Royals on Channel 5

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by seafarer1939, Jan 29, 2012.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. On tomorrow and I'll watch the bravery of our troops in a situation that we are now extracting ourselves from but not soon enough for me.
    One thing puzzles me though,The Yanks with their massive amount of Materials and men do not,as a rule depicted in the Hurt Locker,defuse IED's they clear a path by exploding them and **** anything else.
    We for some reason decided it's best to discover who made them and have lost many ATO's in the process of defusing them.
    Personally speaking as some one who knows nowt about it,why do we act diff. from the Yanks?
    If we do catch who made them they just escape from the nick.
    It's not worth the loss IMO
     
  2. Blackrat

    Blackrat War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    The person most qualifed and experienced to answer this question re: IED's may well be along soon seeing as he's knocking around.

    As for us acting differently to the yanks, it's because we are more professional as opposed to gung ho. From an Army perspective, we're more gung ho in a boozer trying to trap.
     
  3. Seafarer

    There are a number of reasons why UK C-IED doctrine includes not only 'Destroy' like the Yanks, but also a capability to Neutralise devices. Firstly, the US does not differentiate between Destroy Operators and Neutralise. Their Paladin teams are essentially Destroy 'Plus'. They can make simple, manual approaches and do the 'red wire'-'white wire' dance if they feel the need, they just very often choose not to. They do not have anywhere near the skill-set that a British Neutralise Operator possesses, and as a result they tend to put white noise on everything they encounter. The down-side with that is they tend to not see new developments in enemy techniques until it's too late. The emergence of a Threat, if caught early enough by looking in greater depth at a device can be mitigated. This in itself is justification for retaining the capability to Neutralise devices.

    It is also a bit of a myth that simply destroying a device with explosive is somehow quicker. Sometimes, yes, a quick remote approach followed by smashing 'the big bit' results in a rapid resolution. VERY often putting explosive in the right area, by looking through the window of an armoured vehicle, or at the screen of a remote vehicle camera, proves to be unreliable. Missing it first time leads to a symphony of explosions as you chase deteriorating ground-sign around, trying to find the dangerous bit!

    There are a few other reasons why we do business in such a way, which is best not discussed here, but suffice to say my ass twitches less walking in the footsteps of a Brit team.
     
  4. Cunto mate,

    Watched a video on Sky, "Future Weapons" had a Brit chap showing how to netralise an IED (mine in this case) with basically a ferkin hot firework. Saves the need for the big bang approach.

    Has this been taken up by MOD yet?
     
  5. You seem to be the man I admire a great deal and it's cleared that up.
    Please forgive the lack of understanding from a laymans point of view,I said I knew nowt and that's the case.
    I was a bit bewildered at such men as you risking everything to diffuse in an open piece of land when blowing it created no risk to the Operator but that's sheer ignorance on my part.
    Good luck to you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Blackrat

    Blackrat War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    I worked briefly with an EOD team at the end of Granby. To say these guys were cool under pressure was an understatement. Calmer people i have yet to meet.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2012
  7. Seafarer,

    I am not an Operator, but I perform tasks concurrent with their activities that aren't mentioned in the press.

    Flymo,
    In order for the render-safe techniques you would have seen on TV to work, the Main Charge would need to be exposed. The intention is to cause the explosive to deflagrate (burn-off) by exposing it to intense heat without a shock-wave passing through it. The main problem with an attempt to cause deflagration is that occasionally it goes unexpectedly from burning, to a high-order detonation. With that in mind, you have to assess that it might detonate, and therefore it's quicker to just smeg it in the first place. It is better used on mines probably, as typically mines are on or near the surface as opposed to IED's which are typically buried.

    Trying to explosively destroy a Main Charge isn't all that simple either, unless you can unearth the bugger. Sufficient smash has to be used over it to propagate a shockwave of sufficient energy to cause a sympathetic explosion. It can take a number of attempts to do so (depending on ingredients, soil, humidity etc) which can cause the Destroy operator to be slower than the Neutralise (who has other tricks up his sleeve).

    Hope that helps
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. It is a anti-mine device. The device is named the 'Dragon' for obvious reasons.
    BBC NEWS | UK | British build anti-landmine tool
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2012
  9. Sometimes int from disarmed IED's can save as many lives (if not more in the long run) as saved by disarming the device found. Of course Ii have no knowledge of said "red wire, white wire dance" hence my use of laymans terms :thumbup: just an observation from times past and a memory of getting extra weight to carry!.


    Int=uk
    Kill the f**k out of it= USA
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10.  
  11.  
  12. Blackrat

    Blackrat War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

     
  13. Really really????
     
  14. Wow...keyboard fisticuffs.......tell me more about your long lonely walks....we used to have to do a course on that..
    Now that the RLC have discovered that Afghanistan is not Ulster, they are more than willing to share the glory and risk of the High Threat operator role with the other services, hence the deployment of RN divers in the very near future.

    You refer to the current RN detachment as being shite !!!!!, I see you live up to your username rather well.

    You have nothing to prove to me.

    Hey where did your post go ?????
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2012
  15. I removed it as it may have reflected on a deployed individual, and that's not fair.
     
  16. Thnx for the update **** ... do you realise how weird that was to type?
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page