Irish Defence Forces 1939

AllthingsCP

Ok few questions here.

First off what was the capability of the Defence forces during the war, Would the Army been able to field a large group of troops for longer then a few days.

Having a Local Defence at 100,000 and a Standing army of 40.000 what was the quality of the training and supplies they had

Is the any operational Defence plans in excising that the Defence forces drew up to counter an invasion. I know their is a complete list of all equipment and supplies that the Irish Defence had but i have looked and can not seem to find it.

Why did Ireland stay neutral after bombs landed on Irish Soil {Campile, Dundalk, Monaghan, Carlow and the Curragh}, Torpedo attack which sank the vessel SS Irish Oak.

Why was the state of emergency not lifted till 1 September 1976.

Thanks.

Manach

AllthingsCP wrote: »

Ok few questions here.

First off what was the capability of the Defence forces during the war, Would the Army been able to field a large group of troops for longer then a few days.

Having a Local Defence at 100,000 and a Standing army of 40.000 what was the quality of the training and supplies they had

Is the any operational Defence plans in excising that the Defence forces drew up to counter an invasion. I know their is a complete list of all equipment and supplies that the Irish Defence had but i have looked and can not seem to find it.

Why did Ireland stay neutral after bombs landed on Irish Soil {Campile, Dundalk, Monaghan, Carlow and the Curragh}, Torpedo attack which sank the vessel SS Irish Oak.

Why was the state of emergency not lifted till 1 September 1976.

Thanks.

Offhand, based on talks from some who served and books like Robert Fisks on the emergency.

The morale of the Irish troops at the start of the war was good, but there were concerns with the state of equipment - which was improved during Emergency (bren carriers and more modern fighters), but it would not have been in a state to match a major power, with the exception of the naval guns guarding the treaty ports.

There was a political consensus supported by the majority of the Dail to remain neutral, and there would not have been a change of policy unless there was an existential threat. As for the state of emergency - handy to act against internal destabilizing elements (to the establishment) such as the republicans.

Balaclava1991

AllthingsCP wrote: »

Ok few questions here.

First off what was the capability of the Defence forces during the war, Would the Army been able to field a large group of troops for longer then a few days.

Having a Local Defence at 100,000 and a Standing army of 40.000 what was the quality of the training and supplies they had

Is the any operational Defence plans in excising that the Defence forces drew up to counter an invasion. I know their is a complete list of all equipment and supplies that the Irish Defence had but i have looked and can not seem to find it.

Why did Ireland stay neutral after bombs landed on Irish Soil {Campile, Dundalk, Monaghan, Carlow and the Curragh}, Torpedo attack which sank the vessel SS Irish Oak.

Why was the state of emergency not lifted till 1 September 1976.

Thanks.

In the summer of 1940 when it appeared the British were staring defeat in the face, the Irish Defence Forces had not even near the numbers they reached by the end of "The Emergency" in 1945.

According to Tom Clonan the Irish Defences forces were in a pitiful state in 1940 as the Nazi prepared for the invasion of Britain and the follow up invasion of Ireland.

In 1939, there were approximately 7,600 regulars in the Irish
Army with a further 11,000 volunteers and reserves. By May 1940, this number had actually dropped by
6,000 due to financial constraints. The Irish government’s recruitment campaign only began to bear
fruit by the autumn of 1940. Had the Germans come ashore in the summer of 1940, they would have
been met with an army with no experience of combined arms combat and capable only of company
sized manoeuvres, involving a maximum of around 100 men. In addition, the Irish army was very poorly
equipped at the time, possessing only a dozen or so serviceable armoured cars and tanks. In terms of
small-arms, the Irish Army at the time did have plenty of Lee Enfield rifles – of World War 1 vintage –
but had only 82 machine guns in total for the defence of the entire country. Many of the Irish units also moved on bicycles - referred to at the time as ‘peddling’ or ‘piddling Panzers’. Had they been engaged
by the Wermacht, the Irish would have been slaughtered.

http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=aaschmedart

If Britain had surrendered to the Nazis, Ireland would have been in no position to resist.

