Shooting on Royal Navy Sub
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that while weapons were easily available in the forces, ammunition was very strictly controlled and that people leaving ranges were checked to make sure no live ammo was taken away. So either this guy was lucky and managed to squirrel some away, or, he'd been issued it for guard duty in which case someone's judgement was clearly not as good as it should be but of course as we don't know the full story we cannot really judge the issue.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My dad did a stint on subs during the war. He did it purely for the extra money. My concern, as with Green Granite, in this tragic case, is how a junior sailor could get his hands on a weapon and ammo whilst the boat is in port.
I don't know about inside RN facilities, but this sub was alongside in the civilian port of Southampton......does that actually count as a "home port"!
I'm sure if terrorists had tried to seize a floating nuclear reactor and a hull full of weapons the public would all be demanding to know why it WASN'T GUARDED! Well, we all now know that it obviously is!
For the Hollywood version see:
Under Siege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Worth a watch, at least Erika is!
I'm sure if terrorists had tried to seize a floating nuclear reactor and a hull full of weapons the public would all be demanding to know why it WASN'T GUARDED! Well, we all now know that it obviously is!
For the Hollywood version see:
Under Siege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Worth a watch, at least Erika is!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Stockport
Age: 67
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do all subs and ships have this procedure when in a home port?
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he was an upper deck sentry, then he would be plainly visible to any one who looked Kreuger flap. secrecy is therefore not necessary.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really Annoyed said:
"Yes. You have to be mad to want to spend months on end underwater not seeing any day light."
My older Brother was a submariner aboard HMS Swiftsure for several years in the 90s. Also a member of the Devonport Field Gun team in the early 90s. Currently manages an amateur Rugby team in the North East.
In other words, he's a big tough bloke. And would be happy to discuss allegations of mental instability with anyone, down a dark alleyway round the back of the pub...
Personally I think you have to be mad...etc. But I'm bigger than him!
"Yes. You have to be mad to want to spend months on end underwater not seeing any day light."
My older Brother was a submariner aboard HMS Swiftsure for several years in the 90s. Also a member of the Devonport Field Gun team in the early 90s. Currently manages an amateur Rugby team in the North East.
In other words, he's a big tough bloke. And would be happy to discuss allegations of mental instability with anyone, down a dark alleyway round the back of the pub...
Personally I think you have to be mad...etc. But I'm bigger than him!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that the broad security arrangements in any HM Ships are a secret. At the end of they day, I'm pretty sure that the general public would be quite keen for nuclear vessels to be guarded by armed sentries. This is the case at all times with one or two very exceptional exceptions.
All RN Warships, nuclear or otherwise, have armed sentries whether in base port or elsewhere. I've counted the bloody bullets often enough to know.... Anyone who has visited an RN Warship will know this - it is not secret. They usually carry batons as well (not of the the Majorette variety, the "ouch my leg doesn't work anymore" variety). Obviously the level of defence is always under review and is closely related to the overall security posture at the time, but I can't recall any occasions during my service when armed sentries were not a minimum requirement.
What does surprise me is that a former Minister of the Crown is seeking assurances that there was no risk to the public (presumably because he read that nuclear=bad somewhere in the Socialist Worker). My advice would be to give Bob Ainsworth a ring if he's really that ignorant.
All RN Warships, nuclear or otherwise, have armed sentries whether in base port or elsewhere. I've counted the bloody bullets often enough to know.... Anyone who has visited an RN Warship will know this - it is not secret. They usually carry batons as well (not of the the Majorette variety, the "ouch my leg doesn't work anymore" variety). Obviously the level of defence is always under review and is closely related to the overall security posture at the time, but I can't recall any occasions during my service when armed sentries were not a minimum requirement.
What does surprise me is that a former Minister of the Crown is seeking assurances that there was no risk to the public (presumably because he read that nuclear=bad somewhere in the Socialist Worker). My advice would be to give Bob Ainsworth a ring if he's really that ignorant.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What I find rather disturbing is that, HMS Astute requires an armed guard, whilst in port, because it's a possible target for an armed attack, and yet there it is welcoming aboard Civic dignitaries and children. The two situations just do not sit sensibly together, in my opinion.
goudie,
In this day and age possible terrorist attack and the presence of civic dignitaries and children unfortunately almost go hand in hand.....whether or not there is any direct military involvement.
For example - Everywhere they go, meeting both civic dignitaries and children, members of the Royal Family are also potential targets for terrorist attack. Do we stop the Royal Family meeting the public, as the two possibilities "do not sit sensibly together", or do we accept the risk and take adequate/sensible precautions to cater for the worse case?
In this day and age possible terrorist attack and the presence of civic dignitaries and children unfortunately almost go hand in hand.....whether or not there is any direct military involvement.
For example - Everywhere they go, meeting both civic dignitaries and children, members of the Royal Family are also potential targets for terrorist attack. Do we stop the Royal Family meeting the public, as the two possibilities "do not sit sensibly together", or do we accept the risk and take adequate/sensible precautions to cater for the worse case?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the sky
Age: 33
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D O Guerrero,
Back in my OTC days - we were at camp near a certian submarine base in Scotland - the Marines were the guards of the docked subs...
Wouldnt the Marines be responsible for guarding here too?
Back in my OTC days - we were at camp near a certian submarine base in Scotland - the Marines were the guards of the docked subs...
Wouldnt the Marines be responsible for guarding here too?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nick
Wouldnt the Marines be responsible for guarding here too?
Hi Nick,
Earlier in this thread folks were politely told the difference between ships and boats..
May I now very politely point out that the United States of America have 'Marines'
Here in Great Britain we have our 'roughy, toughy' Royal Marines
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
do we accept the risk and take adequate/sensible precautions to cater for the worse case?
Comparing the Royal family exposure to risks, with that of innocent children, doesn't work either!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a shame that plod has got in on this one. They'll just be looking for evidence to prosecute and not dealing with the root cause. I truly feel for the family of the victim and his colleagues, not only for their loss but for the fact that it will a long time before anything constructive can be accomplished to prevent a reoccurrence. Like it or not, it is totally reasonable to protect MOD equipment with armed guards, but someone has to have a method of determining the sanity of those who are issued with firearms.