Soldiers-told-not-to-shoot-Taliban-bomb-layers

#3
You cannot shoot someone laying an IED as he doesn't pose a risk to life at that moment. The enemy know this. Blokes have shot farmers in the past just digging in their fields as farmers do. There are instances when you can shoot an IED layer but I won't go into them on here.
 
#5
You cannot shoot someone laying an IED as he doesn't pose a risk to life at that moment. The enemy know this. Blokes have shot farmers in the past just digging in their fields as farmers do. There are instances when you can shoot an IED layer but I won't go into them on here.

Possession of a maroon lid?
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#6
Possession of a maroon lid?
No,it's all in the ROE

UK PARA REG EYES ONLY
JSP 398 (Airborne Edition)

GUIDANCE FOR LETTING RIP FOR AIRBORNE PERSONNEL
AUTHORISED TO BE TOOLED UP AND LOOKING HARD WITH MORE WEAPONS AND AMMO THAN YOU CAN SHAKE A STICK AT

GENERAL GUIDANCE

1. These ROE do not affect your general right to be well hard and kick off. However, in all situations you are to use MFV (Maximum F#cking Violence).

FIREARMS MUST BE USED IF A SEVERE KICKING DOESN’T GET THE MESSAGE ACROSS

2. Your weapon must always be of the largest calibre available. That is, rifle 5.56mm are OK but the General is definitely the business and as for .50 cal - enough said. In the case of automatic weapons belt ammo is well ally. L96 is also recommended as it makes you look like a cold blooded murdering psycho.

CHALLENGING

3. Warn the cun£ he is about to get the good news unless:
a. He was asking for it anyway
OR
b. To do so would make you look like a * in front of your mates.
4. You are to challenge by shouting: “OI, YA HAT CUN£ - GET SOME OF THIS”
Or words to that effect.

USE OF LETHAL FORCE

PROTECTION OF THE BLOKES
5. You may brass the f#cker up if he/she is about to urine you off or commit an act likely to make yourself and the rest of the Reg look not as hard as you should be.

OPENING FIRE
6. When you open fire you are to:
a. Brass up the entire f#cking area;
AND
b. Get the General up as quickly as possible and give it big licks;
AND
c. Look well f#cking tasty throughout.

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

7. B0llocks to it, if it looks Gucci, nick it.

D-2
JSP 398 (Airborne Edition)
UK PARA REG EYES ONLY


As this is a sensible part of ARRSE I'll also provide a sensible post, this has bee nthe case for years, we were told when we could and couldn't engage someone who was digging/laying "suspected" IEDs back in 2007, must be a slow news day
 
#7
You cannot shoot someone laying an IED as he doesn't pose a risk to life at that moment. The enemy know this. Blokes have shot farmers in the past just digging in their fields as farmers do. There are instances when you can shoot an IED layer but I won't go into them on here.
I understand for opsec reasons you cannot go further here, but let me point out that the article I read said the Geneva Convention AND the ROE required this rule. Since the Convention says no such thing it must be the ROE and if this rule is as reported it is overbroad at the expense of British troops lives.

We had similar issues in Vietnam and while not as elegant as today"s ROE, I can recall admonishing troops not to be trigger happy and that certain things needed to be observed regarding the intended target before engaging.

This reasonably accounts for the farmer. But a sweeping rule (if it is as reported) like this is IMHO bordering on the criminal given the percentage of IED attacks compared to other means of attack. While this is a counterinsurgency that implicates "hearts and minds," it is still a WAR and not a peacekeeping operation.
 
#8
The world [Western edition] has gone soft in recent years because the law/decision makers have not starved/been put in harms way/have had a pampered protected upbringing, aided and abetted by vested interests, wasters and liberal pinko Guardian reading types.
 
#9
I understand for opsec reasons you cannot go further here, but let me point out that the article I read said the Geneva Convention AND the ROE required this rule. Since the Convention says no such thing it must be the ROE and if this rule is as reported it is overbroad at the expense of British troops lives.

We had similar issues in Vietnam and while not as elegant as today"s ROE, I can recall admonishing troops not to be trigger happy and that certain things needed to be observed regarding the intended target before engaging.

This reasonably accounts for the farmer. But a sweeping rule (if it is as reported) like this is IMHO bordering on the criminal given the percentage of IED attacks compared to other means of attack. While this is a counterinsurgency that implicates "hearts and minds," it is still a WAR and not a peacekeeping operation.
So do the spams actually have ROE then, the only people that EVER shot at me in Iraq were spams, twice. Both times we were clearly recognisable as brits, complete with uniform and Union flags etc. This was on a road, behind a spam convoy (Within about 30 metres). Bunch of ****ing cnuts is what i would say. The only saving grace was that they were such bad ****ing shots that they missed! Seems the yank ROE are open up on whoever you want whenever you want to, especially brits because their ROE forbid them to shoot back if they can positively identify you as 'friendly' forces.
 
