Operation Armageddon, the planned 1969 Irish invasion of the North

Master and commander

I came across Operation Armageddon on wikipedia ther today and the general jist is that it would have been nothin short of military suicide for a tiny Irish army with practically no navy or air capability to take on the miight of a much larger and battle hardened force like the British Army.
The article states that there would have been a powerful counter attack within hours of the invasion and that it would be sufficient to reclaim any lost territory within hours or days at the most. The aim would be to reclaim territory and eliminate any further threat.
The author seems to stop short of explaining how far the British Armed forces would see neccesary to go to eliminate the threat.

-would it involve pushing the Irish Forces back as far as the border and leaving it at that,

-or after reaching the border, persuing any remaining Irish forces (fleeing back into the Republic) across the border and neutralising them so as to eliminate the possiblility of any further incurions.

- even going so far as to launch pre-emptive air strikes against Air Corp and Naval service installations and equipment in the republic to eliminate any possibility of further attack from them. and also strikes against Army bases across the country to neutralise material and destroy communications, command and control assets on site.

what people seem to overlook is the fact that the UK is a NATO member, so in launching attack, all NATO members are obliged to assist the UK in the event they are attacked, even by a friendly neighbour.

OS119

its been debated here ad nauseum, feel free to read some of the old threads.

amurph0

Master and commander wrote: »

what people seem to overlook is the fact that the UK is a NATO member, so in launching attack, all NATO members are obliged to assist the UK in the event they are attacked, even by a friendly neighbour.

Like during the Falklands war?

OS119

amurph0 wrote: »

Like during the Falklands war?

Article 5 only applies north of the Tropic of Cancer - 23 degrees north (an imaginary line that passes through mexico, north west Africa, Saudi Arabia, India and the southern-most tip of China) - it was deliberately framed so as not to mean that all the weird and wonderful colonies/overseas dependancies/possessions were tinderboxes for World War 3. it also has a rather nebulous 'Europe and North America' area of operations.

nebulous because Europe is an ill-defined concept - Europes borders are in the eye of the beholder, some people think Europe stops at the Polish border, others think Georgia is in Europe...

snafuk35

This passage shows that the Republic of Ireland would have got their backsides handed to them by the British military if it came to a shooting war.

The plan ignored the incompatibility of forces. Britain was a member of NATO, while the Irish Defence Forces were much smaller than the British Armed Forces, had inferior arms and transportation in comparison to British forces, and had only minimal Air and Naval capabilities. The Defence Forces were said to train for "World War II operations using World War I weapons", such as the Lee-Enfield rifle,[8] although most Irish soldiers were armed with FN FAL 7.62 automatic rifles. The Irish Army also had some motorized transport, and the Irish Army Cavalry Corps generally had a low number of light armored vehicles. The Irish Air Corps had approximately half a dozen serviceable de Havilland Vampire jets, and the Irish Army Artillery Corps had only heavy mortars and some WWII-era howitzers. By contrast, British forces in Northern Ireland consisted of almost 3,000 heavily armed soldiers of the 2nd Queens Regiment, the Royal Regiment of Wales, and the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire. These troops had considerable experience in training and conventional large-scale combat tactics, and many had returned from guarding NATO's Northern Flank. They were equipped with Humber Pig and Saracen armored personnel carriers. Royal Air Force F-4 Phantom and Sea Harrier jets were also stationed at airbases close to Northern Irish airspace. These forces would have been capable of dealing decisively with any Irish military incursion into the area. The mismatch was reflected in the choice of title. According to security analyst Tom Clonan, "irrespective of the element of surprise, the Irish Army would have been subject to a massive British counterattack - probably within hours of their initial incursion. Irish casualties would have been high as the British would have sought to swiftly and indiscriminately end the Republic's unilateral military intervention".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Armageddon

After an inevitable defeat I think the British might have taken the opportunity to capture a strip of territory south of the border to serve as a buffer zone in which their forces would have been posted.

To drive their point home the British would have blockaded our ports, perhaps captured Dublin port using the Royal Marines or sunk the Irish Navy at Haulbowline.

If there were continued hostilities and the Irish government refused to surrender a British column would probably have captured Dundalk, then Drogheda and then moved on Dublin. If need be another column might have captured Athlone before moving on Cork and Waterford. A third might have captured Sligo and then headed on to Galway, taking out any Irish forces in their path.
Ireland's government buildings are surrounded on three sides by St. Stephen's Green, Merrion Square and Trinity College which would be ideal landing zones for helicopters carrying British troops. They could have seized or eliminated the Taoiseach and the Cabinet in one fell swoop supported by naval vessels in Dublin Bay and fighters circling the city.

Airstrikes on every major Irish base would have rendered the Irish conventional military useless and bombing of ESB power stations would have left the country in the dark. With their point made the British might have withdrew, secured the bufferzone and left Ireland to rot by shutting us out of the EEC.

The British would have had carte blanche to deal with the IRA as they pleased.

yubabill1

My personal theory (as opposed to hypothesis- I have had some off-record corroboration) is that the Irish Govt. negotiated to "piggy-back" onto the UK application to join the then EEC as a sweetener for their co-operation. Remember, De Gaulle had consistently objected to Ireland joining, presumably because of our WWII stance.
The UK would have been highly embarrassed if the UN stepped in to control a regional scrap and you must remember, Suez was still really fresh in their minds back then.

