Ireland uk defence

darkpagandeath

Been googleling for a while is there a plan if things go south in Europe ? or will Ireland stay neutral doubt a foreign power would stop at the uk . Any ideas ? And no this is not a tinfoil hat one just thinking out loud or should i not


merge if needed

The Backwards Man

Have a drink me old mucker? Mine's a brandy.

Sir Arthur Daley

Are you on about flood defence systems from the recent floodings? In my opinion they should not have built houses in floodplains, all can do now is buy a few 330DL Cats and start dredging the rivers.

darkpagandeath

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Have a drink me old mucker? Mine's a brandy.

Iodine tablets or white coach paint may work better

The Backwards Man

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Iodine tablets or white coach paint may work better

Na, both of them make me doolally. Brandy keeps me coherent.:)

mixery

defence wins championships. ireland should play 5 at the back against england.

darkpagandeath

mixery wrote: »

defence wins championships. ireland should play 5 at the back against england.

That may work well but it's about Ireland and the uk, were would you put our 7k troops Dublin ?

mixery

touche

Nino Brown

We don't want Defences, we're balls deep in debt, maybe we'll get invaded by somewhere rich. Norway or Sweden would be nice, we should start some **** with them! We should get Enda to go all Ahmadinejad and threaten to wipe them off the map.

darkpagandeath

Nino Brown wrote: »

We don't want Defences, we're balls deep in debt, maybe we'll get invaded by somewhere rich. Norway or Sweden would be nice, we should start some **** with them! We should get Enda to go all Ahmadinejad and threaten to wipe them off the map.

Don't think it works without nukes

Sir Arthur Daley

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Don't think it works without nukes

The Cats run on Diesel, about 4.3mpg.

irishmover

Have we not got a team of men invading Norway and Sweden as we speak? Inseminating all their women and all that craic.

You know, how we've invaded all those other countries.

smellslikeshoes

If it ever got to the stage where the UK was properly under attack there would be so many nukes flying around from all involved that it would probably be an end of the world scenario and a defence plan wouldn't be a whole lot of use. :P

darkpagandeath

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

If it ever got to the stage where the UK was properly under attack there would be so many nukes flying around from all involved that it would probably be an end of the world scenario and a defence plan wouldn't be a whole lot of use. :P

Depends I can only think of the Russians tossing them about if NATO pushed them back to Moscow. Using conventional weapons EU would never lob them about don't think even the uk would just toss them about either

Nino Brown

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

If it ever got to the stage where the UK was properly under attack there would be so many nukes flying around from all involved that it would probably be an end of the world scenario and a defence plan wouldn't be a whole lot of use. :P

So basically Ireland's Defense plan is this:

Peregrinus

Ireland's defence plan is based on a realistic assessment.

A realistic assessment of Ireland's strategic position is that there is no way that Ireland could defeat, or even hold off for very long, an enemy capable of overcoming British defences. Consequently it would be a collossal waste of effort and resources, and a distraction from attainable objectives, to try and build up such a capacity.

In terms of the defending national territory against an invader, the Irish defence forces' objective is simply to be able to offer armed resistance, so that an invader/occupier can't simply march in without a shot fired. Their occupation would be delegitimised by the fact that they had to invade by force, and overcome resistance. Secondly, they would hope to offer resistance for long enough to buy some time for diplomatic and political endeavours to be played out. Thirdly, they would hope to be able to fall back to a model of guerilla/irregular resistance to an occupier.

Nino Brown

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ireland's defence plan is based on a realistic assessment.

A realistic assessment of Ireland's strategic position is that there is no way that Ireland could defeat, or even hold off for very long, an enemy capable of overcoming British defences. Consequently it would be a collossal waste of effort and resources, and a distraction from attainable objectives, to try and build up such a capacity.

In terms of the defending national territory against an invader, the Irish defence forces' objective is simply to be able to offer armed resistance, so that an invader/occupier can't simply march in without a shot fired. Their occupation would be delegitimised by the fact that they had to invade by force, and overcome resistance. Secondly, they would hope to offer resistance for long enough to buy some time for diplomatic and political endeavours to be played out. Thirdly, they would hope to be able to fall back to a model of guerilla/irregular resistance to an occupier.