AllthingsCP

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

In the summer of 1940 when it appeared the British were staring defeat in the face, the Irish Defence Forces had not even near the numbers they reached by the end of "The Emergency" in 1945.

According to Tom Clonan the Irish Defences forces were in a pitiful state in 1940 as the Nazi prepared for the invasion of Britain and the follow up invasion of Ireland.



http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=aaschmedart

If Britain had surrendered to the Nazis, Ireland would have been in no position to resist.

Some nice reading, Thanks for the link.

gizmo555

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

In the summer of 1940 when it appeared the British were staring defeat in the face, the Irish Defence Forces had not even near the numbers they reached by the end of "The Emergency" in 1945.

According to Tom Clonan the Irish Defences forces were in a pitiful state in 1940 as the Nazi prepared for the invasion of Britain and the follow up invasion of Ireland.

Tom Clonan's article was a complete pile of manure. His figures for weaponry are totally inaccurate. As for the reference to bicycles, they worked pretty well for the Japanese, among many other armies of the time, when they made extensive use of them in their defeat of the British in Malaya.

Read this comprehensive response to Clonan from a retired Irish Army colonel.

AllthingsCP

Would the Armoured fighting vehicles of the Irish Defence Forces in that period be similar to this.

Balaclava1991

gizmo555 wrote: »

Tom Clonan's article was a complete pile of manure. His figures for weaponry are totally inaccurate. As for the reference to bicycles, they worked pretty well for the Japanese, among many other armies of the time, when they made extensive use of them in their defeat of the British in Malaya.

Read this comprehensive response to Clonan from a retired Irish Army colonel.

The British lost in Malaya because they were expecting an attack from the sea not a Japanese advance through the jungle to their rear down the Malayan peninsula. They were shocked by the Japanese strategy which completely outmaneuvered the British garrison in Malaya which had spent vast resources building ultimately useless shore defenses. The British forces in Malaya were poor quality colonial troops with officers who were used to the good life. It hadn't anything to do with bicycles.
Bicycles are only good on roads when they are not being shelled or strafed from the air.
Most of the fighting in World War 2 was done by infantry moving cross country on foot.
Against overwhelming air power, armor, artillery and motorized infantry sending men on bicycles into battle is totally daft.
The Irish Army would have had no chance at all against the Germans if they invaded in force.

Hitler missed his chance to defeat Britain when he allowed the majority of the BEF manpower to escape from Dunkirk and by a stroke of bad luck Halifax chickened out of challenging Churchill's leadership.
If Britain had capitulated in 1940 Ireland would have been left totally naked and defenseless and would doubtless have also capitulated.
If the Germans landed Irish resistance would not have lasted long with Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Galway reduced to smoking rubble and mobs of desperate people fleeing in terror into the countryside.

Balaclava1991

AllthingsCP wrote: »

Would the Armoured fighting vehicles of the Irish Defence Forces in that period be similar to this.

gizmo555

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The British lost in Malaya because they were expecting an attack from the sea not a Japanese advance through the jungle to their rear down the Malayan peninsula.

Indeed. And the Japanese advance through the jungle was considerably helped by their use of bicycles to rapidly cross terrain which would have been impassable to motor vehicles.The Finns also made successful use of bicycle against both the Russians and the Germans.

My point is Clonan's scornful dismissal of the use of bikes by the Irish Army of the time ignores the fact that many other armies of that period used them extensively - including, for example, the Swedes, who had six regiments of bicycle infantry in WWII. And as recently as 2012 the Swiss army ordered 4,100 bikes for the use of its forces.

AllthingsCP

Thanks guys been a great help here.

Balaclava1991

gizmo555 wrote: »

Indeed. And the Japanese advance through the jungle was considerably helped by their use of bicycles to rapidly cross terrain which would have been impassable to motor vehicles.The Finns also made successful use of bicycle against both the Russians and the Germans.

My point is Clonan's scornful dismissal of the use of bikes by the Irish Army of the time ignores the fact that many other armies of that period used them extensively - including, for example, the Swedes, who had six regiments of bicycle infantry in WWII. And as recently as 2012 the Swiss army ordered 4,100 bikes for the use of its forces.

