|
|
Post by fletcherfu24 on May 8, 2009 22:25:22 GMT 12
No there not firing the LAVs gun,if they were from the angle shooting up at the house the shells would be punching great holes out the house roof.There only using it as cover to fire off thunderflashes by the look.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on May 9, 2009 10:08:52 GMT 12
At least it seems to have 'cured' the swine flu panic.
Not a mention of it in the news bulletins for the last two days.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on May 9, 2009 18:49:56 GMT 12
Another moron who got it wrong: shoot yourself first - and save a lot of other innocent people untold grief and suffering.
I also think that the NZ Govt needs to get real and accept that it's not the 1950s anymore, and maybe they do need to look at arming all Police with handguns?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on May 9, 2009 20:47:14 GMT 12
Great its all finished with... the Police teams did very well under trying circumstances. Interesting to see how useful the LAVs were too. I will admit I was sceptical about the LAVs when they first arrived in NZ, but having seen them, and the footage of them in action, they seem quite capable. They quite probably saved any further Police injuries in this scenario. There is no way an M113 would have been any use in that situation. I guess that they could consider this to be the first "operational" use of the LAVs - performing their intended role of safely delivering ground "troops" whilst under fire. Nobody would have thought it would be under these circumstances though.
|
|
|
|
Post by stu on May 9, 2009 21:21:55 GMT 12
Likewise, glad it's all over and condolences to the family and friends of Senior Constable Len Snee.
The LAVs certainly played a valuable role, not to mention providing endless speculation amongst many of us at 3 (see my previous posts).
Those of us manning the fort and trying to interpret raw footage coming back combined with excited observations from crew on location led to some confusing conclusions. Now that the facts are starting to emerge, the footage makes a lot more sense.
One thing that never fails to amaze me in these situations though is the number of "armchair experts" (none on this forum) who, with the benefit of a safe location and - very often - hindsight, proffer their infinite wisdom on how the whole situation is/was being handled badly and what should be done ... normally involving blazing guns and Normandy type frontal assault. There is a difference between Hollywood and real life people!
Having seen the results of a high powered round to a person's head spread out over the road (and several front lawns) in front of me, I'd be quite happy to take things very carefully should I ever have the misfortune to be in a situation such as that just witnessed.
Just my five cents worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on May 9, 2009 21:36:28 GMT 12
I also think that the NZ Govt needs to get real and accept that it's not the 1950s anymore, and maybe they do need to look at arming all Police with handguns? My understanding is that Jan Molenaar held a firearms licence covering every firearm he owned. And it is also patently obvious that with his legal arsenal he completely outgunned any police officer with a handgun (or a handgun AND a bushmaster rifle). |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on May 9, 2009 22:29:34 GMT 12
Interesting to see how useful the LAVs were too. I will admit I was sceptical about the LAVs when they first arrived in NZ, but having seen them, and the footage of them in action, they seem quite capable. They quite probably saved any further Police injuries in this scenario. There is no way an M113 would have been any use in that situation. I guess that they could consider this to be the first "operational" use of the LAVs - performing their intended role of safely delivering ground "troops" whilst under fire. Nobody would have thought it would be under these circumstances though. I too had the same thought, who would have envisiged they would be 'blooded' in a New Zealand city. M113 could have been used and in fact almost this exact this scenario was practiced at least once - in Hobsonville of all places but LAV certainly offers numerous advantages. Police requested M113 on several ocassions e.g. Aramoana, but for various reasons they were never actually employed. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 9, 2009 23:02:10 GMT 12
One thing that never fails to amaze me in these situations though is the number of "armchair experts" (none on this forum) who, with the benefit of a safe location and - very often - hindsight, proffer their infinite wisdom on how the whole situation is/was being handled badly and what should be done ... normally involving blazing guns and Normandy type frontal assault. There is a difference between Hollywood and real life people! Oi, I did!! Mind you I was doing it with tongue firmly in cheek, for the benefit of humour, which might not have come across as I did get told off. Sorry... Paul, what was the story of M113's at Hobsonville? And when? Kiwithrottlejockey Bruce said: Does that mean all the reports that stated (and first hand accounts form his firends too) that he had a stash of illegal semi-automatics and that his licence had expired were false? I have not heard anything about him being a legal owner of the weapons he had. Just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by stu on May 10, 2009 0:06:20 GMT 12
One thing that never fails to amaze me in these situations though is the number of "armchair experts" (none on this forum) who, with the benefit of a safe location and - very often - hindsight, proffer their infinite wisdom on how the whole situation is/was being handled badly and what should be done ... normally involving blazing guns and Normandy type frontal assault. There is a difference between Hollywood and real life people! Oi, I did!! Mind you I was doing it with tongue firmly in cheek, for the benefit of humour, which might not have come across as I did get told off. Sorry... Tongue in cheek duly noted at the time  Don't worry - nobody on the forum has come up with anything close to some of the gung-ho comments (read drivel) heard on talkback wireless in the last few days  |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on May 10, 2009 8:00:37 GMT 12
Paul, what was the story of M113's at Hobsonville? And when? It was part of one of the early whole-of-government counter terrorism exercises in early 1980's. Why was it held in Hobsonville - probably because there was a surplus building. The employment of an armoured vehicle in a rescue was one component. Another was what today would probably be called a 'kinetic entry' i.e. punching a hole in the building exterior using an M113. I recall the result was not considered a success. Those old barrack blocks are stronger than they look so required several attempts to make a clear hole. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 10, 2009 9:40:06 GMT 12
Blimey, I'll bet that was interesting to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on May 10, 2009 10:48:57 GMT 12
Anyone know what the three Hueys were used for?