I don't necessarily agree, obviously Jets, and tanks etc would be waste of money, but we could have mandatory military service, so if war did break out you distribute rifles and suddenly you have a massive resistance.
We could build inexpensive bunkers in strategic areas. We should have the capability to shoot down anything that flies into our airspace. Not just for wartime, but for potential terror attacks etc.
You don't need huge military, you just need to make an invasion very very awkward. It worked for the Swiss against the Germans in WW2.

irishmover

Nino Brown wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree, obviously Jets, and tanks etc would be waste of money, but we could have mandatory military service, so if war did break out you distribute rifles and suddenly you have a massive resistance.
We could build inexpensive bunkers in strategic areas. We should have the capability to shoot down anything that flies into our airspace. Not just for wartime, but for potential terror attacks etc.
You don't need huge military, you just need to make an invasion very very awkward. It worked for the Swiss against the Germans in WW2.

Conscription

It's actually much more common than I thought.

Franticfrank

We already have the best form of defence imaginable - geography. The only reason the Brits weren't crushed by Blitzkrieg in 1940 was because of the channel. When you're an island, most people can't be bothered with you. So relax and head down to the pub, nothing to worry about.

blatantrereg

Franticfrank wrote: »

We already have the best form of defence imaginable - geography. The only reason the Brits weren't crushed by Blitzkrieg in 1940 was because of the channel. When you're an island, most people can't be bothered with you. So relax and head down to the pub, nothing to worry about.

The channel - and a superior navy to put in it.

Jawgap

Nino Brown wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree, obviously Jets, and tanks etc would be waste of money, but we could have mandatory military service, so if war did break out you distribute rifles and suddenly you have a massive resistance.
We could build inexpensive bunkers in strategic areas. We should have the capability to shoot down anything that flies into our airspace. Not just for wartime, but for potential terror attacks etc.
You don't need huge military, you just need to make an invasion very very awkward. It worked for the Swiss against the Germans in WW2.

The RBS-70 air defence system the Irish Army uses costs about €5,000 per missile - it's a decent enough system and it's effective to 5000 metres within a range of about 8km - meaning you need a lot of units (€30,000 each) to cover our 8,000 km of coastline - or fewer if you only want to protect key areas.

Anything above 5,000m or below 250m needs a different system to bring it down - as well as supporting radar, communications etc.

Then you'd need whoever is going to attack to not come in under 250m.

Why would terrorists want to attack Ireland from the air? That type of act is about propaganda and defeating symbols - which is why the Twin Towers, the Pentagon etc we're attacked - you don't generate the same response by hitting anything in Ireland

Jawgap

Franticfrank wrote: »

We already have the best form of defence imaginable - geography. The only reason the Brits weren't crushed by Blitzkrieg in 1940 was because of the channel. When you're an island, most people can't be bothered with you. So relax and head down to the pub, nothing to worry about.

That and the fact the Germans lacked the capacity to launch and sustain any kind of amphibious operation

Nino Brown

Jawgap wrote: »

That and the fact the Germans lacked the capacity to launch and sustain any kind of amphibious operation

Wasn't going to stop them trying though

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/nazi-plans-to-invade-ireland-revealed-97376329-237361631.html

Peregrinus

Nino Brown wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree, obviously Jets, and tanks etc would be waste of money, but we could have mandatory military service, so if war did break out you distribute rifles and suddenly you have a massive resistance.
We could build inexpensive bunkers in strategic areas. We should have the capability to shoot down anything that flies into our airspace. Not just for wartime, but for potential terror attacks etc.
You don't need huge military, you just need to make an invasion very very awkward. It worked for the Swiss against the Germans in WW2.

Mandatory military service is what you do if you do want a huge military, or potentially so. I don't buy your idea that it was mandatory military service that kept the Germans from invading Switzerland - it didn't keep the Germans from invading France, Poland, Belgium, Denmark or Norway, all of which had mandatory military service. The Germans didn't invade Switzerland because they had no reason to. The Swiss were fairly co-operative, and Swiss neutrality suited Germany very well.

"Massive resistance" has never worked against an occupier in the Irish context, despite many times of trying. Guerilla warfare is the only thing that has ever achieved results, and you don't prepare for that with universal military service and the construction of bunkers.