Win-win, except for Capt. Kelly and the other Arms Trial accused, of course.

Dogwatch

De Gaulle objected to the UK joining not Ireland!!!!!

yubabill1

Even if I concede that(too early in the morning for me to research), it doesn't invalidate my argument.

Dogwatch

In both threads you are fishing at best. You are very short on facts and very long on rhetoric.
Do some proper research( when you are awake) and then come back with reasoned arguments based on facts.

yubabill1

Facts are only two or three clicks away on the net.
Look it up yourself.
Make up your own mind.
I took part in debates around the time of the first ceasefire as an interested observer and have a good knowledge of the facts, thank you.

Dogwatch

yubabill1 wrote: »

Facts are only two or three clicks away on the net.
Look it up yourself.
Make up your own mind.
I took part in debates around the time of the first ceasefire as an interested observer and have a good knowledge of the facts, thank you.

In other words you are pretending to be something you are not.
IF you had the facts you would produce them here to back up your claims.

So in very simple language, produce the goods or go away.:p:p

yubabill1

You are demanding facts in a thread where people have been speculating on what would have happened if Ireland had done something different in the past.
You are out of your depth.
I presented my personal theory on a part of the op.
I do not see evidence demanded from other posters in this thread.
Would you demand corroboration on such a dicey subject if my opinion agreed with yours?
You know this theory of mine would require some considerable resources to prove. However, that did not deter other posters from making their own postulates.

the_syco

snafuk35 wrote: »

The British would have had carte blanche to deal with the IRA as they pleased.

I'd wonder what the IRA's response to London would have been?

yubabill1 wrote: »

Look it up yourself.

If this is so, why did you get the facts of your argument wrong?

yubabill1 wrote: »

You are demanding facts in a thread

That you resurrected.

yubabill1

Hi thesyko
Ok I can't easily defend the de Gaulle claim, think I may have heard that opinion on the radio.

Fair cop.

I did apply unsuccessfully to a foundation to research this further in the last couple of years.

666irishguy

Our men would not have stood a chance against the RAF. We would have wasted a lot of lives and probably had a lot of vital infrastructure like power plants bombed into oblivion. They would probably have pushed us or flushed us out back to our own border in a few days and then a peace treaty would have been signed. We'd still be singing songs glorifying such a ridiculous campaign today. Our best hope for any kind of "operation" in Northern Ireland would have been to infiltrate weapons and instructors to places like Derry or train them inside our own borders and send them back in and establish a sort of fifth column before an operation like Armageddon began. That in itself would be nigh on impossible to hide seeing as such a force would be riddled with spies. (that rhymes).

thebigfella1

All would have depended on getting to the towns of Derry and Newry without being hammered. With this if supplies could have been brought and the support of the population a FIBUA/Guerilla battle could have been fought which had propensity for 1/2 weeks max(cant carpet bomb UK towns), but weapons and supplies could have been stored for IRA in long term.

Aim was never victory but to highlight the situation enough to spark international involvment via the UN.

Utter defeat in a military sense but political gain in the long run.

Who knows what would have happened in the following 30 years.

Morpheus

Return to the stone age for the republic most likely. invasion and occupation for definite. 30 years of war and insurgency for Ireland and the uk

yubabill1

Morpheus wrote: »

Return to the stone age for the republic most likely. invasion and occupation for definite. 30 years of war and insurgency for Ireland and the uk

Very like what actually happened! :pac:

thebigfella1

Brits wouldn have invaded past dundalk / letterkenny token occupation and withdrawal after UN calls. They would of hammered Irish military on the border to prove a point.

Destabilisation of whole border area.

tac foley

Rule #1 - Do not invade another country without having 3:1 ground superiority.

Rule #2 - Do not invade another country without having 3:1 or better air superiority.

Rule #3 - If neither of the above two rules apply, get your military ready for a serious ass-whooping when the invadees get their act together about an hour after you started your invasion.

Rule #4 - Have some really good excuses why the PDF has, to all intents and purposes, ceased to exist in a recognisable form, except as a series of smoking holes where their second echelon/follow-on forces were once located.

Question - Just what do you imagine that the RAF would be doing to the rest of the Republic while the boyos on the ground are fighting the sixteen thousand British troops at that moment based in Northern Ireland?

Invading an albeit remote-from-centre part of a UK that has been at war, somewhere, non-stop since September 1939? You have to remember that in 1982 the UK went 8000 miles and suffered immense losses in men and matériel to regain a few windswept and treeless acres. All hypothetical responses to an almost unthinkable scenario.

tac

knucklehead6

There was a 'What if' style of article written around the time the tv show "What if Lynch had invaded" was broadcast. I can't remember too much of it but basically 30 odd years down the line it hypothesised that Gerry Adams was leader of a one party state, the most only type car available was a trabant, links with communist countries such as Cuba and the USSR were about the only trading Ireland did.

I found this as well.
http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Exercise_Armageddon

thebigfella1

tac foley wrote: »

Rule #1 - Do not invade another country without having 3:1 ground superiority.

Rule #2 - Do not invade another country without having 3:1 or better air superiority.

Rule #3 - If neither of the above two rules apply, get your military ready for a serious ass-whooping when the invadees get their act together about an hour after you started your invasion.

Rule #4 - Have some really good excuses why the PDF has, to all intents and purposes, ceased to exist in a recognisable form, except as a series of smoking holes where their second echelon/follow-on forces were once located.