Most infantry moved on foot in WW2. Bicycles are useless in areas without roads or tracks and bicycle troops are likely to be targeted by artillery and mortars and air attacks and ambushes.

gizmo555

Most infantry did indeed move on foot. Some used bicycles, in certain instances very successfully as we've seen in the case of the Japanese and the Finns, against the British and the Germans, the two most likely opponents the WW II-era Irish army might have faced. There was nothing at all out of the ordinary in the use of bikes by some elements of our army. Every other army of the time did too.

AllthingsCP

http://buyvintage1.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/bsa_9_commando_cherso_raid_aug_1944.jpg?w=470

Pictures from Parachute Regiment British Armed Forces, 1939-1945



British 1st Bike Ambulance.



Danish Soldiers on the way to the front to fight Germans.

''The Finnish Army utilized bicycles extensively during the Continuation War and Lapland War. Bicycles were used as a means of transportation in Jaeger Battalions, divisional Light Detachments and regimental organic Jaeger Companies. Bicycle units spearheaded the advances of 1941 against Soviet Union. Especially successful was the 1st Jaeger Brigade which was reinforced with a tank battalion and an anti-tank battalion, providing rapid movement through limited road network. During winter time these units, like the rest of the infantry, switched to skis.
Within 1942-1944 bicycles were also added to regimental equipment pools. During the Summer 1944 battles against the Soviet Union, bicycles provided quick mobility for reserves and counter-attacks. In Autumn 1944 bicycle troops of the Jaeger Brigade spearheaded the Finnish advance through Lapland against the Germans; tanks had to be left behind due to the German destruction of the Finnish road network.''

''By 1939, the Swedish army operated six bicycle infantry regiments. They were equipped with domestically produced Swedish military bicycles. Most common was the m/42, an upright, one-speed roadster produced by several large Swedish bicycle manufacturers''






Bike in use in Afghanistan, Iraq

Balaclava1991

AllthingsCP wrote: »

http://buyvintage1.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/bsa_9_commando_cherso_raid_aug_1944.jpg?w=470

Pictures from Parachute Regiment British Armed Forces, 1939-1945



British 1st Bike Ambulance.



Danish Soldiers on the way to the front to fight Germans.

''The Finnish Army utilized bicycles extensively during the Continuation War and Lapland War. Bicycles were used as a means of transportation in Jaeger Battalions, divisional Light Detachments and regimental organic Jaeger Companies. Bicycle units spearheaded the advances of 1941 against Soviet Union. Especially successful was the 1st Jaeger Brigade which was reinforced with a tank battalion and an anti-tank battalion, providing rapid movement through limited road network. During winter time these units, like the rest of the infantry, switched to skis.
Within 1942-1944 bicycles were also added to regimental equipment pools. During the Summer 1944 battles against the Soviet Union, bicycles provided quick mobility for reserves and counter-attacks. In Autumn 1944 bicycle troops of the Jaeger Brigade spearheaded the Finnish advance through Lapland against the Germans; tanks had to be left behind due to the German destruction of the Finnish road network.''

''By 1939, the Swedish army operated six bicycle infantry regiments. They were equipped with domestically produced Swedish military bicycles. Most common was the m/42, an upright, one-speed roadster produced by several large Swedish bicycle manufacturers''






Bike in use in Afghanistan, Iraq

Most combat infantrymen were not issued with bikes and if they were they quickly threw them away when they came under mortar, artillery and air attack forced them to stay off the roads.

gizmo555

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Most combat infantrymen were not issued with bikes

Yes, we've already agreed that is so. The point - once again - is that many were and Clonan's comments were as ignorant and unhistorical as his disparaging remarks on the use by the Irish army of effectively the identical rifle to that which was standard issue in the British Army throughout WW II. The entire article was riddled with similar exaggerations and inaccuracies.

Balaclava1991

gizmo555 wrote: »

Yes, we've already agreed that is so. The point - once again - is that many were and Clonan's comments were as ignorant and unhistorical as his disparaging remarks on the use by the Irish army of effectively the identical rifle to that which was standard issue in the British Army throughout WW II. The entire article was riddled with similar exaggerations and inaccuracies.