As for resisting terror attacks, nobody in any country has ever successfully dealt with terrorism through military means; attempts to do so are generally disastrous. All terrorism campaigns that have been neutralised or defeated have been dealt with by political means, rather than military.

Nino Brown

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mandatory military service is what you do if you do want a huge military, or potentially so. I don't buy your idea that it was mandatory military service that kept the Germans from invading Switzerland - it didn't keep the Germans from invading France, Poland, Belgium, Denmark or Norway, all of which had mandatory military service. The Germans didn't invade Switzerland because they had no reason to. The Swiss were fairly co-operative, and Swiss neutrality suited Germany very well.

I don't think that's true, Hitler wanted badly to invade Switzerland. But due the the armed citizens, organized army/reservists, and mountainous terrain the Germans figured it would cost half a million German troops, and wasn't worth it.

Hitler seemed pretty pissed about it to me

Peregrinus wrote: »

Guerilla warfare is the only thing that has ever achieved results, and you don't prepare for that with universal military service and the construction of bunkers.

I agree Guerilla warfare is the way to go, but you absolutely can prepare for it, you can train people in Guerilla tactics just as easily as standard tactics. Like the Swiss, you let everybody keep their service rifle in their house.

Jawgap

Nino Brown wrote: »

Wasn't going to stop them trying though

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/nazi-plans-to-invade-ireland-revealed-97376329-237361631.html

Can I suggest you get your information on the German from elsewhere other than Irish Central.

Ireland was beyond German fighter cover and just about within range of their bombers - however, Ireland was well within range of the RAF fighters especially the ones based in Northern Ireland

The Germans lacked landing craft and were, in the case of SEALION, going to use river barges which founder in seas of 2m or more.

They had no anti-shipping capacity in the Luftwaffe - who were supposed to keep the RN at bay while the barges were towed at 5 knots (any faster and they would have sunk) across the English Channel.

Then once they got across how were they going to sustain the forces? One thing the amphibious landings in the Med and OVERLORD proved was how difficult it was to sustain an army in combat across the beach, in the absence of having access to decent sized port.

SEALON, Case Green was prepared - it doesn't mean it was capable of being implemented.

Jawgap

Peregrinus wrote: »

......

As for resisting terror attacks, nobody in any country has ever successfully dealt with terrorism through military means; attempts to do so are generally disastrous. All terrorism campaigns that have been neutralised or defeated have been dealt with by political means, rather than military.

........Except for the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) in Sri Lanka

Nino Brown

Jawgap wrote: »

Can I suggest you get your information on the German from elsewhere other than Irish Central.

Ireland was beyond German fighter cover and just about within range of their bombers - however, Ireland was well within range of the RAF fighters especially the ones based in Northern Ireland

The Germans lacked landing craft and were, in the case of SEALION, going to use river barges which founder in seas of 2m or more.

They had no anti-shipping capacity in the Luftwaffe - who were supposed to keep the RN at bay while the barges were towed at 5 knots (any faster and they would have sunk) across the English Channel.

Then once they got across how were they going to sustain the forces? One thing the amphibious landings in the Med and OVERLORD proved was how difficult it was to sustain an army in combat across the beach, in the absence of having access to decent sized port.

SEALON, Case Green was prepared - it doesn't mean it was capable of being implemented.

I think you're underestimating them, they invented the ballistic missile, I think they could have figured out how to cross the channel if they put their mind to it.

blatantrereg

Nino Brown wrote: »

I think you're underestimating them, they invented the ballistic missile, I think they could have figured out how to cross the channel if they put their mind to it.

They did put their mind to it. The ultimate objective of the Battle of Britain was to prepare for such an invasion.

Jawgap

Nino Brown wrote: »

I think you're underestimating them, they invented the ballistic missile, I think they could have figured out how to cross the channel if they put their mind to it.

Ok, well let's start with the fact that the Chinese invented the ballistic missile - the Germans just developed a version of it that they failed to operationalise.

Just because they fired it and hit things didn't make it a successful weapon - impressive maybe, but not effective.

The Germans were a continental army - they never did amphibious or expeditionary war - which is why SEALION was conceived as a river crossing on a broad front.

Even they Allies had cock up the Dieppe Raid, then do three amphibious ops badly (Sicily, Salerno and Anzio) before they figured out how to do one reasonably well (OVERLORD) - and even then, with total air supremacy, it was still a fairly close run thing.

