Negating the effectiveness of water cannon.

[ViolentPanda]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/07/article-1327469-0BF3A476000005DC-69_634x443.jpg

This one was covered in tar and set alight? Interesting.

Water cannon are pretty much an armoured car, so they're prone to the same tricks that can be used on them. There are almost always smoke/gas tubes for releasing canisters from inside the vehicle, so the potato trick works (was done in the early days to the British army in Derry with alarming regularity), as it does up the exhaust pipes.
They're sealed environments (if they're less than 20 years old, anyway), so their air supply is through filtration. That means that if you can find the air intakes, you can block them.
As for the actual spray-heads, they use standard rubber and silicone seals like most high-pressure gear, so an application of the right substance, say brake fluid, will eat the seals in fairly short order.

 

[TopCat]

They obviously have to transport the water cannon from the depot base to the trouble hot spot. Low loader? Drive them through the streets? They would be vulnerable in traffic for sure.

 

[DotCommunist]

I suppose IED's would be a step too far

 

[likesfish]

pretty shit for use on british streets too narrow you need wide open plazas.
molotovs are pretty lousy against armoured vehicles and once you start chucking those about Baton rounds will be deployed .
you can get big fuck off bruises from messing about with fire hoses had a water fight with a couple of fire engines once fun but afterwards a mass of bruises.
army surplus goretex waterproofs change of clothing in bin bags and a flask of something hot plus don't be ware they want to use the water cannon.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'd assume they fill them up from those fire points the Fire engines use

Yep, hydrant or (occasionally) from a tender. Can't see the FBU wanting it's members to cooperate with something like that, though!

 

[Idaho]

I can see the tactics here, but not the strategy. Defeating water cannons in order to....?

 

[butchersapron]

Tactics are bad now?

 

[DrRingDing]

molotovs are pretty lousy against armoured vehicles.

Utter bollocks. Just look at why petrol bombs are called 'Molotovs'.

 

[Spion]

I can see the tactics here, but not the strategy. Defeating water cannons in order to....?

Good point.

Someone else has noted that dispersal with water cannons is the complete opposite of police tactics now, which is containment

 

[Idaho]

Tactics are essential. But if I wanted to achieve X by taking route Y and was being blocked from doing it by some technology or technique. I could either work out a way of rendering that technique ineffective and staying on route Y or try a different route.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I can see the tactics here, but not the strategy. Defeating water cannons in order to....?

Prevent their use, whether that's by putting them out of commission, or by showing them up as useless for the job they're being employed for.
There's a reasonable amount of mileage in making the government look like hysterical ruling-class twat-bags.

 

[Spion]

Tactics are bad now?

they're only ever part of bigger, strategic goals

 

[TopCat]

I can see the tactics here, but not the strategy. Defeating water cannons in order to....?

A very valid point that. Worthy of its own thread. Seriously.

 

[Spion]

There's a reasonable amount of mileage in making the government look like hysterical ruling-class twat-bags.

LOL

 

[Bakunin]

Utter bollocks. Just look at why petrol bombs are called 'Molotovs'.

Indeed, there is a simple but enormous distance between an ordinary petrol bomb and a Molotov cocktail.

 

[Idaho]

Is it that you want to have random protests and disruption, but want to minimise injury/imprisonment to protestors?

 

[ViolentPanda]

molotovs are pretty lousy against armoured vehicles and once you start chucking those about Baton rounds will be deployed .

Depends on the armoured vehicle, really. Some of the older ones were well-shit, like sieves. crap seals, the lot. You could tell when someone was having a fag in a Pig, because the smoke would come out of the gaps in the screen seals!

 

[butchersapron]

they're only ever part of bigger, strategic goals

They can be - there's plenty of other times when they're not. There's even the possibility that discussion of tactics leads to strategy. (And then we get generals and so on).

 

[Idaho]

Prevent their use, whether that's by putting them out of commission, or by showing them up as useless for the job they're being employed for.
There's a reasonable amount of mileage in making the government look like hysterical ruling-class twat-bags.

If all you want to do is put them out of action, then you would probably have to target them before they were deployed, while they were undefended and not expecting it.

 

[Spion]

They can be - there's plenty of other times when they're not. There's even the possibility that discussion of tactics leads to strategy. (And then we get generals and so on).

whatever. substitute 'usually' for 'only ever' in my post

 

[butchersapron]

And this is one of those times. There are no generals directing this towards pre-agreed objectives.

 

[TopCat]

Is it that you want to have random protests and disruption, but want to minimise injury/imprisonment to protestors?

I think we want to win.

 

[Spion]

If all you want to do is put them out of action, then you would probably have to target them before they were deployed, while they were undefended and not expecting it.

I think the idea is dealing with them if they are deployed in situations like last week's demos

 

[zenie]

@ how far this thread has gone since I read it earlier!

Re; my tear gas comment though, it wasn't the water that bothered people in Rostock 2007, it was the tear gas.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Tactics are essential. But if I wanted to achieve X by taking route Y and was being blocked from doing it by some technology or technique. I could either work out a way of rendering that technique ineffective and staying on route Y or try a different route.

Not as easy done as said though, at least not in London (I can't speak for the centres of other cities), because alternate routes would mostly be restricted by the same problems as the original route: traffic and limited choice of alternatives.
So, strategy would be - small teams on each of the possible major routes and side routes, plus maybe a few dozen roving "spotters" keeping an eye out for when they come through. Bide your time, and then assault the vehicle at will. You could even deploy multiple teams on each route to ensure maximum mayhem. Choose tactics that fit the circumstances of each team.
Just speculating, like.

 

[TopCat]

Tear gas deserves a place on this thread as it can be added to the water mixture. Gas masks are easily available and not too expensive. Screwfix do lots of different ones but I personally would find them a bit restrictive. Plus if they get ripped off your head, you would leave DNA all over them.

I doubt gas would be deployed here. You could see it drifting into buildings, killing asthmatics, upsetting babies. I think it will be water cannon, long shields (recently out and about) and baton rounds? When? Well probably after people start throwing petrol bombs.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Is it that you want to have random protests and disruption, but want to minimise injury/imprisonment to protestors?

That has to be part of it, but there's also the fact that it is generally better to "take out" ordnance before it can be deployed, full stop.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If all you want to do is put them out of action, then you would probably have to target them before they were deployed, while they were undefended and not expecting it.

I agree, although I can see the appeal of the "humiliation factor" that the Met would feel if their borrowed armour got neutralised under the gaze of the cameras.

 

[past caring]

They obviously have to transport the water cannon from the depot base to the trouble hot spot. Low loader? Drive them through the streets? They would be vulnerable in traffic for sure.

 

[TopCat]

I agree, although I can see the appeal of the "humiliation factor" that the Met would feel if their borrowed armour got neutralised under the gaze of the cameras.

Humiliating the Met is a fine ambition.