Most effective IRA brigade

Fenian Army

I'm more familiar with the more modern IRA so I'm going to say that the most effective IRA brigade was the South Armagh brigade of the IRA.

They were responsible for Warrenpoint, the sniper team, shot down helicopters and destroyed numerous barracks. They made South Armagh basically into a no go zone.

Or maybe it was Tom Barry's down in Cork?

What do you reckon?

By effective I mean capacity to carry out attacks etc on British forces/infrastructure.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

I'm more familiar with the more modern IRA so I'm going to say that the most effective IRA brigade was the South Armagh brigade of the IRA.

They were responsible for Warrenpoint, the sniper team, shot down helicopters and destroyed numerous barracks. They made South Armagh basically into a no go zone.

Or maybe it was Tom Barry's down in Cork?

What do you reckon?

By effective I mean capacity to carry out attacks etc on British forces/infrastructure.

I do not think that it is possible to compare the actions of these 2 separate campaigns against one another. They are different eras and had different proportions of support in the country. Their enemy profiles varied widely and their methods of attack were also quite different. After the civil war most of the IRA disbanded or continued ar the Irish state army which in turn de-mobbed many members- I don't see any direct link. The emergence of the PIRA in Northern Ireland was then a reaction to the years of Unionist dominance and discrimination, and the lack of leadership in the official IRA against this. The result of both conflicts was also different with the IRA getting a British withdrawal from most of Ireland, at the cost of partition. The PIRA made civil rights gains and ended the Unionist dominance of rule but did not achieve their aim of getting rid of partition.

In terms of the most effective from 1920's I would agree with the suggestion of Tom Barry. From accounts of the lead up to the truce, the actions at Kilmichael and Crossbarry influenced the British in their thinking that they could not defeat the IRA. This led them to seek an agreement with an Irish delegation.

tac foley

Fenian Army wrote: »

By effective I mean capacity to carry out attacks etc on British forces/infrastructure.

Don't forget to mention slaughtering civilians in your list of achievements.

tac

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

Don't forget to mention slaughtering civilians in your list of achievements.

tac

The OP asks which was the most effective IRA brigade. To answer this does not necessitate agreeing with the methods of these brigades. For example I would not be a fan of Nazi Germany but I can recognise that they had many effective units.

Fenian Army

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I do not think that it is possible to compare the actions of these 2 separate campaigns against one another. They are different eras and had different proportions of support in the country. Their enemy profiles varied widely and their methods of attack were also quite different. After the civil war most of the IRA disbanded or continued ar the Irish state army which in turn de-mobbed many members- I don't see any direct link. The emergence of the PIRA in Northern Ireland was then a reaction to the years of Unionist dominance and discrimination, and the lack of leadership in the official IRA against this. The result of both conflicts was also different with the IRA getting a British withdrawal from most of Ireland, at the cost of partition. The PIRA made civil rights gains and ended the Unionist dominance of rule but did not achieve their aim of getting rid of partition.

In terms of the most effective from 1920's I would agree with the suggestion of Tom Barry. From accounts of the lead up to the truce, the actions at Kilmichael and Crossbarry influenced the British in their thinking that they could not defeat the IRA. This led them to seek an agreement with an Irish delegation.

I don't know where to start with this -

Firstly most of the IRA did not join the Free State army, the majority of the IRA were opposed to the treaty. You don't see a direct link? I suspect you didnt look, a simple glance at the families involved, traditional republican ones clearly display the link. (again, not that a link is entirely necessary to compare effectiveness)

How does their level of support mean that they can't be compared? In South Armagh the support for the brigade I mentioned was quite high, not that it makes a difference in comparing military effectiveness.

How does the end result prevent from us comparing effectiveness? The IRA of the 1920s didn't get what it wanted either, hence the majority of members opposing the treaty.

Their methods of attack were very similar, blowing/burning barracks, ambushes, cratering roads, explosives etc, the difference was in the availability and expertise with explosives with bombings partially replacing burnings.

Enemy profiles differed? How? British Army, RUC, Civil servants, the Judiciary etc the "enemy" was the same.

I think your reluctance to compare them is rooted in a convenient, cowardly "good old IRA" mentality, a reluctance to acknowledge the reality of the Tan war.

Crooked Jack

In the most recent conflict the East Tyrone Brigade was also hugely successful, even after the loss of so many high profile volunteers at Loughall.
In a five year period they seriously damaged or totally destroyed around 130 Brit/RUC security installations and also shot down at least on helicopter.
As for the War of Independence, I dont know if they would count as a brigade as such but Michael Collins' 'Squad' dealt an undeniably effective blow to the Brits while the Dublin Brigade in general was one of the few Brigade across the country (including Barry's flying column in Cork) that managed to keep up a near continuous stream of attacks, although that did drop off significantly after the raid on the Customs House

pedroeibar1

Fenian Army wrote: »

I don't know where to start with this -

Firstly most of the IRA did not join the Free State army, the majority of the IRA were opposed to the treaty. You don't see a direct link? I suspect you didnt look, a simple glance at the families involved, traditional republican ones clearly display the link. (again, not that a link is entirely necessary to compare effectiveness)

How does their level of support mean that they can't be compared? In South Armagh the support for the brigade I mentioned was quite high, not that it makes a difference in comparing military effectiveness.