Question - Just what do you imagine that the RAF would be doing to the rest of the Republic while the boyos on the ground are fighting the sixteen thousand British troops at that moment based in Northern Ireland?

Invading an albeit remote-from-centre part of a UK that has been at war, somewhere, non-stop since September 1939? You have to remember that in 1982 the UK went 8000 miles and suffered immense losses in men and matériel to regain a few windswept and treeless acres. All hypothetical responses to an almost unthinkable scenario.

tac

I disagree the 3:1 theory is outdated at present, you hit nail on the head with air superiority. There will always be boots on the ground but air power is the key to all modern conflicts with exception of neither side having any.

ROEs would be the key factor, would it be open warfare?? more likely a militray zone similar to the falklands, E.g. 50km inside borders of "Free state".

Nobody can argue anything other than full militray defeat for us but would it bring UN involvement which was a key aim of the Irish policy during the troubles.? and if so could it be judged a political if not military success in the long run.

Red Nissan

Most likely the detachment would be called a renegade group, after all The Real Taoiseach at the time had not sanctioned the troop movements.

The groups would probably have been surrounded and besieged. The plan was to get the UN in before the massive British reinforcements arrived.

Timing was the key, the time had already passed when the troops were Oscar Mike.

tac foley

thebigfella1 wrote: »

I disagree the 3:1 theory is outdated at present, you hit nail on the head with air superiority. There will always be boots on the ground but air power is the key to all modern conflicts with exception of neither side having any.

ROEs would be the key factor, would it be open warfare?? more likely a militray zone similar to the falklands, E.g. 50km inside borders of "Free state".

Nobody can argue anything other than full militray defeat for us but would it bring UN involvement which was a key aim of the Irish policy during the troubles.? and if so could it be judged a political if not military success in the long run.

A 'great success', indeed, with an eventual 'peace park' built on the rubble of Dublin. It would have been a total catastrophy for Ireland and the Irish people.

Remember that attacking a one member of NATO is liable to bring a response from ALL of NATO.

The end result of this ill-advised operation really is unthinkable.

tac

thebigfella1

tac foley wrote: »

A 'great success', indeed, with an eventual 'peace park' built on the rubble of Dublin. It would have been a total catastrophy for Ireland and the Irish people.

Remember that attacking a one member of NATO is liable to bring a response from ALL of NATO.

The end result of this ill-advised operation really is unthinkable.

tac

there would be no NATO involvment for the simple reason, the british armed forces wouldn't have needed it. Did you see leopard tanks being sent from berlin to help destroy Ireland?

Dublin would not have been touched either. The british forces would have wiped out the border units in a show of force and there would have been a ceasefire within 48 hours.

There was sympathy in the american Govt for the catholic civil rights movment, which would have ensured the above.

I'm glad it didnt happen but there were positive possible outcomes, of course we can never know for certain what would have happened but the scenairos being put out on these board cannot be dismissed as impossible cause we simply do not know. It is enjoyable to debate.

Irelands history is full of great sacrificies which had little chance of success but yet the sacrifice led to a greater goal.

Jawgap

thebigfella1 wrote: »

Irelands history is full of great sacrificies which had little chance of success but yet the sacrifice led to a greater goal.

Except a lot of those valiant sacrifices were laid down against an imperial force in the context of rising ideas of the concept of replublicanism (in the international sense) and anti-colonialism.

In this situation, Ireland, as a sovereign state, would have perpetrated aggression against another sovereign state at a time when there were diplomatic and international institutional solutions available to it.

The country would have become a pariah state for a generation and been excluded from the EEC / EU for all that time - think Northern Cyprus without the sunshine.

As for the point about NATO - members are required to 'assist' other members. It doesn't automatically require that the assistance be of a military nature, they could just have imposed sanctions, expelled ambassadors etc.

tac foley

Jawgap wrote: »

As for the point about NATO - members are required to 'assist' other members. It doesn't automatically require that the assistance be of a military nature, they could just have imposed sanctions, expelled ambassadors etc.

Hence my comment - 'Remember that attacking a one member of NATO is liable to bring a response from ALL of NATO.'

Please show me where I said that the response would be military.

tac

Jawgap

tac foley wrote: »

Hence my comment - 'Remember that attacking a one member of NATO is liable to bring a response from ALL of NATO.'

Please show me where I said that the response would be military.

tac

Please show me where I said I was responding to you......

I was responding to @thebigfella1, that's why I included the quote from him.

thebigfella1

Jawgap wrote: »

Except a lot of those valiant sacrifices were laid down against an imperial force in the context of rising ideas of the concept of replublicanism (in the international sense) and anti-colonialism.

In this situation, Ireland, as a sovereign state, would have perpetrated aggression against another sovereign state at a time when there were diplomatic and international institutional solutions available to it.

The country would have become a pariah state for a generation and been excluded from the EEC / EU for all that time - think Northern Cyprus without the sunshine.

As for the point about NATO - members are required to 'assist' other members. It doesn't automatically require that the assistance be of a military nature, they could just have imposed sanctions, expelled ambassadors etc.

I agree with you on the pariah state. I know there would be an initial downfall but I am saying that in the long run there may have been benifits (opinion not fact, as are all our points as it didnt happen).

I can see no other NATO support than a dressing down to be honest. Diplomats called in dressed down told to cop on and sort it out. Numerous NATO states were actually on the Irish side of thinking e.g. Spain.