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on May 10, 2009 14:26:50 GMT 12
The employment of an armoured vehicle in a rescue was one component. Another was what today would probably be called a 'kinetic entry' i.e. punching a hole in the building exterior using an M113. I recall the result was not considered a success. Those old barrack blocks are stronger than they look so required several attempts to make a clear hole. Paul I have been searching the internet to try and find info on the successful wall punching use of M113 by Dutch Marines in a counter-terrorsim incident that brought about it being tried on typical New Zealand wooden building construction. What I have located is one of those strange coincidences. The Dutch incident was one of a series by the Indonesian based Moluccan terrorists which occured in the 1970s. The first casuality was a Dutch policemen Hans Mollenaar See www.utrechtlawreview.org/publish/articles/000004/article.pdfPaul |
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 10, 2009 15:15:24 GMT 12
Anyone know what the three Hueys were used for? They weren't, but were fitted with armour and various accessories for CT work and were available if needed. We were told they were sent to Welly to pick up the initial STG response, but I'm not sure about that. |
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on May 20, 2009 9:56:58 GMT 12
The Lavs were used as part of a defensive option for the Police.
Did the LAV have a first line of 25mm?
Was the Bushmaster part of the tactical options? (I doubt it as the danger area, even for point detonating HE, would make it high risk in a built up area, but even so..).
What about the Mag 58?
What about the security clearance for the FLIR?
I hope they don't arm the police as it will open Pandora's Box. Police have access to firearms when the need to. What happened here is realy bad luck. We all have resposibility as a society in these type of situations, - people knew he had these firearms and did nothing. When you get down to it the Police association guy on TV was correct in that the media and society are very quick to leap in and blame the police. Our expectations of their performance is unrealistic and in someways childish. They seem to fit in well with defence, under-fund and bag/mock them when times are good, bleat and moan when you realy need them. Nothing has changed since the Battle of Salamis??, Thermopalae, Jesus riding donky in Jerusalem Rodeo.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on May 20, 2009 13:01:16 GMT 12
Yeah, I'm sure the families of the dead and wounded Policeman see it that way too! |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on May 20, 2009 17:44:36 GMT 12
The Lavs were used as part of a defensive option for the Police. Did the LAV have a first line of 25mm? Was the Bushmaster part of the tactical options? (I doubt it as the danger area, even for point detonating HE, would make it high risk in a built up area, but even so..). What about the Mag 58? What about the security clearance for the FLIR? I suggest OPSEC will prevent you getting any of these questions answered. |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jul 6, 2009 19:25:38 GMT 12
Some questions have been answered today www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0907/S00063.htmNZDF Responds To Napier Siege Questions Monday, 6 July 2009, 1:03 pm Press Release: New Zealand Defence Force Part of the release ...... During the armed siege NZDF Light Armoured Vehicles (LAVs) were used to provide armoured protection to help recover the body of the Police Officer tragically killed earlier in the armed stand-off. NZDF has also confirmed that all Defence Force personnel were unarmed throughout the siege and the LAVs carried no ammunition. In addition, the Defence Force have today revealed that no damage to either vehicle occurred during their deployment with NZ Police and that the cost to deploy the vehicles (including meals, accommodation, allowances, road user charges and fuel but excluding routine maintenance) was $5715. “The decision to use the LAVs was made by the Chief of Defence Force in consultation with the Minister of Defence under section 9(1) (b) of the Defence Act 1990 following a request from the Police” says Cdr Fogarty |
|