The Irish military in 1939 had NO air force worth a damn, NO navy worth a damn, NO tanks worth a damn, NO artillery worth a damn and soldiers riding on bikes and large portion of the population were pro-German!

AllthingsCP

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The Irish military in 1939 had NO air force worth a damn, NO navy worth a damn, NO tanks worth a damn, NO artillery worth a damn and soldiers riding on bikes and large portion of the population were pro-German!

Point been is that the fact that many dont realise the part that the humble bike played in thw war and various amred forces

tac foley

On D-Day both my uncles disembarked from their LST carrying their bicycles on the shoulders - however, they soon got rid of them...

See the photo of the event...

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/education/toolkit/images/forgedfire/photos/ph39.jpg

tac

Balaclava1991

AllthingsCP wrote: »

Point been is that the fact that many dont realise the part that the humble bike played in thw war and various amred forces

Don't be ridiculous.

Ireland had no capability to repel any invasion during WW2.

End of.

Jawgap

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous.

Ireland had no capability to repel any invasion during WW2.

End of.

I know this is hindsight but there are no conceivable circumstances in which we would have been invaded.

As long as Britain was undefeated there was no way - realistically - for the Germans to land an invasion force into Ireland and sustain it. RAF Coastal and Fighter Commands were under orders to attack any unidentified shipping approaching Ireland (Eire). The RAF forces based in NI - modest as they were - were also under instructions to strike at any unidentified shipping approaching and to immediately engage any forces landing into Ireland.......and without fighter cover any ground troops would have been at their mercy.

A airborne assault was possible but would have been quickly isolated and destroyed, probably with great bloodshed and destruction, but nonetheless destroyed.

If Britain surrendered, then there'd be no need for an invasion. Some token force would no doubt arrive to 'protect' us and the administration / government in Dublin would have been told how much they had to pay and what they had to supply to the Reich.

On the point about the artillery, the army was modestly endowed. According to the ORBAT dated 31/3/1940 they had 29 18-pounders (presumably the QF variant), 14 x 4.5" howitzers, and 4 x 3.7" howitzers. Nothing much in the way of AT weaponry.

Manach

My understanding, again based on readings from the Emergency period, was that an allied invasion of Ireland was possible. Churchill was said to have been mooting this to retake the Treaty ports so as to use their base facilities in the Battle of the Atlantic. As well, AFAIK, the US ambassador at the time (Gray?) was quite rambunctious and make several threats in that general direction.
There was also precedent was intervention in neutral countries, such as Iran and the abortive invasion of Norway.

AllthingsCP

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous.

Ireland had no capability to repel any invasion during WW2.

End of.

Never said anything in that post about repeling an invasion, Read again

Jawgap

Manach wrote: »

My understanding, again based on readings from the Emergency period, was that an allied invasion of Ireland was possible. Churchill was said to have been mooting this to retake the Treaty ports so as to use their base facilities in the Battle of the Atlantic. As well, AFAIK, the US ambassador at the time (Gray?) was quite rambunctious and make several threats in that general direction.
There was also precedent was intervention in neutral countries, such as Iran and the abortive invasion of Norway.

Just because Churchill said doesn't mean it was even likely to happen. Allenbrooke, as CIGS, pointed out that Churchill had 10 ideas a day - 6 of which were brilliant. He mentioned how part of his job as CIGS was to figure out which 6.

The interventions in Norway and Iran were to either deny or secure natural resources valuable to the war effort - we possessed no such resources, although of course the ports would have offered better access to the Atlantic and shorter shipping routes. I'd say politically an invasion was highly unlikely - it would not have sat very well with Churchill's efforts to woo the Yanks.

Says I To Bridey

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The Irish military in 1939 had NO air force worth a damn, NO navy worth a damn, NO tanks worth a damn, NO artillery worth a damn and soldiers riding on bikes and large portion of the population were pro-German!

Any of the population that was pro-German would quickly change their tune if the country was invaded by Germany