#10
but let me point out that the article I read said the Geneva Convention AND the ROE required this rule. Since the Convention says no such thing it must be the ROE and if this rule is as reported it is overbroad at the expense of British troops lives.
You are right of course and I've never been a big fan of courageous restraint though there does seem a little logic in it. Killing an innocent farmer may be turn the male members of his family towards the taliban. You have then more enemy to fight and the end state (whatever that is in Afghanistan) is then harder to achieve.
 
#11
The world [Western edition] has gone soft in recent years because the law/decision makers have not starved/been put in harms way/have had a pampered protected upbringing, aided and abetted by vested interests, wasters and liberal pinko Guardian reading types.
That is of course a valid viewpoint. The other is that killing innocent locals working on their own land is probably counter-productive and increases local support for the very people we are trying to defeat. If the local police in the UK were to start brassing up anyone acting suspiciously just in case, would that get your support? If so, would that support still be there if they slotted any of your family or friends?

We all know that this is a 'war situation' and there will be 'collateral damage'. The idea is to limit it as far as possible as it is in our own interest.

I also find it strange that the example of Vietnam and the lower level of proof required before taking out a target. After all, they managed to gain 'so much' support they had to leave quite rapidly, so probably not a great example of how to win 'hearts & minds'.


Edited to point out that I'm saying the same thing as Fallschirmjager who got there before me.
 
#12
Current istar assets in theatre pretty much negate the need to brass up anything remotely suspicious and it all comes down to situation on the ground and prior intelligence, as has been the way for many moons, I personally think that methods of strategic targeting now are excellant and if the can be maintained at the current rate with similar success the enemy are****ed, very much tightening the noose round anyone considering having a go but I suppose only time will tell. Also it very much depends on the unit and calibre of soldier involved as nothing is black and White over there as I'm sure everyone knows.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#13
So do the spams actually have ROE then, the only people that EVER shot at me in Iraq were spams, twice. Both times we were clearly recognisable as brits, complete with uniform and Union flags etc. This was on a road, behind a spam convoy (Within about 30 metres). Bunch of ****ing cnuts is what i would say. The only saving grace was that they were such bad ****ing shots that they missed! Seems the yank ROE are open up on whoever you want whenever you want to, especially brits because their ROE forbid them to shoot back if they can positively identify you as 'friendly' forces.
So you ignored the big stay back or we'll shoot signs then?
 
#14
This reasonably accounts for the farmer. But a sweeping rule (if it is as reported) like this is IMHO bordering on the criminal given the percentage of IED attacks compared to other means of attack. While this is a counterinsurgency that implicates "hearts and minds," it is still a WAR and not a peacekeeping operation.
JJH: . As a casual observer, even I have noticed that there does seem to have been a difference in interpretation between the various component nations of the ISAF force. The clearance of "Pharmacy Road" provides a salient example. I would wholly agree with the US Marine commander that demolition of properties to clear a 200m boulevard was entirely sensible, given the level of threat in that location. It is a matter of deep sadness to me that British forces were not allowed to take the necessary action during their tenure.

B
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#17
Or the bastards forgot to put them out for a laugh.........................................
Possibly but every tour I've done of Iraq and Afghanistan we were warned to keep our distance from US convoys/vehicle patrols as the would open fire on anyone getting too close regardless of nationality, it's hardly a secret.
 
#18
Oh that makes it allright then..............................silly old me!
 
#19
The CO's in Afghanistan are also empowered with Rules 421-424 which are supernumerary to Card A which cover aggressive act and intent. IED layers can, indeed, be engaged whilst laying with the correct authority. But as Fally said, this sometimes goes wrong when farmers are engaged. A person requires the same reasonable belief as Card A.
 
#20
So do the spams actually have ROE then, the only people that EVER shot at me in Iraq were spams, twice. Both times we were clearly recognisable as brits, complete with uniform and Union flags etc. This was on a road, behind a spam convoy (Within about 30 metres). Bunch of ****ing cnuts is what i would say. The only saving grace was that they were such bad ****ing shots that they missed! Seems the yank ROE are open up on whoever you want whenever you want to, especially brits because their ROE forbid them to shoot back if they can positively identify you as 'friendly' forces.
Yes indeed they do have ROE. I regret your personal experience--it is certainly no fun to be shot at --especially by friendlies and even more so your own countrymen. The most harrowing instance for me was by my Air Force brothers who in those days were neither equipped nor proficient in close air support and fire suppression. There is just nothing like seeing 3 USAF Phantoms roll in on what you think is the target you just called in (some 1000m away on the opposite hill) only to see them pull out of their roll and head straight at you at about 800 feet and you see the snake-eyed 1000 pounders heading your way).


I would also note the obvious (at least to me and possibly others) that some "spams" as you so quaintly put it, are neither careless nor bad shots and you should count yourself fortunate they were not the ones shooting.
 

Latest Threads

Top