Jawgap

blatantrereg wrote: »

They did put their mind to it. The ultimate objective of the Battle of Britain was to prepare for such an invasion.

Sorry, but it wasn't - the objective was to force Britain from the war.

One theory is that SEALION was prepared as part of an overall strategy intended to persuade Britain to come to terms and leave the Germans free to act on the Continent.

Their main problem in the BoB was their failure to identify and attack the right targets, in the right way and inflict the 'right' damage.

However, they did teach RAF Bomber Command what to bomb with as the RAF were able to study the impact the Luftwaffe were or weren't having and use that information when it came time to return the compliment over Germany.

Nino Brown

Jawgap wrote: »

Ok, well let's start with the fact that the Chinese invented the ballistic missile - the Germans just developed a version of it that they failed to operationalise.

Just because they fired it and hit things didn't make it a successful weapon - impressive maybe, but not effective.

The Germans were a continental army - they never did amphibious or expeditionary war - which is why SEALION was conceived as a river crossing on a broad front.

Even they Allies had cock up the Dieppe Raid, then do three amphibious ops badly (Sicily, Salerno and Anzio) before they figured out how to do one reasonably well (OVERLORD) - and even then, with total air supremacy, it was still a fairly close run thing.

What was China's ballistic missile called?

Because they were focused on Europe, they didn't need to be experts in amphibious assaults. They would have figured it our pretty quickly if they wanted?

blatantrereg

Jawgap wrote: »

Sorry, but it wasn't - the objective was to force Britain from the war.

One theory is that SEALION was prepared as part of an overall strategy intended to persuade Britain to come to terms and leave the Germans free to act on the Continent.

Their main problem in the BoB was their failure to identify and attack the right targets, in the right way and inflict the 'right' damage.

However, they did teach RAF Bomber Command what to bomb with as the RAF were able to study the impact the Luftwaffe were or weren't having and use that information when it came time to return the compliment over Germany.

This article agrees with me:

http://www.military-history.org/articles/the-battle-of-britain-a-brief-guide.htm

The bombing of London is not consistent with it, but does not disprove it. That seems more political or personal in nature.

i'm glad I live in Leitrim. Even the nukes don't know where it is!

*awaits the Leitrim slagging regardless :-(*

Jawgap

Nino Brown wrote: »

What was China's ballistic missile called?

Because they were focused on Europe, they didn't need to be experts in amphibious assaults. They would have figured it our pretty quickly if they wanted?

I'm not sure they gave things names in 14th Century China, but I could be wrong.

If the Germans had no requirement to be operationally expert at amphibious operations how were they expected cross the English Channel (minimum distance 22 miles), much less the Celtic Sea (300 miles)?

Plus have the technology is one thing, having the experience, supporting systems, doctrine etc is a different thing. To borrow a phrase - it takes 2 years to build a battleship, it takes 200 to build a navy.

Jawgap

blatantrereg wrote: »

This article agrees with me:

http://www.military-history.org/articles/the-battle-of-britain-a-brief-guide.htm

The bombing of London is not consistent with it, but does not disprove it. That seems more political or personal in nature.

A four year old article in a non-peer reviewed journal?

I suggest you have a look at

The Bombing War: Europe, 1939-1945 by Richard Overy

Bombing, States and Peoples in Western Europe 1940-1945 by Claudia Baldoli, Andrew Knapp, Richard Overy

The Royal Navy and the Battle of Britain by Anthony Cumming

bear1

Aren't I correct in believing that there is a deal signed with the UK that they would help our airspace if the need ever arose?

spank_inferno

bear1 wrote: »

Aren't I correct in believing that there is a deal signed with the UK that they would help our airspace if the need ever arose?

There was one post 9/11 as Ireland is sadly incapable of defending itself.

Not sure if its still in place though.

Jawgap

spank_inferno wrote: »

There was one post 9/11 as Ireland is sadly incapable of defending itself.

Not sure if its still in place though.

I reckon this is mythical - is there a link available?

The obvious question is who would give - if the worst came to the worst - the shootdown order?

What would happen if Inda and Cameron (or their successors) disagreed on whether an aircraft should be shot down?

