62 is that for a given weight an infantryperson (!) can carry a greater number of rounds and automatic fire is more viable. At 7.62 the same weight means fewer rounds, and only semi-automatic fire was possible (in the UK version of the FAL).
The MAIN practical issue with troops guarding stuff is that they are not trained for the job. A maroon beret and an automatic weapon may look intimidating, but all they have is a deterrent effect. It is not as if a standard section attack, with screaming, smoke, covering fire and bayonets would be much good at stopping a terrorist in central London.
It's unlikely that 7.62 will become the defacto infantry round again, it's too heavy. But there's a lot of work going into an intermediate ~6 mm round that could offer the range of 7.62 and the practicalities of 5.56.
Regarding training, units undergo training for a wide variety of scenarios. The wider army won't necessarily have trained for it, but this is a planned response and units are trained accordingly.
Halmyre said:
An ex-army type at work says one of the 'benefits' of the 5.56 round is that it's designed to debilitate, rather than kill. The idea being that the opposition then have the inconvenience (for want of a better word) of having to look after their wounded.
That rings a bell, I'm pretty sure I was told that years ago. An injured person takes 7 people to look after them in the logistics chain or some such, a dead person, well, a lot fewer.Our non descript office in London now has two 60 year old security guards on the door.
Despite walking past them 3 times a day for the past year or so, the first is always in biker gear with a crash helmet, I have never seen another bike enter our building. I now have to show my pass and driving license to be allowed in.
I feel so much safer...
Despite walking past them 3 times a day for the past year or so, the first is always in biker gear with a crash helmet, I have never seen another bike enter our building. I now have to show my pass and driving license to be allowed in.
I feel so much safer...
donutsina911 said:
Some might say there are certain regiments that are only trained to do this 
I don't disagree with the point you're making, but let's not forget that many serving soldiers have done plenty of this stuff for real before - supporting the Civil Power in Northern Ireland over the best part of 40 years kind of counts!
Did a very brief exercise at Copehill Down many moons ago and I'm sure the stuff going on there more recently is still a relevant experience for the squaddies deployed this week. More to the point, I'd hope that 'guarding stuff' is in section 1, para 1, volume 1 of the British Army Field Manual!
Probably more trained for this than screaming section attacks these days. The area's they have been deployed too recently (and don't forget N.I) will have many scenarios were you would have to think about collateral damage, often operating under very strict rules of engagement.I don't disagree with the point you're making, but let's not forget that many serving soldiers have done plenty of this stuff for real before - supporting the Civil Power in Northern Ireland over the best part of 40 years kind of counts!
Did a very brief exercise at Copehill Down many moons ago and I'm sure the stuff going on there more recently is still a relevant experience for the squaddies deployed this week. More to the point, I'd hope that 'guarding stuff' is in section 1, para 1, volume 1 of the British Army Field Manual!
And for the record spent 10 years in the Infantry and never called the SA80 anything but that (generally called it a gat, weapon).
Halmyre said:
An ex-army type at work says one of the 'benefits' of the 5.56 round is that it's designed to debilitate, rather than kill. The idea being that the opposition then have the inconvenience (for want of a better word) of having to look after their wounded.
That's a fairly typical view from infantryman. The reality is that 556 gives your squaddie more chances to hit the target 
Frybywire said:
s3fella said:
Have they considered using them to patrol the "no go" areas of Bradford, Luton, Leicester and E London etc? Or would that be deemed inflammatory?
Where is this 'no-go' area of East London?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff