Was the Loughgall ambush a mistake by the British?

DarkyHughes · 13-10-2015 9:02pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

Go to an Australian or New Zealander and just say the word Gallipoli and then sit back and listen while they turn a humiliating defeat, which achieved nothing militarily after nearly nine months, into the most glorious narrative of courage, endurance and nation building. It will give you some idea of how the historical imagination can infer some very strange conclusions at great odds with the facts of the matter.

And to be fair to the OP. He didn't say the IRA achieved a victory at Loughgall; the Pyrrhic victory to which he referred was that of the British.

A Pyrrhic victory is when one side wins the day but finds out that in the long term their victory was detrimental to their side. Dates back to the battle of Asculum which the Romans lost to a chap called Pyrrhus but his own losses were so heavy that he commented that any more "victories" of similar expense would ruin him.

So was Loughgall a "Pyrrhic victory" for the British? Probably not. It was just a waste of life because it didn't change anything terribly much. The IRA resumed bombing and shooting British forces and their "collaborators", mainly Protestant policemen, off duty soldiers and construction workers.

The British continued to play at building "special forces" which yielded nothing much but the largely fictional plot lines for "Andy McNab" novels. And finally the good people of Northern Ireland said "enough of this ****" and sorted it out.

Kinda.

Yes, but you have to remember the IRA after Loughgall intensified their campaign & it probably helped bring new Volunteers in & it cost the British government a couple of billion pounds with bombs in Bishopsgate, The Baltic Exchange, Manchester, Canary Wharf & dozens of similar bombs in the North. i. Notice how a few weeks after the 1993 Bishopsgate bomb that caused £1.2 billion worth of damage the Downing Street declaration was issued.

So I think it was a Pyrrhic victory, not for the SAS & RUCSB but for the British government.

josephryan1989 · 15-10-2015 10:20am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They got the shipments in 1985 & 1986 which included 9mm Brownings, RPGs, flamethrowers, SAMs, AK-47s, MP5 sub-machine guns, DShk heavy machine guns, FN-MAG machine guns the lovely semtex,

This is how Patrick Kelly & Jim Lynagh of the East Tyrone brigade unit were able to pull of such lightning quick & ruthless attacks on barracks, bases and checkpoints in the first place starting with the brilliant assault on Ballygawley barracks in December 1985.

Brilliant attacks? They were firing at and bombing empty RUC stations.
Not launching an assault on the Schloss Adler

Lynagh and his men were paramilitaries and brave men indeed - I would not have agreed with their politics or the terrorist acts they committed but they were risking their lives unlike hoodlums who were shooting unarmed people dead in other provo attacks - but they had little or no training in combat except shooting on secret ranges in the Donegal or Kerry mountains or maybe some training on gun ranges in the US or in Europe or something like that. They were about as skilled at fighting as you or I or any other Walter Mitty wannbe if someone handed us automatic weapons and showed us the basics of their operation and how to shoot in a tight group.

They did not train as most soldiers do with live fire - crawling on their bellies under barb wire entanglements with machine gun bullets fired over their heads or for repelling ambushes or other tactical scenarios. Training means soldiers have to get used to the crash bang and wallop of the battlefield and being under fire. Men with combat experience have the psychological edge over soldiers who have never been in fear of death and under fire. Civilians who would jump at the sound of a firecracker will go to pieces in an ambush whereas an experienced soldier will keep a cool head and fight back.

So when the SAS opened up on them they panicked and prayed and sprayed - making a lot of noise but little else. The SAS simply shot them down like as if they were paper targets and then reportedly finished them with headshots at point blank.

Most IRA gun attacks were assassinations on off duty police and soldiers with handguns at point range into the head and body rather than open gun battles which caused politically damaging civilians casualties from stray shots.

The heavy weaponry was good for propaganda but practically was of little use since they didn't have the training and carrying these weapons around in the open was high risk and invited SAS ambushes.

josephryan1989 · 15-10-2015 10:32am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Yes, but you have to remember the IRA after Loughgall intensified their campaign & it probably helped bring new Volunteers in & it cost the British government a couple of billion pounds with bombs in Bishopsgate, The Baltic Exchange, Manchester, Canary Wharf & dozens of similar bombs in the North. i. Notice how a few weeks after the 1993 Bishopsgate bomb that caused £1.2 billion worth of damage the Downing Street declaration was issued.