In relation to having "other institions" available to us I dont agree. I believe this was only even considered because the UN could do nothing because it cannot involve itself in members states internal conflicts without consent and the british as a member of the SC was never going to give it.

I completly understand the initial response(1-5years) would be to the deathrement of the country.

Does anyone think the UN or EU should/could have pushed harder during the troubles for a solution??

thebigfella1

And before Tac asks me to explain how spain wanted us to invade the North I was speaking more in a Civil Rights and Support sort of way not militraily Sorry

Jawgap

It's a lot of 'what-iffery' but......

I think it's one thing to suggest that other countries' governments or populations were sympathetically disposed towards the civil rights movement and another to suggest they were on the 'Irish' side - I also think that as the aggressor, the country would have found any support quickly evaporating, if defence forces violated the territory of another sovereign state.

I'd also suggest that the British would be astute enough not to over-reach, knowing full well they would contain any incursion and obliterate it at will in a matter of hours. As such, they wouldn't need to undertake any operations south of the border and could retain the moral high ground by simply acting within the borders of their own country - it's a bit like the quote about Ali that suggests he was a great boxer because of the punches he didn't throw!

People also always over-estimate the influence of Ireland in the US - 1969 was the Nixon / Kissinger era. The State Department has always had a tradition of Anglophilia and Nixon was very focused on foreign policy. He appointed Rogers as his Secretary of State to simply administer the State Department while he and Kissinger made all the big decisions - can anyone honestly see Tricky Dicky coming to the Paddies' rescue?

Finally, our time in the wilderness would have been as long as the British wanted it to be. If they had joined the EEC/EU ahead of us then they would have always had a veto on when we joined, just like they would have always had the whip hand on the Security Council in the UN.

But on the question of whether the EU or UN should have pushed harder, maybe they did behind the scenes, but whether you like it or not it was an internal matter in the UK so I'm not sure they should have had a role, unless they're going to start getting involved in that type of dispute in a whole lot of other countries.

tac foley

thebigfella1 wrote: »

And before Tac asks me to explain how spain wanted us to invade the North I was speaking more in a Civil Rights and Support sort of way not militraily Sorry

Ah, I guess I'll let you off the hook, seeing as how I had a great shoot this morning using somebody else's VERY expensive ammunition in a HUGELY expensive vintage double rifle.

However, it seems pretty ironic [to me, at any rate] that Spain, at that time still a military dictatorship, should support any form of civil rights in any other country.

tac

thebigfella1

Jawgap wrote: »

It's a lot of 'what-iffery' but......

I think it's one thing to suggest that other countries' governments or populations were sympathetically disposed towards the civil rights movement and another to suggest they were on the 'Irish' side - I also think that as the aggressor, the country would have found any support quickly evaporating, if defence forces violated the territory of another sovereign state.

I'd also suggest that the British would be astute enough not to over-reach, knowing full well they would contain any incursion and obliterate it at will in a matter of hours. As such, they wouldn't need to undertake any operations south of the border and could retain the moral high ground by simply acting within the borders of their own country - it's a bit like the quote about Ali that suggests he was a great boxer because of the punches he didn't throw!

People also always over-estimate the influence of Ireland in the US - 1969 was the Nixon / Kissinger era. The State Department has always had a tradition of Anglophilia and Nixon was very focused on foreign policy. He appointed Rogers as his Secretary of State to simply administer the State Department while he and Kissinger made all the big decisions - can anyone honestly see Tricky Dicky coming to the Paddies' rescue?

Finally, our time in the wilderness would have been as long as the British wanted it to be. If they had joined the EEC/EU ahead of us then they would have always had a veto on when we joined, just like they would have always had the whip hand on the Security Council in the UN.

But on the question of whether the EU or UN should have pushed harder, maybe they did behind the scenes, but whether you like it or not it was an internal matter in the UK so I'm not sure they should have had a role, unless they're going to start getting involved in that type of dispute in a whole lot of other countries.

I said that it was a sypathic support and not support for mil involvement.

I also made that point some days ago that it would be very limited assualt and a "exculsion zone" would have been most likely.

There was still a lot of left overs from JFK administation in positions of influence in US at the time. I wouldnt expect rescue more of a restraining hand on our neibhours .

The brits would have been happy with a five year "lesson" for us, a strong trading partner, happy enough for us in EC with a probable change in Irish govt. But I do agree they would hold the power, as I said concerning UN involvement. And I also said that it is an "internal" matter therefore the point of the att would be to make it external conflict.

I have pretty much wrote most of what you did in previous posts but I do admit I can get slighty clouded by a "patriotic assessment" sometimes.

An I assume spains "intrest" was more from a view of gilbralta than any major concern for us, but support none the less.

What were you firing tac?? lovely morning for it.

Another spanner in the mix for the crack. If you were a nationalist living in newry/derry would you have wanted the Att?? Or if not what support would you want from Irish Govt

tac foley

thebigfella1 wrote: »

What were you firing tac?? lovely morning for it.

With apologies for the thread drift - you can see what I was shooting on Youtube later this evening - tac's guns - .450 double rifle.

I was also shooting my own 1898 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser and a couple of .22 target rifles as well.

tac

Neutronale

Jawgap wrote: »

It's a lot of 'what-iffery' but......