How does the end result prevent from us comparing effectiveness? The IRA of the 1920s didn't get what it wanted either, hence the majority of members opposing the treaty.

Their methods of attack were very similar, blowing/burning barracks, ambushes, cratering roads, explosives etc, the difference was in the availability and expertise with explosives with bombings partially replacing burnings.

Enemy profiles differed? How? British Army, RUC, Civil servants, the Judiciary etc the "enemy" was the same.

I think your reluctance to compare them is rooted in a convenient, cowardly "good old IRA" mentality, a reluctance to acknowledge the reality of the Tan war.

Talk about trying to whitewash history!

The tactics and MO of Old and ‘New’ IRA were totally different. The Old IRA did not practice indiscriminate bombing of civilians, including children. The ‘enemy’ was not the same; the modern IRA had a tiny support in the 26 counties and sought to bring down its democratically elected government and impose an unwanted ‘32 county socialist republic’. The Old IRA was - with very few exceptions - not involved in criminal activity, particularly when compared to the ‘new’ IRA’s drug dealing and extortion rackets. Even when funds were obtained by the Old IRA they went into the ‘Cause’ and not into the back pockets and holiday homes in Donegal.

This difference was recognized by many Old IRA personnel, including both my granduncle (had Old IRA pension), grandaunt and grandfather, all of whom were active, recorded in the history books (Breen, Treacy, et al) and both my grandfather and g. uncle specifically requested that any Sinn Fein and modern IRA personnel be excluded from their funeral ceremonies. (A request made by many other Old IRA personnel also.)

I don’t see this thread going in any good direction, so I do not intend to post on it again.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

How does their level of support mean that they can't be compared? In South Armagh the support for the brigade I mentioned was quite high, not that it makes a difference in comparing military effectiveness.

Pockets of support occur for all movements, it does not make them comparable. The problem with this comparison includes the generational differences, as I previously stated they are different eras. If you wish to compare the 2 you should start with a recognition of the varying/ differing reasons behind both the 1920's war of Independence and the modern day troubles.

Fenian Army wrote: »

The IRA of the 1920s didn't get what it wanted either, hence the majority of members opposing the treaty.

This is another difference between the 2 conflicts- i.e. The PIRA were still mostly united after their conflict. If they had not been they would not have got to share power in NI.

Fenian Army wrote: »

Their methods of attack were very similar, blowing/burning barracks, ambushes, cratering roads, explosives etc, the difference was in the availability and expertise with explosives with bombings partially replacing burnings.

The attacks on the Barracks of the 1920's often involved prolonged sieges lasting hours. IRA men bombing the door or roof slates with mills bombs and pouring flammable material in and trying to light the building. As this was going on other members of the column would keep fire on the barracks to keep the occupants busy. An action like this often stretched out overnight with the communications being cut off to prevent calls for reinforcements. This of course varied as the 2-3 years of this conflict progressed and there are many examples of this recorded in Dan Breen's or Tom Barry's books amongst others.

If your contention is correct then there should be 'very similar' examples from the troubles. I would'nt call a bomb or car bomb a comparable method of attack but then why would it be, it was a different era.

Fenian Army wrote: »

Enemy profiles differed? How? British Army, RUC, Civil servants, the Judiciary etc the "enemy" was the same.

How about the communities within?

% nationalist in 1920's War of independence = approximately 90% (based rather shoddely on religious division)

% nationalist in 1970's-90's Northern troubles =approximately 40% (based on 1982 assembly elections that Sinn Fein contested)

That makes a hell of a difference in a Guerilla conflict.

Fenian Army wrote: »

I think your reluctance to compare them is rooted in a convenient, cowardly "good old IRA" mentality, a reluctance to acknowledge the reality of the Tan war.

My reluctance is based on real differences as partly detailed above. You should deal with those before you start to suspect cowardly mentality (!) and same such. People could compare the Northern troubles to guerilla aspect of older conflicts like the Peninsular war in Iberia. I would be reluctant as they are different eras and different conflicts although comparisons could no doubt be made. The same is the case here. In any case, unless creating some type of pseudo link between the 2 conflicts was your aim, you should be able to analyse the effectiveness of units from both without need for comparing with a different era.

Crooked Jack

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I really dont want to get dragged into dragging this thread off topic at such an early stage but some of these points have to be challenged.

Talk about trying to whitewash history!

The tactics and MO of Old and ‘New’ IRA were totally different. The Old IRA did not practice indiscriminate bombing of civilians, including children.

The tactics and MO were exactly the same, strike at the enemy however you can. You can be damn sure had the 'old' IRA the ability to construct large explosive devices they would have. Aside from bombs the tactics were ambushes and assassinations, sounds pretty much the same to me.
Nor did the PIRA (I'm going to assume that's who you mean by 'new' IRA as I wont even be referring to dissident groups who try to claim the name) "indiscriminately bomb children" as you so hysterically cry. This has been gone over repeatedly in another thread (from which I was banned) so I wont be going into the minutia of it again but it was fairly definitively proved that the PIRA did not target civilians. Warnings were given and any civilian deaths, while inexcusable, tragic and wrong, were not intentional. Such is the sad savagery of war

The ‘enemy’ was not the same; the modern IRA had a tiny support in the 26 counties and sought to bring down its democratically elected government and impose an unwanted ‘32 county socialist republic’.

The enemy was the same. The British state that sought to claim dominion over Ireland and the Irish people. British Army, RUC, loyalist proxy gangs, cruel prison warders, a corrupt judiciary and informers. you'll find they were all targeted in both the 20s and the 70s. perhaps the only change was the PIRAs ability to strike at the financial heart of Britain, something which, sadly, worried the brits a great deal more than their sons and daughters dying on Irish soil.
As for an unwanted 32 county republic, isnt that the stated aim of pretty much all the major (and most of the minor) parties in the south? We can argue over the word socialist in there but Im pretty sure the ending of partition was the first and foremost goal.
As for the support of the IRA, it has ebbed and flowed with time. Elections, particularly in the north, dont give us much of an indication of the support the IRA had as firstly the IRA werent running for elections and secondly, many republicans didnt or couldnt vote. What we do know is that no organisation could run a guerilla war (especially not a 30 year long one) without the support of the local populace.

The Old IRA was - with very few exceptions - not involved in criminal activity, particularly when compared to the ‘new’ IRA’s drug dealing and extortion rackets. Even when funds were obtained by the Old IRA they went into the ‘Cause’ and not into the back pockets and holiday homes in Donegal.

PIRA has never been involved in the drugs trade, unless you count attempts to wipe it out. No doubt you will describe this as republican wishful thinking but the fact is there are an army of books you can refer to that chronicle Ireland's recent history and they will quite clearly point out that the IRA engaged in smuggling, robberies, and fundraising abroad but you will not find any references to the drugs trade.
In fact drug use and criminality in republican areas increased rapidly in the aftermath of the IRA ceasefire when the provos could no longer combat them.
As for criminality I hardly see the smuggling of goods over an illegitimate border to be criminal, I also find it quite difficult to get teary eyed about a load of banks being knocked over.
As for where the money went, the fact that the IRA were able to run a 30 year war and arm themselves with the latest machinery shows that it certainly did not go into "houses in Donegal." I assume this is a reference to Gerry Adams' house. May I point out that Adams has been an elected representative for the past 30 for which their is a salary (of which he gets the average industrial wage, the rest going to the 'cause') and on top of that is a published author and in demand speaker. Hardly shameless, gratutitous spending that he would be paying a mortgage on a holiday home, as so many people across the country are. You can also point to Sinn Fein representatives who were active in the IRA right across Ireland, from Martin McGuinness to Conor Murphy, who live in modest houses in their home towns. Not to mention the army of local councillors, some who live in some of the most deprived areas in the country

This difference was recognized by many Old IRA personnel, including both my granduncle (had Old IRA pension), grandaunt and grandfather, all of whom were active, recorded in the history books (Breen, Treacy, et al) and both my grandfather and g. uncle specifically requested that any Sinn Fein and modern IRA personnel be excluded from their funeral ceremonies. (A request made by many other Old IRA personnel also.)

I had relatives in the 'old' IRA too and I'm told they remained proud republicans, totally opposed to partition up until their deaths. You also have the likes of Tom Barry, one of the most famous IRA commanders from the War of Independence, who gave his support to the provos, not to mention the members of southern parties who would claim links to the 'old' IRA who armed the provos in their early days.

I don’t see this thread going in any good direction, so I do not intend to post on it again.

No, I wouldnt want to post on it again after being proved so thoroughly wrong either

.

jonniebgood1

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The tactics and MO were exactly the same, strike at the enemy however you can.

"strike at the enemy however you can. " This is true of alot of conflicts- A generalisation such as this does not prove the the 2 conflicts being discussed are actually 1 continuous conflict.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You can be damn sure had the 'old' IRA the ability to construct large explosive devices they would have.

You correctly identify that they did not have this ability so immediately we have a major difference given the prominence of the large devices in the 'troubles', particularly in the later years.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

perhaps the only change was the PIRAs ability to strike at the financial heart of Britain, something which, sadly, worried the brits a great deal more than their sons and daughters dying on Irish soil.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

What we do know is that no organisation could run a guerilla war (especially not a 30 year long one) without the support of the local populace.

Would you consider the attacks on warrington and Canary wharf as being part of a 'guerilla war' in the same manner as the War of Independence?
If so then compare them to the flying columns.

Crooked Jack

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

"strike at the enemy however you can. " This is true of alot of conflicts- A generalisation such as this does not prove the the 2 conflicts being discussed are actually 1 continuous conflict.

No, but the fact that the IRA's stated aim from inception through to standing down completely in 2005 has been the same does. At least it certainly proves it was the same cause and there are undeniable links between the 'old' and the group known to the media as the Provos (the P in PIRA was actually dropped in the 70s after a convention.) Wether you would say it is the same war or conflict is frankly getting into semantics and not the point of this thread.

You correctly identify that they did not have this ability so immediately we have a major difference given the prominence of the large devices in the 'troubles', particularly in the later years.

Yes, obviously with a time gap of 50 years there are going to be technological advances but I still dont see how this affects the OP's question. He's asking what was the most effective brigade ever, so you simply change your measurement of effectiveness for each era. For example despite the PIRA in, say, north Down, having access to huge explosives you still wouldnt say they were as effective at tackling the brits as Tom Barry's column in Cork, similarly you wouldnt class Barry's column as a failure on their inability to blow up whole barracks' in one go. The question is which brigade was most effective, I fail to see how you cant compare both eras, for example you could draw parallels between the Kilmichael Ambush and the Narrow Water Ambush. In fact the only problem I can see with the OP's question is use of the word 'brigade' given that the IRA abandoned (mostly, barring certain rural areas) the brigade structure in the late 70s in favour of a tighter, more difficult to penetrate cell structure.


Would you consider the attacks on warrington and Canary wharf as being part of a 'guerilla war' in the same manner as the War of Independence?
If so then compare them to the flying columns.

Well as I said the major difference between the two would be the PIRA's ability to strike at financial targets in Britain. Both these attacks were part of that campaign (although both these attacks also had tragic consequences)

jonniebgood1

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The question is which brigade was most effective, I fail to see how you cant compare both eras, for example you could draw parallels between the Kilmichael Ambush and the Narrow Water Ambush. In fact the only problem I can see with the OP's question is use of the word 'brigade' given that the IRA abandoned (mostly, barring certain rural areas) the brigade structure in the late 70s in favour of a tighter, more difficult to penetrate cell structure.

The cells are another uncomparable element.

These cells were self contained units that fitted into everyday life without being noticed if possible. They operated independently from other groups for their own protection as previous brigades were penetratable by the British army or moles within.
A flying column on the other hand operated co-operatively with the community- they billeted in local houses and could not have survived without this support. They could not have operated in this way in a community where they had only 40% support as per my earlier post.

Crooked Jack

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The cells are another uncomparable element.

These cells were self contained units that fitted into everyday life without being noticed if possible. They operated independently from other groups for their own protection as previous brigades were penetratable by the British army or moles within.
A flying column on the other hand operated co-operatively with the community- they billeted in local houses and could not have survived without this support. They could not have operated in this way in a community where they had only 40% support as per my earlier post.

Yes but only some places resorted to cell structure, areas like south armagh and east tyrone kept the old brigade set up. Much like during the war of independence where only certain areas like cork operated large flying columns and other places, particularly urban ones adopted a different set up. Many volunteers carried on their daily business so as not to appear suspicious. In fact Michael Collins' 'Squad' could be called the first cell. Hiding in plain sight has been an IRA tactic from the start, it wasnt invented by the Provos.

Fenian Army

You seem to be under the impression that the 1920s IRA exclusively used flying columns, that is not so.

Many volunteers only undertook actions in their "spare time" so to speak when they were not working etc

Ernie O'Malleys book has detail on this.

In many many ways both incarnations of the IRA functioned in the same way.

As for billeting... what do you think people did when they were "on the run"?

Besides, if they have differences it doesn't mean they can't be compared, ie did the advances in tech make them more effective etc.

You seem determined to not allow this discussion to happen. If you don't want it to, just lock the thread and cease wasting my time.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

You seem determined to not allow this discussion to happen. If you don't want it to, just lock the thread and cease wasting my time.

It is fair to question an OP if not in agreement with its contention. As for nonsense about locking thread because OP is questioned refer to forum charter, specifically

... with history there are going to be a lot of different opinions, please try to keep an open mind.

A difference of opinion does not warrant thread being locked.

Dionysius2

and we haven't even touched on banking activities yet !

whitelines

You can only really rate a fighting force in relation to it's opposition. PIRA were opposed by a civilian police force and an army acting in support of the civil power (ie another police force), both of whom operated under the rule of law. As such, known Republican militants including all PIRA leaders could walk around NI freely (unless wanted for a specific offence). It doesn't take much skill or courage to operate under such circumstances. Soldiers and policemen could only fire their weapons if fired upon, or if human life was threatened. Obviously this didn't apply to PIRA, who could happily blast away at off duty, unarmed policemen and UDR men eating their tea with their kids, or plant bombs under their cars just in time for the school run.

Oh to have an enemy like that!

We could only rate PIRA if they had been fighting a fighting enemy, which they obviously weren't - more like a UN peace keeping force.

tac foley

Mr Whitelines is absolutely true in all he has written.

Many times the BA and RUC were forced to walk by, or be walked by, by a known terrorist who had been up to his antics the day or night before, but was untouchable because he was not only unarmed, but not engaged in anything more lethal than sneering at them all in their helplessness.

IF it had been a full crackdown on the PIRA then no doubt many hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent by-standers would also have suffered even more than they already had done.

Bombing a band while they were playing in a park, a war memorial during a Remembrance Day ceremony, or even a shopping street packed with people required no particular bravery, only callous planning.

On the occasions when the PIRA had their own tactics used against them - like being shot down in the street with no warning [Gibraltar], they called foul and mammy.

I'm out of this thread.

tac

Crooked Jack

whitelines wrote: »

You can only really rate a fighting force in relation to it's opposition. PIRA were opposed by a civilian police force and an army acting in support of the civil power (ie another police force), both of whom operated under the rule of law. As such, known Republican militants including all PIRA leaders could walk around NI freely (unless wanted for a specific offence). It doesn't take much skill or courage to operate under such circumstances. Soldiers and policemen could only fire their weapons if fired upon, or if human life was threatened. Obviously this didn't apply to PIRA, who could happily blast away at off duty, unarmed policemen and UDR men eating their tea with their kids, or plant bombs under their cars just in time for the school run.

Oh to have an enemy like that!

We could only rate PIRA if they had been fighting a fighting enemy, which they obviously weren't - more like a UN peace keeping force.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

SaoriseBiker

Dionysius2 wrote: »

and we haven't even touched on banking activities yet !

Sinn Feiners must fell strange going into a bank without a balaclava !!!

jonniebgood1

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Originally Posted by Dionysius2 View Post
and we haven't even touched on banking activities yet !

Sinn Feiners must fell strange going into a bank without a balaclava !!!

No need for jokes -Keep those for the after hours forum please.

thecommietommy

As per Jonnie in post #4, answer this does not necessitate agreeing with the methods of these brigades. The South Armagh Brigade of the Provos were phenomenal :eek:. For almost 25 years the Brits or RUC etc could hardly put their nose around the corner for fear of having it shot off !!!!South Armagh was effectively a no go area for them, here's a youtube video dedicated to them -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WqwriFKfaQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WqwriFKfaQ

jonniebgood1

thecommietommy wrote: »

As per Jonnie in post #4, answer this does not necessitate agreeing with the methods of these brigades. The South Armagh Brigade of the Provos were phenomenal :eek:. For almost 25 years the Brits or RUC etc could hardly put their nose around the corner for fear of having it shot off !!!!South Armagh was effectively a no go area for them, here's a youtube video dedicated to them -

An amusing video- It seems more of a parody than a serious take with all that running around empty fields and roads!

Some of the response comments on it are interesting:

The majority of people north and south have move on. Have you no positive hope for the future than regurgatating old hatred. the north will never be part of the republic. it will be a small nation made up of both nationalists and loyalist communities

Fenian Army

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSfb5bvbh8M

There's a better video.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

There's a better video.

Much the same I would say.

The videos show nothing in terms of the thread title. People in masks at the sides of roads hiding by the ditches is hardly what would be considered as effective. What is the significance of crouching beside road ditches to this thread? My understanding of the war of independence is that a new form of warfare developed, urban guerilla warfare under pro-active men like some of the flying column leaders already mentioned. Scouts informed each other in networks that allowed the columns to move freely in certain areas and perform their actions, for the most part these were disruptive acts that were designed to draw the enemy out of their barracks and keep them occupied. I don't think a "no-go area' in South Armagh is in the same league of effective military tactics. It is too isolated.

Fenian Army

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Much the same I would say.

The videos show nothing in terms of the thread title. People in masks at the sides of roads hiding by the ditches is hardly what would be considered as effective. What is the significance of crouching beside road ditches to this thread? My understanding of the war of independence is that a new form of warfare developed, urban guerilla warfare under pro-active men like some of the flying column leaders already mentioned. Scouts informed each other in networks that allowed the columns to move freely in certain areas and perform their actions, for the most part these were disruptive acts that were designed to draw the enemy out of their barracks and keep them occupied. I don't think a "no-go area' in South Armagh is in the same league of effective military tactics. It is too isolated.

They didn't exactly carry cameras with them everywhere, so obviously footage will tend to be of the training video/propaganda type with a few chance encounters with a news crew thrown in. (such as machine gunning the helicopter)

The significance is that it gives you an idea of the weaponry they had at there disposal.

The IRA did the exact same thing in the 70s and 80s, they used extensive scouting networks, people in cars etc, they cratered roads, diversionary attacks etc etc. While in the main they didn't traverse the countryside in flying columns (that wouldnt make much sense, even though people like Francis Hughes did exactly that). Also, the IRA in the 1920s didn't exclusively operate in flying columns.

Besides, they dont have to have used the same equipment, or tactics, in order for us to examine who was more effective.

Fenian Army

Fenian Army wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSfb5bvbh8M

There's a better video.

http://www.amazon.com/IRA-Bullets-History-Ingenuity-Directions/dp/0716528959

The above is an excellent book, highlights the ingenuity of the quartermasters and engineers within the IRA.

fasttalkerchat

Fenian Army wrote: »

I'm more familiar with the more modern IRA so I'm going to say that the most effective IRA brigade was the South Armagh brigade of the IRA.

They were responsible for Warrenpoint, the sniper team, shot down helicopters and destroyed numerous barracks. They made South Armagh basically into a no go zone.

Or maybe it was Tom Barry's down in Cork?

What do you reckon?

By effective I mean capacity to carry out attacks etc on British forces/infrastructure.

East Tyrone were becoming very active before the Loughgall Massacre.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

Besides, they dont have to have used the same equipment, or tactics, in order for us to examine who was more effective.

We have had the discussion on whether the old and new IRA can be compared and we do not agree on this but we can look at them independently.

What were their (South Armagh PIRA) aims then specifically from 1969 until 2005. And what did they achieve for the South Armagh area? On another note did Armagh play any role of significance in WoI?

fasttalkerchat

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

We have had the discussion on whether the old and new IRA can be compared and we do not agree on this but we can look at them independently.

What were their (South Armagh PIRA) aims then specifically from 1969 until 2005. And what did they achieve for the South Armagh area?

In terms of bringing the enemy to the negotiation table to gain independance both the old IRA and the provos got to the same stage. The Provos operated against a stronger force (helicopters make a huge difference) and also operated in a more heavily occupied territory (the North was more militarised that Cork)

jonniebgood1

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

In terms of bringing the enemy to the negotiation table to gain independance both the old IRA and the provos got to the same stage.

And after that?

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The Provos operated against a stronger force (helicopters make a huge difference) and also operated in a more heavily occupied territory (the North was more militarised that Cork)

Do you have a source for that?
Different eras so its hardly camparable, there were no helicopters in 1921, etc.

Crooked Jack

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

East Tyrone were becoming very active before the Loughgall Massacre.

Even afterwards. Attacks in that area didnt drop of after Loughall.
The Belfast Brigade, particularly in West Belfast, was hugely effective in the 70s before infighting, paranoia and informers damaged it.
The Monaghan IRA were also involved in an unusually high number of attacks for a southern unit.

While the 1950s border campaign was a failure arms raids on barracks, in particular Gough in Armagh, displayed a certain level of ingenuity and tactical skill. However I believe units at that time were made up of volunteers from all over the country and people didnt necessarily belong to one specific brigade.

Overall I believe there are a remarkable number of similarities between the PIRA south Armagh brigade and Tom Barry's West Cork Brigade

fasttalkerchat

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

And after that?

Well both settled for some sort of comprimise. The PIRA comprimise (hopefully) cant be judged yet.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you have a source for that?
Different eras so its hardly camparable, there were no helicopters in 1921, etc.

That's why I'm saying that the enemy were better armed. On saying that the PIRA were better armed too. SAM missiles and AK47s and professional explosives.

Crooked Jack

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

We have had the discussion on whether the old and new IRA can be compared and we do not agree on this but we can look at them independently.

What were their (South Armagh PIRA) aims then specifically from 1969 until 2005. And what did they achieve for the South Armagh area? On another note did Armagh play any role of significance in WoI?

A number of significant battles and actions took place in Armagh during and shortly after the WoI but by and large it was not at the centre of the conflict.
In fact south Armagh was not a particularly radical or republican area up until the most recent conflict.
During the 1918 elections it was one of the few districts not to return a Sinn Fein candidate.

whitelines

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

In terms of bringing the enemy to the negotiation table to gain independance both the old IRA and the provos got to the same stage. The Provos operated against a stronger force (helicopters make a huge difference) and also operated in a more heavily occupied territory (the North was more militarised that Cork)

Helicopters can make a huge difference. I've always wondered why one wasn't used to fire missiles at that farm house in South Armagh where PIRA's brigade commander lived? What with it being a 'war' between the mighty British Army and the elite Provisional IRA and everything.

fasttalkerchat

whitelines wrote: »

Helicopters can make a huge difference. I've always wondered why one wasn't used to fire missiles at that farm house in South Armagh where PIRA's brigade commander lived? What with it being a 'war' between the mighty British Army and the elite Provisional IRA and everything.

Probably because they liked to say that dead brits were "murdered by terrorists". Nonetheless, didn't stop them killing Dessie Grew at a remote farmhouse while unarmed.

jonniebgood1

whitelines wrote: »

Helicopters can make a huge difference. I've always wondered why one wasn't used to fire missiles at that farm house in South Armagh where PIRA's brigade commander lived? What with it being a 'war' between the mighty British Army and the elite Provisional IRA and everything.

