• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Force Protection failure in Greece: RCN ship vandalized


NST had provided security the last time an HMC ship was in that port. Apparently no measures in place this time around.

Facebook comment from a former NST NCO:

''Lots of silly comments from people who think they know all about Force Protection. First, when we stood up NST in the exact same port we had two check points and a guarded gate with spike strips and Greek police manning those gates. Second, you would never open fire on people especially if the threat triangle isn't complete. Not sure how they got so close to the ship with the normal security measures in place, but it happened and it was only paint. However, this is exactly why you secure the jetty prior to a ship coming alongside using CAF and local authorities. De-escalate as best as possible and then use non-lethal force such as your fire hoses rigged on the upper decks.......trust me, they will stop someone
😉
.....ask ST....lol.''


Some context from a more friendly Greek:

''Alright... As a Greek-Canadian (served both in the Greek and Canadian army) I would like to apologize. Those guys are fuckin morons and stupid as fuck!
In 1932 Russia would give huge amounts of money(in other words fund) KKE(those fucking cunts who thru the paint), So one day they would "rule" Greece. The Greek army didn't let that happen and thru a lot of them in the jail.. So since then they can't stand the sight of any military uniform. Whenever they see anything that has to do with military they throw paint cans.
Sorry for my bad English!''
 

btrudy

Member
Reaction score
189
Points
610
Please enlighten us on your knowledge of CF ethos.

I’m curious
I rather feel like murdering peaceful protesters in order to prevent them from enacting petty vandalism is not exactly respecting the dignity of all persons, nor is it obeying and supporting lawful authority, or showing discipline, courage, and integrity.

I mean, I get that it's annoying to have to clean paint off the side of the ship, but it's better than blood off the jetty.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,351
Points
1,110
I rather feel like murdering peaceful protesters in order to prevent them from enacting petty vandalism is not exactly respecting the dignity of all persons, nor is it obeying and supporting lawful authority, or showing discipline, courage, and integrity.

I mean, I get that it's annoying to have to clean paint off the side of the ship, but it's better than blood off the jetty.

You’re absolutely right in this regard. However do you know why we have a CAF?

The primary purpose is to kill people who would do grievous harm to your country.

Like some of the others have said what if it’s a Molotov cocktail?
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,302
Points
1,160
Setting the disgusting propensity to murder aside, this is also showing an appalling lack of understanding of how his own weapon systems work.

To be fair, he admitted that they didn't do too much training about this kind of thing. But he didn't seem to mind.
 

btrudy

Member
Reaction score
189
Points
610
You’re absolutely right in this regard. However do you know why we have a CAF?

The primary purpose is to kill people who would do grievous harm to your country.
We are here for the controlled application of violence, against the enemy. Not against protesters in an allied nation. The key part of your phrase there would be "who would do grievous harm to your country" part, not just "kill people".
Like some of the others have said what if it’s a Molotov cocktail?
Even assuming that was the case, which again it wasn't so you don't murder people for stuff that they didn't do, that'll damage the paint job.
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
339
Points
730
The USS Cole... was a completely different scenario in a completely different context. You appear to be willfully ignoring the notion that we actually need to assess the threat of the scenario we find ourselves in, and not blindly react to every possible scenario based upon whatever imagined worst case scenario your could come up with in your head.

The fact that there exists some scenarios where use of lethal force is appropriate is not in any way shape or form an excuse to escalate to lethal force (or even any force) in all scenarios. Your use of force needs to be appropriate based upon the situation that is actually unfolding. Using violence to prevent petty vandalism is not appropriate.
I was working on the concept you understood that some from of assessment would have occurred before docking or entering port or even departing Halifax.
Oh and generally speaking Greek politics tend to be a little rougher and more " hands on".
Molotov cocktails are not unknown.
I keep wondering why you consider the possibility using a firehose on people with clear intent to commit not vandalism but terrorism as an over reaction.
 
Last edited:

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,774
Points
1,160
1) Intent - check, lighting Molotov
2) Capability - Yes, I believe they have the ability to light said Molotov and throw it the distance needed to hit my ship
3) Proximity - Yes, I believe the thrown Molotov will hit my ship

So, if paint was changed to be lit Molotov, then lethal force would have been justified.
Don't try that in Ontario, apparently even firing a warning shot as people firebomb your house will give you years of misery in the courts.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,774
Points
1,160
I know, right?

Sounds crazy but, when you actually have a chance to get hit with a few, you realize pretty quickly that they're not all that lethal unless you really screw up.

Which is why the 'good guys' need to be able to demonstrate a proportionate use of force. A plastic bullet to the upper chest, for example, was a pretty good trade for a petrol bomb as I recall ;)

Which reminds me of an awkward (for me) conversation I once had with a Navy 2 1/2 ringer, during a mess function, around the time of the USS Cole incident. The discussion focused on 'what would you do if' type stuff in situations short of General War.

As I recall, one of the questions we threw out there was something like 'What would you do if you were alongside and a bunch of rioters turned up?'.

His - a little too confident - response was along the lines of 'I'd crank that main gun of ours around and introduce them to the wonders of naval gunfire', or words to that effect.

Me and another (Army) guy just kind of stared at him for a bit wondering when he was going to blurt out 'Gotcha!', or some similar. But it was pretty clear that he was serious.
Naval ships should have never gotten rid of the 68lb Cannonade, highly useful for that sort of thing.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,907
Points
1,360
@btrudy you're focusing on one isolated comment to justify your initial response.

The fact is the Ship failed at Force Protection in multiple ways.

The first one is stand-off.

Actual Jetty Security is provided by a third party, usually local police, port authority or private security.

This is a CAZ and the members would have had to breach that first layer, which the Ship should have confirmed was in place before accepting the Jetty.

The next layer is Jetty Sentries. These are unarmed members of the Ship's Company that are early warning for the Ship's Company on the Jetty or their should have been.

Jetty Sentries should have warned the Upper Deck Sentries that these people were approaching the Ship.

Once they are at the Ship, there are about 25-50 things that could have been done that don't involve shooting someone or lethal force.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,302
Points
1,160
@btrudy you're focusing on one isolated comment to justify your initial response.

The fact is the Ship failed at Force Protection in multiple ways.

The first one is stand-off.

Actual Jetty Security is provided by a third party, usually local police, port authority or private security.

This is a CAZ and the members would have had to breach that first layer, which the Ship should have confirmed was in place before accepting the Jetty.

The next layer is Jetty Sentries. These are unnarmed members of the Ship's Company that are early warning for the Ship's Company on the Jetty or their should have been.

Jetty Sentries should have warned the Upper Deck Sentries that these people were approaching the Ship.

Once they are at the Ship, there are about 25-50 things that could have been done that don't involve shooting someone or lethal force.

Like sarcasm, which the CAF does really well ;)

 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,130
Points
1,140
Incorrect. No Judge will give you a pass for shooting someone throwing a petrol bomb. You, the trigger puller that is, will likely be tried for murder.

A good example of why these kinds of things need to be rehearsed ;)
I've shot people for both rocks and Molotovs - both are lethal attacks from which you have every right to use lethal force to protect yourself and others from.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,130
Points
1,140
If the ship's security is going to step one boot onto the jetty, there had better be a SOFA that allows the use of force or Canadian sailors may find themselves in the local prison. The ship is sovereign. The jetty is local.
I would hope there already a Status of Forces Agreement in place for any country where one is planning on doing a port visit.
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
339
Points
730
Q :Have you ever killed any one ?
A: No, but I once hurt someone's feelings.
Extra points for what film and whose speaking?
 

OceanBonfire

Sr. Member
Reaction score
268
Points
880
Those who were wondering how far the ship is from the public area (video):

 
Top