I think it's one thing to suggest that other countries' governments or populations were sympathetically disposed towards the civil rights movement and another to suggest they were on the 'Irish' side - I also think that as the aggressor, the country would have found any support quickly evaporating, if defence forces violated the territory of another sovereign state.

I'd also suggest that the British would be astute enough not to over-reach, knowing full well they would contain any incursion and obliterate it at will in a matter of hours. As such, they wouldn't need to undertake any operations south of the border and could retain the moral high ground by simply acting within the borders of their own country - it's a bit like the quote about Ali that suggests he was a great boxer because of the punches he didn't throw!

People also always over-estimate the influence of Ireland in the US - 1969 was the Nixon / Kissinger era. The State Department has always had a tradition of Anglophilia and Nixon was very focused on foreign policy. He appointed Rogers as his Secretary of State to simply administer the State Department while he and Kissinger made all the big decisions - can anyone honestly see Tricky Dicky coming to the Paddies' rescue?

Finally, our time in the wilderness would have been as long as the British wanted it to be. If they had joined the EEC/EU ahead of us then they would have always had a veto on when we joined, just like they would have always had the whip hand on the Security Council in the UN.

But on the question of whether the EU or UN should have pushed harder, maybe they did behind the scenes, but whether you like it or not it was an internal matter in the UK so I'm not sure they should have had a role, unless they're going to start getting involved in that type of dispute in a whole lot of other countries.

They didnt obliterate the IRA in thirty years and the point I have made about this is that the best approach the RoI forces could have made would have been to link up with the anti-British forces north of the border.

The best result they could have aimed for would have been to give the RUC/B-Specials a bloody nose using heavy weaponry the unionist forces didnt posses. Political aims would have been to free Derry and perhaps Newry of British forces (mainly RUC/B-Ss).

Jawgap

Neutronale wrote: »

They didnt obliterate the IRA in thirty years and the point I have made about this is that the best approach the RoI forces could have made would have been to link up with the anti-British forces north of the border.

The best result they could have aimed for would have been to give the RUC/B-Specials a bloody nose using heavy weaponry the unionist forces didnt posses. Political aims would have been to free Derry and perhaps Newry of British forces (mainly RUC/B-Ss).

Care to elaborate further?

How would a column of Irish troops been able to cross the border, sustain itself, and link up with anything in the face of a force equipped with fast jets and helicopters?

I'd imagine any kind of concentration would have attracted immediate attack from the air.

It's also arguable that the border, once crossed, would have offered no protection in a retreat - having violated UK sovereignty it's quite possible the politicians at the time might have felt justified in ordering any retreating Irish force to be harried all the way back to Dublin to prevent any further incursions.

The reason the IRA survived is because they fought a guerrilla style action - they knew enough to know that if they did what you are suggesting (a link up in force) - that would have meant immediate and probably total destruction.

Neutronale

Jawgap wrote: »

Care to elaborate further?

How would a column of Irish troops been able to cross the border, sustain itself, and link up with anything in the face of a force equipped with fast jets and helicopters?

I'd imagine any kind of concentration would have attracted immediate attack from the air.

It's also arguable that the border, once crossed, would have offered no protection in a retreat - having violated UK sovereignty it's quite possible the politicians at the time might have felt justified in ordering any retreating Irish force to be harried all the way back to Dublin to prevent any further incursions.

The reason the IRA survived is because they fought a guerrilla style action - they knew enough to know that if they did what you are suggesting (a link up in force) - that would have meant immediate and probably total destruction.

Several IRA leaders went to Dublin politicians to beg for arms. The army were ordered to hand over a consignment of arms to enable Catholics to defend against combined Loyalist/RUC forces.

The army could have been ordered to link up with nationalist forces and provide small units to combat loyalist incursions. Weapons like CG 84mmm anti-tank RCC, small and medium mortars and even armoured cars where necessary could have been used sparingly and strategically to attack RUC/Loyalists and force them from nationalist areas and barracks etc.

I also suggested sniper teams using Barrett L50 type weapons/sniping rifles could have been highly affective.

Units and tactics like these would have had success over many months and years, would have greatly increased British casualties (and Irish casualties but the point is to make the British public and the world intervene and limit British intervention/increase Dublin government stake in any solution).

The notion of sending uniformed platoons walking across the border as suggested by Clonan is nonsense, no military officer worth a damn would do such a thing.

An operation like this would have been covered by plausible deniability and would have had the political strategy of attempting to get the UN to commit to intervene and prevent (politically) British forces from massing and intervening.

Jawgap

Seriously?

.....and just how would these guys have been kept supplied, fed and watered? How would they have evacuated casualties? How would they receive orders? Under whose direct command would they have operated on a day-to-day basis?

You'd have "plausible deniability" :rolleyes: alright........right up until the first one was caught and questioned.

And I doubt as a permanent member of the UN Security Council the UK would have done anything except veto any proposal for a UN mandated force to be deployed on its sovereign territory.

Neutronale

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously?

.....and just how would these guys have been kept supplied, fed and watered? How would they have evacuated casualties? How would they receive orders? Under whose direct command would they have operated on a day-to-day basis?

You'd have "plausible deniability" :rolleyes: alright........right up until the first one was caught and questioned.

And I doubt as a permanent member of the UN Security Council the UK would have done anything except veto any proposal for a UN mandated force to be deployed on its sovereign territory.

Well, we are talking about how Irish army units would have operated in the event of a government decision to intervene.

My main point is that Clonans 'invasion' was not in any way a plausible interpretation of what an Irish military action would have been. It would have had to link up with local resistance forces and employed small undercover units. It would be a series of coordinated surprise attacks to take-over/ destroy RUC/BA barracks and would then withdraw before BA forces could react.

They would have been supplied and fed by the local populace and from across the border, a mere handful of miles away. Even small units (2 and 4 man) could be withdrawn and replaced.

These actions were contemplated at a time before the British gov had acted and before substantial BA forces were deployed.

Jawgap

Neutronale wrote: »

Well, we are talking about how Irish army units would have operated in the event of a government decision to intervene.

My main point is that Clonans 'invasion' was not in any way a plausible interpretation of what an Irish military action would have been. It would have had to link up with local resistance forces and employed small undercover units. It would be a series of coordinated surprise attacks to take-over/ destroy RUC/BA barracks and would then withdraw before BA forces could react.

They would have been supplied and fed by the local populace and from across the border, a mere handful of miles away. Even small units (2 and 4 man) could be withdrawn and replaced.

These actions were contemplated at a time before the British gov had acted and before substantial BA forces were deployed.

I'll freely admit to knowing feck all about on the ground infantry operations but even I know that the Irish Army at the time lacked the capacity to do what you are suggesting.

I wide open to correction but I don't think the soldiers were trained to conduct the type of small unit, covert operations you're suggesting.

Also, as I said earlier, once an incursion had been detected what would stop the British forces from reacting by moving across the border to establish a 'security zone' - they would no doubt have felt justified given they would not have been the aggressor?

by the way - at the time all this was happening the GOC of Northern Command in Britain was General Walker who had only three years previously brought the Indonesia Confrontation (Operation Claret) to a successful conclusion (unless you were Indonesian) - there's more than a few parallels between that conflict and the conflict that a hypothetical Exercise Aramgeddon would have brought about.

If the British decided to take their 'aggressive defence' winning formula from Indonesia and apply it here there's no reason to believe it wouldn't have been as successful, only it wouldn't have taken years, only weeks.

....and in terms of the UN, one of the great triumphs of Claret was the masterly way in which the political aspects of it were handled.

tac foley

In 1982, the British Army, Navy, RAF and Royal Marines travelled 8000 miles, lost around 255 members of the military and many ships, mostly RN, to get back a few hundred square miles of windswept tree-less bugger-all. That, if you have forgotten, involved the invasion of occupied territories against a dug-in enemy who had a marked superiority in numbers and equipment, and the ability to call on fast jet FGA whenever they felt like it. Getting the Falkands back cost the British £2.777 Billion then - now at least £8.3 Billion in present-day funds.

The enemy, a thoroughly modern-equipped force with many military luxuries not afforded to the British - night-sights on Browning .50cal HMGs and so on - got their arses comprehensively handed to them, and lost 649 known dead in the process.

What on earth do you imagine that the British response would have been to an invasion by a very near-neighbour with whom there had been many years of peaceful and profitable co-existence? A neighbour with many Irish citizens in its Armed Forces? Was there not a Treaty of Friendship and mutual co-operation in trade and industry between the two countries? Please to remember the comment made by a senior Japanese naval commander after a similarly treacherous course of action was taken at Pearl Harbour - 'I fear that we have simply awakened a sleeping giant'.

Without the UK to provide a home and workplace for many Irish nationals, a ready and profitable market for Irish goods of all kinds, and a country dependant on British money to keep it upright, where do you imagine that the Republic would have been in the eyes of the rest of the world?

I think that you may well have seen the end of Ireland as we knew it, maybe by a new temporary border drawn straight across Ireland from one side to the other at the inevitable cease-fire line, from Dublin to Galway City. The British Army in Northern Ireland, at one time almost 20,000 strong, would have been reinforced by a slight draw-down from Germany, whilst still in a position to fulfil its NATO commitments, and the Irish Army would only exist in a book of memories. The present population of the Republic would probably STILL be contributing to the reparation.

Let's see some element of realism entering this preposterous scenario, Gentlemen.

tac

Neutronale

Jawgap wrote: »

I'll freely admit to knowing feck all about on the ground infantry operations but even I know that the Irish Army at the time lacked the capacity to do what you are suggesting.

I wide open to correction but I don't think the soldiers were trained to conduct the type of small unit, covert operations you're suggesting.

Also, as I said earlier, once an incursion had been detected what would stop the British forces from reacting by moving across the border to establish a 'security zone' - they would no doubt have felt justified given they would not have been the aggressor?

by the way - at the time all this was happening the GOC of Northern Command in Britain was General Walker who had only three years previously brought the Indonesia Confrontation (Operation Claret) to a successful conclusion (unless you were Indonesian) - there's more than a few parallels between that conflict and the conflict that a hypothetical Exercise Aramgeddon would have brought about.

If the British decided to take their 'aggressive defence' winning formula from Indonesia and apply it here there's no reason to believe it wouldn't have been as successful, only it wouldn't have taken years, only weeks.

....and in terms of the UN, one of the great triumphs of Claret was the masterly way in which the political aspects of it were handled.

You should read about the Battle of Jadotville, in the Congo c1961, where Irish troops took on much larger forces and killed and wounded a great number of them. I believe Irish troops could have carried out such operations successfully.

The British could get away with things in Indonesia that they wouldnt in a European country.