The point about the helicopter is well made. It was not valid nor common for them to target the IRA in this way during the troubles. In 1919-22 leading individuals were often targeted when they could be found, if not their property would be targeted.

Crooked Jack

whitelines wrote: »

Helicopters can make a huge difference. I've always wondered why one wasn't used to fire missiles at that farm house in South Armagh where PIRA's brigade commander lived? What with it being a 'war' between the mighty British Army and the elite Provisional IRA and everything.

probably because that house you refer to is half in the south and the british army firing missiles into the free state would probably constitute an act of war.

Crooked Jack

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The point about the helicopter is well made. It was not valid nor common for them to target the IRA in this way during the troubles. In 1919-22 leading individuals were often targeted when they could be found, if not their property would be targeted.

Yes, and by comparison in 1969 - 1998 leading individuals were often targeted when they could be found, if not their property would be targeted.
No shortage of evidence of the brits raiding the homes of IRA men and their relatives, ransacking them in the process.

There is no reason whatsoever for not being able to compare the effectiveness of WoI and more recent brigades. The question is not about comparing equipment or weapons, it's about effectiveness.
Ability to strike at the enemy, the number of successful actions against failed ones, the number of causalities and arrests suffered. You can even compare adaptability, for example the IRA in South Armagh adapted to take on helicopters in the same way the IRA in Cork took on armoured vehicles.
I really dont see how you dont grasp that, I think it's more a reluctance on your part to draw any comparison between WoI and the "troubles."

jonniebgood1

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I really dont see how you dont grasp that, I think it's more a reluctance on your part to draw any comparison between WoI and the "troubles."

The many differences have been highlighted through the thread. It is interesting why some people wish to make the comparison and insist on trying to make tentative links- surely their campaign is strong enough on its own but maybe you think its not?

In anycase I asked earlier "
What were their (South Armagh PIRA) aims then specifically from 1969 until 2005. And what did they achieve for the South Armagh area?" and I think that should be looked at in more detail if people propose them as effective. One answer was that they brought about negotiations but the length of the campaign makes it difficult to link actions in the 1970's with peace talks in the 1970's. So how should ones effectiveness be judged in this length of time?

Crooked Jack

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The many differences have been highlighted through the thread. It is interesting why some people wish to make the comparison and insist on trying to make tentative links- surely their campaign is strong enough on its own but maybe you think its not?

In anycase I asked earlier "
What were their (South Armagh PIRA) aims then specifically from 1969 until 2005. And what did they achieve for the South Armagh area?" and I think that should be looked at in more detail if people propose them as effective. One answer was that they brought about negotiations but the length of the campaign makes it difficult to link actions in the 1970's with peace talks in the 1970's. So how should ones effectiveness be judged in this length of time?

But the "many" differences havent been highlighted. Irrelevant things like weapons and helicopters have been brought up, things that have nothing to do with the original question, which was "By effective I mean capacity to carry out attacks etc on British forces/infrastructure."
It is not "interesting" that people make the comparison, it is unavoidable that people make the comparison because there are so many comparisons to make.
And links are far from tentative. Same country, same cause, same enemy, same tactics, in many cases the same families involved. Direct links between both eras, even Tom Barry, mentioned here several times, gave his support to the PIRA saying "there has only ever been one IRA," not only making a comparison between the eras but calling them one and the same.

You ask what their aims were and what they achieved for south Armagh. Firstly this isnt what the OP asked, again if you look above you can see he explained exactly what he meant by effective, but sure we'll talk about it anyway.
The South Armagh PIRA aim was the same as any IRA brigade's aim at any time in the past 90 years, to drive the British out of the area and leave the Irish people free to command their own destiny.
What did they achieve for south Armagh? They drove an unwanted, hostile and murderous foreign force, and their Irish lackies, out of the area, or at the very least drove them back behind the walls of their concrete monstrosities.
For 25 years they showed them that the people of South Armagh would not be bullied and along with the rest of the IRA they showed the British Government that if they wanted peace they would have to compromise.

Did the PIRA outright achieve all their goals through force? No, just like the "old" IRA, they did not. Just like the "old" IRA they fought the brits to a stalemate where it became clear that neither side could claim an outright victory and just like the "old" IRA they reached a compromise.

jonniebgood1

Crooked Jack wrote: »

What did they achieve for south Armagh? They drove an unwanted, hostile and murderous foreign force, and their Irish lackies, out of the area, or at the very least drove them back behind the walls of their concrete monstrosities.
For 25 years they showed them that the people of South Armagh would not be bullied and along with the rest of the IRA they showed the British Government that if they wanted peace they would have to compromise.

Wrong.
They were a small part of a movement that achieved political representation and equal rights in NI. This was the same aim for the most part that the civil rights movement had before them.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The South Armagh PIRA aim was the same as any IRA brigade's aim at any time in the past 90 years, to drive the British out of the area and leave the Irish people free to command their own destiny.