So I think it was a Pyrrhic victory, not for the SAS & RUCSB but for the British government.

What the Loughall Ambush demonstrated was that in an open battle the provos - civilians with very limited weapons training - were no match for trained better equipped soldiers and commandos.

Roadside bombs, booby traps and sniper attacks might kill a few soldiers a year but did not put a real dent in the presence of thousands of British troops in the six counties or British rule. It meant that the six counties were militarized into perpetuity.

The bombing campaign against economic targets in the City of London was the work of men in a workshops building the electronics and mixing the explosives and a handful of people prepared to drive the bomb vehicles to their targets and others who phoned in warnings. It wasn't open battle and was never about taking territory which Lynagh and his men hoped to achieve. Arguably if the provos has used these tactics earlier in the Troubles they would have achieved their political objectives far sooner.

DarkyHughes · 15-10-2015 12:24pm

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Brilliant attacks? They were firing at and bombing empty RUC stations.
Not launching an assault on the Schloss Adler

Lynagh and his men were paramilitaries and brave men indeed - I would not have agreed with their politics or the terrorist acts they committed but they were risking their lives unlike hoodlums who were shooting unarmed people dead in other provo attacks - but they had little or no training in combat except shooting on secret ranges in the Donegal or Kerry mountains or maybe some training on gun ranges in the US or in Europe or something like that. They were about as skilled at fighting as you or I or any other Walter Mitty wannbe if someone handed us automatic weapons and showed us the basics of their operation and how to shoot in a tight group.

They did not train as most soldiers do with live fire - crawling on their bellies under barb wire entanglements with machine gun bullets fired over their heads or for repelling ambushes or other tactical scenarios. Training means soldiers have to get used to the crash bang and wallop of the battlefield and being under fire. Men with combat experience have the psychological edge over soldiers who have never been in fear of death and under fire. Civilians who would jump at the sound of a firecracker will go to pieces in an ambush whereas an experienced soldier will keep a cool head and fight back.

So when the SAS opened up on them they panicked and prayed and sprayed - making a lot of noise but little else. The SAS simply shot them down like as if they were paper targets and then reportedly finished them with headshots at point blank.

Most IRA gun attacks were assassinations on off duty police and soldiers with handguns at point range into the head and body rather than open gun battles which caused politically damaging civilians casualties from stray shots.

The heavy weaponry was good for propaganda but practically was of little use since they didn't have the training and carrying these weapons around in the open was high risk and invited SAS ambushes.

There was several armed RUC at Ballygawley 2 of whom were killed by the IRA.

There were 36 SAS hiding in bushes + at least 15 RUCSB motioning the ASU vs 8 IRA Volunteers (7 of whom were armed), it would have been rather embarrassing for the British if it had went any other way.
What Loughgall demonstrated was that intelligence was key. Only 4 of the 11 British security forces I mentioned who were killed in the weeks after Loughgall were off duty.

This just makes the fact the British lost over 1,000 to a bunch of untrained "wannabes" as you put even more embarrassing & it that it them 28 years to bring them to the negotiating table. Are your claim is counter to a British Army expert who described the IRA as "professional, highly skilled & motivated and one of the most effective "terrorist" organisations in history.

While the loyalist paramilitaries presented themselves as the protectors of the Protestant community, it said, they were in practice often little more than a "collection of gangsters".

You just have to look at the timeline of actions of the UVF or UDA or even the INLA & IPLO to see it's not as simple as picking up a gun & fighting like you suggest.
And do you really think a bunch of Walter Mittys would be able to plan & execute the biggest prison escape in British history & the biggest in Europe since WW2.

Then why mention the heavy weaponry in the first place?

DarkyHughes · 15-10-2015 12:36pm

josephryan1989 wrote: »

What the Loughall Ambush demonstrated was that in an open battle the provos - civilians with very limited weapons training - were no match for trained better equipped soldiers and commandos.

Roadside bombs, booby traps and sniper attacks might kill a few soldiers a year but did not put a real dent in the presence of thousands of British troops in the six counties or British rule. It meant that the six counties were militarized into perpetuity.

The bombing campaign against economic targets in the City of London was the work of men in a workshops building the electronics and mixing the explosives and a handful of people prepared to drive the bomb vehicles to their targets and others who phoned in warnings. It wasn't open battle and was never about taking territory which Lynagh and his men hoped to achieve. Arguably if the provos has used these tactics earlier in the Troubles they would have achieved their political objectives far sooner.

Then how do account for standing battles the IRA won like Drummuckavali, Glasdrumman or Operation Conservation or ones that ended in stalemate like the Newry road battle? There were plenty of battles were the IRA inflicted casualties on British forces.

Yes, I know some the English bombing teams had previous work experience in welding, fixing crap cars etc... stuff like that but not all of them did. James Mcardle one of the Canary Wharf bombers was also a member of the South Armagh single shot sniping team which killed 8 soldiers & 3 RUC. The Barret M82 wasn't an easy weapon to use correctly.

Fratton Fred · 15-10-2015 4:41pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

This just makes the fact the British lost over 1,000 to a bunch of untrained "wannabes" as you put even more embarrassing

And a psychotic student in the US can kill 12 people in a lunch break.

Killing unarmed people in cold blood is nothing to be proud of.

Victor · 16-10-2015 1:02am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

There was several armed RUC at Ballygawley 2 of whom were killed by the IRA.

There were 36 SAS hiding in bushes + at least 15 RUCSB motioning the ASU vs 8 IRA Volunteers (7 of whom were armed), it would have been rather embarrassing for the British if it had went any other way.
What Loughgall demonstrated was that intelligence was key. Only 4 of the 11 British security forces I mentioned who were killed in the weeks after Loughgall were off duty.

This just makes the fact the British lost over 1,000 to a bunch of untrained "wannabes" as you put even more embarrassing & it that it them 28 years to bring them to the negotiating table. Are your claim is counter to a British Army expert who described the IRA as "professional, highly skilled & motivated and one of the most effective "terrorist" organisations in history.

While the loyalist paramilitaries presented themselves as the protectors of the Protestant community, it said, they were in practice often little more than a "collection of gangsters".

You just have to look at the timeline of actions of the UVF or UDA or even the INLA & IPLO to see it's not as simple as picking up a gun & fighting like you suggest.
And do you really think a bunch of Walter Mittys would be able to plan & execute the biggest prison escape in British history & the biggest in Europe since WW2.

Then why mention the heavy weaponry in the first place?

Genuine question: are you masturbating as you write posts like this? You posts come across like those of a 'fanboy' who is utterly incapable of critical thinking.

People died - lots of people. Many more were injured, lost family and friends and were otherwise traumatised - for more than 25 years. These are bad things. They are not to be glorified. Quiet reflection and remembrance would be much more appropriate.

tipptom · 16-10-2015 1:38am

tac foley wrote: »

I prophesy that if you joined in the fun and frolics here just to further your political aims, sundry aspirations and public support of a proscribed terrorist organisation, your time spent will be short indeed.

tac

Yep,when you got all the mods on boards as usual batting for you and combat18 activists there can be no discussion so its easy for you to prophesise against brave people who were not prepared to take it anymore and have stood up and created a more equal and democratic society in NI.

tac foley · 16-10-2015 5:48pm

I'll be charitable and assume that you are actually joking. The moderators on boards.ie are more likely to want to take a bat to my head than 'bat' for me, since I'm a furriner here with an often unwelcome viewpoint, rather like your own, in fact.

However, one of my other less amiable traits is that I tend not to respond to terrorist apologists of any kind, be they green or orange or any other politically-motivated 'shade'. Having been on the receiving end of the violent activities of both sides gives me that right.

So you'll forgive me if I point out that while you are gloating about the activities of your freedom-fighting pals, who will be more remembered for blowing up war memorials surrounded by those paying their respects, bombing buses filled with women and children, crowded pubs and busy high streets, it's a good point to remember that the very large proportion of them were Irishmen, women and children who never got the chances to grow up or older in your 'more equal and democratic society' - a society which, being 'equal and democratic', offers the opportunity for those formerly bent on its destruction to sit down and peacefully discuss its future with former enemies.

I guess that now you'll see that the Moderators will give me a good slapping for this post, and to tell the truth I'd deserve it, but many of us here are pretty much sickened by your glorification of a chapter of history that has not yet closed, no doubt kept open by your heroes in balaclavas and dark glasses.

tac

tac foley · 16-10-2015 5:48pm

I'll be charitable and assume that you are actually joking. The moderators on boards.ie are more likely to want to take a bat to my head than 'bat' for me, since I'm a furriner here with an often unwelcome viewpoint, rather like your own, in fact.

However, one of my other less amiable traits is that I tend not to respond to terrorist apologists of any kind, be they green or orange or any other politically-motivated 'shade'. Having been on the receiving end of the violent activities of both sides gives me that right.

So you'll forgive me if I point out that while you are gloating about the activities of your freedom-fighting pals, who will be more remembered for blowing up war memorials surrounded by those paying their respects, bombing buses filled with women and children, crowded pubs and busy high streets, it's a good point to remember that the very large proportion of the victims were Irishmen, women and children who never got the chances to grow up or older in your 'more equal and democratic society' - a society which, being 'equal and democratic', offers the opportunity for those formerly bent on its destruction to sit down and peacefully discuss its future with former enemies.

I guess that now you'll see that the Moderators will give me a good slapping for this post, and to tell the truth I'd deserve it, but many of us here are pretty much sickened by your glorification of a chapter of history that has not yet closed, no doubt kept open by your heroes in balaclavas and dark glasses.

tac

Arsemageddon · 16-10-2015 11:52pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Correct. And how would the SAS be able to
see what the brothers were wearing, it was pitch black & they were inside a
car.

The ambush happened at about 7.30 pm in early May, unless there was a solar eclipse at the time it was not pitch black.

The SAS set up a "kill zone" & nobody was to make it out of that zone
alive so there would be only one version of events. The winners write
history.

Cliché riddled nonsense. The Brits set up a successful ambush and wiped out a full IRA ASU. If it had been the other way around would you be as outraged?

Irish republicans and the British always interpret the same events completely differently.

And just to be clear I'm not saying Loughgall was a mistake for the SAS, they were given a job to do - kill as many people as possible. My question was did it help prolong the conflict another 10 years because at around the time of Loughgall Sinn Fein were considering talking to the "enemy" which was made apparent by the 1986 Sinn Fein conference after witch Ruari O'Bradaigh predicted the IRA campaign would be run down & finally stopped.

Given that the IRA declared a ceasefire 7 years later in 1994 I think it's safe to say that Loughgall did not prolong the conflict by ten years.

It didn't really matter that IRA/Sinn Fein were considering offering talks, the British and Irish governments were not willing to talk to them.

As Ruairi O'Bradaigh's was an unhinged loon who refused to accept either the democratic decision of his colleagues in Sinn Fein or the overwhelming support of people north and south of the border for the Good Friday Agreement you'll forgive me for not giving a flying fvck about his opinion on anything.

Arsemageddon · 17-10-2015 12:32am

Snickers Man wrote: »

Go to an Australian or New Zealander and just say the word Gallipoli and then sit back and listen while they turn a humiliating defeat, which achieved nothing militarily after nearly nine months, into the most glorious narrative of courage, endurance and nation building. It will give you some idea of how the historical imagination can infer some very strange conclusions at great odds with the facts of the matter.

And to be fair to the OP. He didn't say the IRA achieved a victory at Loughgall; the Pyrrhic victory to which he referred was that of the British.

A Pyrrhic victory is when one side wins the day but finds out that in the long term their victory was detrimental to their side. Dates back to the battle of Asculum which the Romans lost to a chap called Pyrrhus but his own losses were so heavy that he commented that any more "victories" of similar expense would ruin him.

I know what a phyrric victory is and I know that the OP was referring to the British when he spoke of a phyrric victory, I just think he's talking absolute nonsense.