Neutronale

tac foley wrote: »

In 1982, the British Army, Navy, RAF and Royal Marines travelled 8000 miles, lost around 255 members of the military and many ships, mostly RN, to get back a few hundred square miles of windswept tree-less bugger-all. That, if you have forgotten, involved the invasion of occupied territories against a dug-in enemy who had a marked superiority in numbers and equipment, and the ability to call on fast jet FGA whenever they felt like it. Getting the Falkands back cost the British £2.777 Billion then - now at least £8.3 Billion in present-day funds.

The enemy got their arses comprehensively handed to them, and lost 649 known dead in the process.

What on earth do you imagine that the British response would have been to an invasion by a very near-neighbour with whom there had been many years of peaceful and profitable co-existence? A neighbour with many Irish citizens in its Armed Forces? Was there not a Treaty of Friendship and mutual co-operation in trade and industry between the two countries? Please to remember the comment made by a senior Japanese naval commander after a similarly treacherous course of action was taken at Pearl Harbour - 'I fear that we have simply awakened a sleeping giant'.

Without the UK to provide a home and workplace for many Irish nationals, a ready and profitable market for Irish goods of all kinds, and a country dependant on British money to keep it upright, where do you imagine that the Republic would have been in the eyes of the rest of the world?

I think that you may well have seen the end of Ireland as we knew it, maybe by a new temporary border drawn straight across Ireland from one side to the other at the inevitable cease-fire line, from Dublin to Galway City. The British Army in Northern Ireland, at one time almost 20,000 strong, would have been reinforced by a slight draw-down from Germany, whilst still in a position to fulfil its NATO commitments, and the Irish Army would only exist in a book of memories. The present population of the Republic would probably STILL be contributing to the reparation.

Let's see some element of realism entering this preposterous scenario, Gentlemen.

tac

You dont seem to have read anything I've written, and you are forgetting we are discussing a program made about a hypothetical Irish army intervention operation c1969.

I am merely making the point that Clonans 'invasion' was nonsensical and there were other options which could have been much more effective.

Jawgap

Neutronale wrote: »

You should read about the Battle of Jadotville, in the Congo c1961, where Irish troops took on much larger forces and killed and wounded a great number of them. I believe Irish troops could have carried out such operations successfully.

The British could get away with things in Indonesia that they wouldnt in a European country.

I'm quite aware of the battle around Jadotville and the excellent nature of the Irish soldiery displayed there, and to be clear I'm not in any way doubting the personal resolve and resourcefulness of the Irish troops in the Army then - I don't doubt, if ordered North, they would have hesitated to make the best of a pretty rotten hand. In fact, I'd argue that if it wasn't for the assertiveness and professionalism of the Irish Army's senior commanders then the foolhardy adventure would likely have been ordered by the politicians

But you might want to reflect on the fact that at Jadotville the Irish Army faced down a numerically superior force, but one that was largely cobbled together, and lacked the training, organisation, cohesion and support that a British force fighting on it's own terms would have enjoyed.

Also, while the opposition forces in Jadotville had the support of a single Magister, the British could (would?) have used F4 Phantoms and perhaps been minded to try out their new Harriers which had just entered into service. One would like to think they'd at least had the courtesy not to re-arm the Vulcans with conventional bombs for a trip across the Irish Sea;)

The opposition in Jadotville also lacked the ability to park something large and grey off the east coast to blockade Dublin Port, if they were minded to.

Finally, on this point, I think you'll find plenty of people who'll argue that the British translated much of the experience gained from their withdrawal from Empire and east of Suez into Northern Ireland and 'got away' with it in Europe- Aden and 'keenie meenie' operations are a good example of something developed abroad but used to pretty good effect here.

Neutronale wrote: »

You dont seem to have read anything I've written, and you are forgetting we are discussing a program made about a hypothetical Irish army intervention operation c1969.

I am merely making the point that Clonans 'invasion' was nonsensical and there were other options which could have been much more effective.

I think you are missing the point, there were no circumstances - other than a patrol making a navigation error - where a group of armed Irish soldiers could have crossed the border with the intent of remaining there for a period, that would not have ended pretty tragically for this country.

I agree Clonan's 'invasion' is nonsensical but I suspect it was reported on in a way to make it sound more dramatic than it actually was.

tac foley

Jawgap wrote: »

One would like to think they'd at least had the courtesy not to re-arm the Vulcans with conventional bombs for a trip across the Irish Sea - Point #1.

The opposition in Jadotville also lacked the ability to park something large and grey off the east coast to blockade Dublin Port, if they were minded to - Point #2

#1. That is one of the points I made in my post - bombed-up aircraft, in the air awaiting orders, used as a threat. And please don't underestimate the will of the British government of the day to drop ordnance on the Republic of Ireland. Few things in life get up people's collective noses more than treacherous military action on the part of a so-called 'friendly nation'.

#2. The 'large and grey' somethings that might have been parked off the coast at that time had extremely large guns, with ranges that far exceeded the western limits of Dublin and any other coastal town or city.

tac

Jawgap

tac foley wrote: »

#1. That is one of the points I made in my post - bombed-up aircraft, in the air awaiting orders, used as a threat. And please don't underestimate the will of the British government of the day to drop ordnance on the Republic of Ireland. Few things in life get up people's collective noses more than treacherous military action on the part of a so-called 'friendly nation'.