Yes. So I find it hard to accept them as 'most effective IRA brigade'. Furthermore if Armagh was a 'no go' area for the British army then how could the most effective IRA brigade be located in this same area- there would be noone for them to attack!
?

whitelines

Crooked Jack wrote: »

probably because that house you refer to is half in the south and the british army firing missiles into the free state would probably constitute an act of war.

I see what you mean (I think). Still, they could have killed him anytime they liked as he came out of the pub. Why didn't they do that?

fasttalkerchat

Crooked Jack wrote: »

probably because that house you refer to is half in the south and the british army firing missiles into the free state would probably constitute an act of war.

They shot people who had crossed the border before and a few weeks ago British agents tried to blackmail a known republican on a train on the way to Dublin and got off at Dundalk.

Fenian Army

The British recognized that if they brazenly acted as they wished, such as in Ballymurphy and on Bloody Sunday, just as before, Irish people would emerge from their cocoons and take up arms. Instead, by and large, they engaged in a "dirty war" and got loyalists to carry out their assassinations thus allowing themselves a tenuous claim of "moral superiority"

Martyrs have always been Britain's greatest enemy.

Just to point out, if I asked which was more military effective, the PIRA or the "terrorists" in South Africa I doubt we would have this bare faced refusal to compare them. Even if you insist on subscribing to the myth that the IRA's of different generations were totally different that doesn't stop you from comparing their military effectiveness.

Someone mentioned it, but after Loughall attacks actually increased, with the Ballygawley bus bombing being regarded as direct "payback" for Loughall by republicans and supporters.


I still think South Armagh brigade were the most effective... mainly based on the fact that they made the area in a no go zone and inflicted serious casualties on their enemies, despite their vastly superior training and equipment, such as helicopters. You don't need to support them to see that, you can look at any army/insurgency the world over and evaluate them based on their military effectiveness with agreeing, or disagreeing, with their politics.

Crooked Jack

whitelines wrote: »

I see what you mean (I think). Still, they could have killed him anytime they liked as he came out of the pub. Why didn't they do that?

Probably because he doesnt drink and wouldnt have been in a pub to come out of it.

fasttalkerchat

Fenian Army wrote: »

I still think South Armagh brigade were the most effective... mainly based on the fact that they made the area in a no go zone and inflicted serious casualties on their enemies, despite their vastly superior training and equipment, such as helicopters. You don't need to support them to see that, you can look at any army/insurgency the world over and evaluate them based on their military effectiveness with agreeing, or disagreeing, with their politics.

It is certainly hard to argue with the South Armagh brigade not just on military strength but on ingenuity. In belfast the conflict was looked on as a series of street battles driving the army out of individual areas but in South Armagh they saw it as a traditional war as saw the whole region as theirs this stretched as far as blowing helicopters out of the sky and destroying empty barracks.

fasttalkerchat

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Probably because he doesnt drink and wouldnt have been in a pub to come out of it.

Was just about to say this! Quite well known for being totally tee-total.

Crooked Jack

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Wrong.
They were a small part of a movement that achieved political representation and equal rights in NI. This was the same aim for the most part that the civil rights movement had before them.

Wrong. They were a rather large part of the movement that forced the British government to the negotiating table and forced them to recognise that the north was not "as British as Finchley." That got them to recognise that people in the north were not "equal ni citizens" but that half of them were indeed Irish and that the Irish couldnt be beaten out of them with military might.
What the end result of the 1998 settlement will be nobody knows, it's simply far too early to tell. Took nearly 30 years for the 1921 settlement to inch by inch turn the free state into a (sort of) republic.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Yes. So I find it hard to accept them as 'most effective IRA brigade'. Furthermore if Armagh was a 'no go' area for the British army then how could the most effective IRA brigade be located in this same area- there would be noone for them to attack!
?

Most effective compared to other IRA brigades. Sure no IRA brigade from any era achieved all their aims. Also, once again, you're talking about negotiations and end results here when the OP clearly stated he meant most effective in terms of military capabilities.
I believe "no-go" areas refers to areas where the brits could not move freely. Helicopters and barracks could still be attacked. Also the south Armagh IRA was largely responsible for constructing, transporting and detonating bombs in Britain, well outside of the "no-go" area. Another interesting comparison, much like the Kilmichael ambush, these bombings in the financial heart of Britain shocked the british establishment and hastened their moves to the negotiating table.

Fenian Army

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Wrong.
They were a small part of a movement that achieved political representation and equal rights in NI. This was the same aim for the most part that the civil rights movement had before them.


Yes. So I find it hard to accept them as 'most effective IRA brigade'. Furthermore if Armagh was a 'no go' area for the British army then how could the most effective IRA brigade be located in this same area- there would be noone for them to attack!
?

Think about what you have asked.

fasttalkerchat

Fenian Army wrote: »

Think about what you have asked.

Domestos is useless on a clean toilet