An Claidheamh · 17-10-2015 1:23am

Funny the way Fred and Tac seem to think when the Brits get shot, it's always in
"cold blood". How do the British shoot people? By accident? .... in hot blood? Is that any less of a murder?

Whatever happened to the stiff upper lip anyway?

You join the Brit army, wave machine guns at people, you tend to get shot at. Then some X-factor loosers sing you a song and you get jingoists begging people to fund your pension selling poppies outside McDonalds.

Not our fault your Bravo two zero squaddies couldn't even dambust their way through................ ....South Armagh. Half of a county!

Better luck next time.

It was a dirty conflict. Move on. Provos decommissioned. Squaddies went home. Peace.

tac foley · 17-10-2015 8:42am

Sigh. Northern Ireland was then, and still is, part of the UK. The vast majority of those who died and those left injured actually lived there - they were, and are, Irish.

As for the rest of your comment, I think you'll find that last week a man in the RoI awaiting sentence for dissident activity shot dead a garda and then himself, and a couple of days ago a viable device was found in Belfast.

And about 3000 people still carry legally a handgun for personal protection - a state of affairs that does not pertain in any other part of Europe.

tac

tac foley · 17-10-2015 8:43am

Sigh. Northern Ireland was then, and still is, part of the UK. The vast majority of those who died and those left injured actually lived there - they were, and are, Irish.

tac

An Claidheamh · 17-10-2015 2:36pm

tac foley wrote: »

Sigh. Northern Ireland was then, and still is, part of the UK. The vast majority of those who died and those left injured actually lived there - they were, and are, Irish.

As for the rest of your comment, I think you'll find that last week a man in the RoI awaiting sentence for dissident activity shot dead a garda and then himself, and a couple of days ago a viable device was found in Belfast.

And about 3000 people still carry legally a handgun for personal protection - a state of affairs that does not pertain in any other part of Europe.

tac

What does any of that have to do with what I said? ........

Brit soldiers playing dumb again. Vast majority were Irish?

1000 British soldiers dead. Your boys are lucky they didn't have to occupy 32 counties! Ha.

Victor · 17-10-2015 3:12pm

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Vast majority were Irish?

Yes, less than one third were British security (less than half of that third wereBritish Army / RAF / RN), two-thirds were Irish (admittedly, some of the civilians were Spanish, Australian or British).

From http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Status_Summary.html
Status_Summary Count %
British Security 1114 32%
Civilian 1841 52%
Irish Security 11 0%
Loyalist Paramilitary 170 5%
Republican Paramilitary 396 11%
TOTAL 3532 100%

An Claidheamh wrote: »

1000 British soldiers dead.

En, no: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Status.html

British Army (BA) 502
British Army Territorial Army (TA) 7
ex-British Army (xBA) 5
Royal Air Force (RAF) 4
Royal Irish Regiment (RIR) 7
Royal Navy (RN) 2

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Your boys are lucky they didn't have to occupy 32 counties! Ha.

(a) There is no interest in occupying 32 counties. The British government even said it had no selfish interest in occupying 6, which is what brought about the 1994 ceasefire.

(b) Gloating about deaths is a Very Bad Thing™.

An Claidheamh · 17-10-2015 5:12pm

"(b) Gloating about deaths is a Very Bad Thing™

Unless their the deaths of deluded provos though Victor, glorifying British thuggery, because that seems to be allowed.

When it's the other way around, you get banned from boards, as happened earlier in this thread.

Regards.

An Claidheamh · 17-10-2015 5:16pm

Victor wrote: »

Yes, less than one third were British security (less than half of that third wereBritish Army / RAF / RN), two-thirds were Irish (admittedly, some of the civilians were Spanish, Australian or British).

From http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Status_Summary.html
Status_Summary Count %
British Security 1114 32%
Civilian 1841 52%
Irish Security 11 0%
Loyalist Paramilitary 170 5%
Republican Paramilitary 396 11%
TOTAL 3532 100%

En, no: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Status.html

British Army (BA) 502
British Army Territorial Army (TA) 7
ex-British Army (xBA) 5
Royal Air Force (RAF) 4
Royal Irish Regiment (RIR) 7
Royal Navy (RN) 2

Eh yes.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1482975/Troop-deaths-in-Ulster-higher-than-thought.html&ved=0CCgQFjADahUKEwjh-6C188nIAhXIuhQKHZ3DDcE&usg=AFQjCNHPEXmDIQ3oPmHjJRI87PW0lbzdRQ

Victor · 17-10-2015 7:31pm

So you are gloating about people committing suicide?

Actually, if you want to take into account British Army suicides and accidents, surely you should do so for the other players also? Will you be taking responsibility for the disproportionate spike in road traffic deaths in the 1970s also?

rockatansky · 17-10-2015 9:03pm

I wouldn't consider how Loughgall was handled by the British a mistake on their part. The IRA Volunteers were fairly heavily armed, arrest was never going to be an option. I don't believe the war would have come to a conclusion any sooner had it been handled any differently. I can't imagine the IRA would have seen much of an increase in levels of new recruits, not on the levels after Bloody Sunday or the Hunger strikes.

An Claidheamh · 17-10-2015 9:04pm

Victor wrote: »

So you are gloating about people committing suicide?

Actually, if you want to take into account British Army suicides and accidents, surely you should do so for the other players also? Will you be taking responsibility for the disproportionate spike in road traffic deaths in the 1970s also

Well apparently the Daily Telegraph credit those suicides to the PIRA.

They seem to want them remembered as the fallen. Not me. And gloating? Give me a break.

tac foley · 17-10-2015 9:08pm

An Claidheamh wrote: »

"(b) Gloating about deaths is a Very Bad Thing™

Unless their the deaths of deluded provos though Victor, glorifying British thuggery, because that seems to be allowed.

When it's the other way around, you get banned from boards, as happened earlier in this thread.

Regards.

Obviously I have my own personal viewpoint on this, and make no apologies for having it. I survived Northern Ireland and the element of the civilian population there trying to kill me because I was in uniform and therefore instantly identifiable. They, on the other hand, were indistinguishable from the rest of the population, and used that to their advantage.

Add to that that we always had the ROEs that stopped us from returning fire until we had identified the firer, and did not hide behind women and children the way that the opposition did.

I can see no point in me having any further input in this thread - those who support terrorism under the guise of nationalism will always have an argument to bolster their view. It's as well to remember that THIS website is based in the Republic of Ireland, where membership of the PIRA/IRA/NIRA or whatever they call themselves this week is punishable by a long prison sentence.

THAT's how much the Republic 'loves' the IRA.

tac

rockatansky · 17-10-2015 9:20pm

tac foley wrote: »

Obviously I have my own personal viewpoint on this, and make no apologies for having it. I survived Northern Ireland and the element of the civilian population there trying to kill me because I was in uniform and therefore instantly identifiable. They, on the other hand, were indistinguishable from the rest of the population, and used that to their advantage.

Such is the type of warfare. Similar to that used by those who fought during the war of Independence.

tac foley wrote: »

It's as well to remember that THIS website is based in the Republic of Ireland, where membership of the PIRA/IRA/NIRA or whatever they call themselves this week is punishable by a long prison sentence.

THAT's how much the Republic 'loves' the IRA.

The Republic never had love for any Irish person in the 6 counties, never mind the IRA.

tac foley wrote: »

I can see no point in me having any further input in this thread - those who support terrorism under the guise of nationalism will always have an argument to bolster their view.

Republicanism, not nationalism. There is a difference. 'Nationalist' is just a term that was given to any Irish Catholics in the 6 counties. Nationalism, always has and always will be, far more dangerous than Republicanism.

Jesus. · 17-10-2015 10:44pm

tac foley wrote: »

I survived Northern Ireland and the element of the civilian population there trying to kill me because I was in uniform and therefore instantly identifiable.

Don't be such a crybaby. You chose to don the British Army Uniform so stop whinging because you were shot at.

All I ever see from your posts is whining!

jonniebgood1 · 17-10-2015 11:03pm

Thread locked. To much nonsense, not enough history or facts with a few exceptions.
Moderator

Was the Loughgall ambush a mistake by the British?

Comments