#2. The 'large and grey' somethings that might have been parked off the coast at that time had extremely large guns, with ranges that far exceeded the western limits of Dublin and any other coastal town or city.

tac

#1 - now that just wouldn't be cricket!

I do agree that even Clonan hugely underestimated the resolve and the ability of the UK armed forces to project their power. He wrote from his perspective as a former infantry officer (fair enough) but seems to have largely overlooked the then existing UK naval and strategic air forces, as well as the wider prevailing political context in the UK and internationally.

In the case of the Vulcan - a round trip from Waddington was only just over 400nm. It wouldn't even need to drop anything - just fly over Dublin with it's weapons bay open!

#2 - I was thinking more of an aircraft carrier - Ark Royal or Eagle steaming on the horizon off the east coast with both Buccaneers and Phantoms at the ready.

I still think the genuine heroes of the whole episode were the Chief of Staff (Gen McEoin?) and his planners who had the strength of character to be honest in their assessments. It's worrying to think what might have happened if someone like Kevin Boland had been Taoiseach.

tac foley

Post #5 sums it all up.

The whole 'what-if' thing is not even faintly amusing - many would have died, mostly Irishmen. To lose a thousand soldiers as casualties out of an Army of 200,000 is an acceptable loss rate. To lose a thousand Irish soldiers out of an Army of 20,000 would have been nothing less than a national tragedy.

http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/no-longer-standing-idly-by-irish-army-contingency-plans-1969-70/

and this -

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/if-the-irish-army-had-entered-the-north-in-1969/

For those of you out there with dreams of glory - dream on.

Téann an cosán na glóire ach amháin go dtí an uaigh.

Thankfully, good sense and a heightened element of self-preservation prevailed over wishful thinking.

tac, in Lisburn in 1969.

tac

neilled

Jawgap wrote: »

#1 - now that just wouldn't be cricket!

I do agree that even Clonan hugely underestimated the resolve and the ability of the UK armed forces to project their power. He wrote from his perspective as a former infantry officer (fair enough) but seems to have largely overlooked the then existing UK naval and strategic air forces, as well as the wider prevailing political context in the UK and internationally.

In the case of the Vulcan - a round trip from Waddington was only just over 400nm. It wouldn't even need to drop anything - just fly over Dublin with it's weapons bay open!

#2 - I was thinking more of an aircraft carrier - Ark Royal or Eagle steaming on the horizon off the east coast with both Buccaneers and Phantoms at the ready.

I still think the genuine heroes of the whole episode were the Chief of Staff (Gen McEoin?) and his planners who had the strength of character to be honest in their assessments. It's worrying to think what might have happened if someone like Kevin Boland had been Taoiseach.

For the record, Clonan is a retired offier from the Artillery Corps, not the Infantry. If anything Infantry tend to be more aware of the power of naval and air forces seeing that they will be most likely the ones on the recieving end of high explosive fired or dropped from a great distance away and be able to do nothing about it!

meathstevie

Personaly speaking I find it even hard to believe that an allegedly sane government instructed the top brass in the Irish Defence Forces to even examine the possibility of such an operation that could only end in swift failure.

For starters there was never any hope of success from a military point of view and if you think that sectarian violence was bad in those days one can only imagine how much worse it would have gotten if Irish troops would have gone accross the border.

The only certain outcome would have been the destruction of the limited Irish military infrastructure and capability, chaos spreading far outside the boundaries of Northern Ireland and certain elements of the Northern population being handed the perfect excuse for wholesale sectarian slaughter.

compo1

My tuppence worth; regardless of the sucess or otherwise of any military involvement, Britain, as a member of the UN security council, could have vetoed any proposal to send UN peacekeeping troops to NI. Jack Lynch actually called on them to invite the UN to move in, but the appeal ws ignored.
Gen. McEoin estimated that out of a force of 15,000/20,000, he could have only mustered 1,000 combat-ready troops and the best they could hope for was to hold Newry for 24 hours. With significant casualties.
Regardless of what the more excitable politicians of the time thought, it was never a serious runner.

Grizzly 45

What is even more alarming is there sems to be no clear objective to this plan at all...Was it to be a raid to evacuate Catholics from the enclaves,of Belfast and Derry,something along the raid at Entebbe?Slim enough chance without some very serious rehersal and planning even by crack troops like the Israelis.Sod all chance of being pulled off by the Irish army lacking the resources,planning ,equipment and skill .The thought of even doing that ,getting up to Belfast and Derry,taking hits all along the route, breaking into the enclaves,holding and then loading up X thousand people with literally the clothes on their backs to get them back down into the south running a gauntlet of fire again would rate as in the history of military annals the equivlient of the charge of the light brigade with less chance of success.Maybe if the Irish general staff had a Rommel or Guderian on board with the full co operation and access of the entire Republics resource behind him civillian and military,and even he would be hard pressed to come up with a plan with some chance of success.
Worse ,was it to be a full scale invasion to conquer and hold ground of the six counties??In that case I think even kamikazee pilots would have baulked and refused at those kind of odds of success.That had less than zero chance of success and we would proably be looking at the Union Jack back over the GPO today.
One of the most important objectives in any mission is to know wTF are you doing and how and when you are going to do it,prefably without a bunch of meddling ministers issuing contary orders.
Thankfully this is just historical whatifery and historical masturbation along the lines of if Hitler had the A bomb or whatever.Entertaining but nowhere near reality.