It's an area where you need absolute clarity and certainty and I can't see command and control of a pair of Typhoons being passed to Inda, nor can I see even Inda being happy to delegate final authority to Downing Street to being down an aircraft in our airspace?

Of course Inda would insist that nothing gets shot down over Mayo.

bear1

spank_inferno wrote: »

There was one post 9/11 as Ireland is sadly incapable of defending itself.

Not sure if its still in place though.

It is a pity, our airspace is quite important for Europe but I'd imagine the army would jsut ask for EU help in the case of an attack.

bear1

Jawgap wrote: »

I reckon this is mythical - is there a link available?

The obvious question is who would give - if the worst came to the worst - the shootdown order?

What would happen if Inda and Cameron (or their successors) disagreed on whether an aircraft should be shot down?

It's an area where you need absolute clarity and certainty and I can't see command and control of a pair of Typhoons being passed to Inda, nor can I see even Inda being happy to delegate final authority to Downing Street to being down an aircraft in our airspace?

Of course Inda would insist that nothing gets shot down over Mayo.

Well if the Irish Army requests the UK's help then I'd imagine the orders would come from Irish generals as it is in Irish airspace.

bnt

Franticfrank wrote: »

We already have the best form of defence imaginable - geography. The only reason the Brits weren't crushed by Blitzkrieg in 1940 was because of the channel. When you're an island, most people can't be bothered with you. So relax and head down to the pub, nothing to worry about.

The history of WW2 shows that neutrality is not a defense against being occupied. It just means that there are no defenses to be suppressed, so there's no reason to waste ammunition bombarding the place. The occupiers still do whatever they want. Anne Frank's family moved to the neutral Netherlands to escape the Nazis, and settled near Amsterdam. We know how well that worked ..! :eek:

re Switzerland: an additional reason the Nazis didn't invade was to do with money: the top Nazis needed somewhere safe to stash their ill-gotten gains.

Jawgap

bear1 wrote: »

Well if the Irish Army requests the UK's help then I'd imagine the orders would come from Irish generals as it is in Irish airspace.

I think it's possible to confidently state that never in a million years would the Brits place fast jets (or even slow jets) under Irish military control, or in any position where the final arbiter of whether a weapon is released or not is an Irish commander or the Irish Minister of Defence.

I'd say the best we could hope for is that a request is forwarded, which the British will assess before responding.

murphym7

If it all kicks off in Europe there is just one plan. Get on the first Ryanair flight to London and chain yourself to the railings at the end of Downing Street. Simples, gone in an instant.

Fratton Fred

murphym7 wrote: »

If it all kicks off in Europe there is just one plan. Get on the first Ryanair flight to London and chain yourself to the railings at the end of Downing Street. Simples, gone in an instant.

In the 90s I lived next to a US airbase and worked next to RAF Strike Command in High Wycombe.

I reckoned if it all kicked off, my life expectancy was four minutes one nano second.

obplayer

Jawgap wrote: »

Can I suggest you get your information on the German from elsewhere other than Irish Central.

SEALON, Case Green was prepared - it doesn't mean it was capable of being implemented.

How about Enemy Coast Ahead by Guy Gibson, written just before he was killed? He describes being sent on bombing runs to attack the barges being brought to the coast in large numbers. Clearly Germany was bringing the barges to use them and Britain thought they might well be used. These bombing runs were done at desperate risk to the aircrew, someone thought the risk was real.

obplayer

Jawgap wrote: »

Even they Allies had cock up the Dieppe Raid, then do three amphibious ops badly (Sicily, Salerno and Anzio) before they figured out how to do one reasonably well (OVERLORD) - and even then, with total air supremacy, it was still a fairly close run thing.

Overlord was not a 'closely run thing', Omaha beach was the only beach in question at any point of that 'Longest Day', the other beaches were taken and secured quickly and with fairly low casualties.

Jawgap

obplayer wrote: »

How about Enemy Coast Ahead by Guy Gibson, written just before he was killed? He describes being sent on bombing runs to attack the barges being brought to the coast in large numbers. Clearly Germany was bringing the barges to use them and Britain thought they might well be used. These bombing runs were done at desperate risk to the aircrew, someone thought the risk was real.

Yes, the largely untold part of the Battle of Britain was the role Bomber Command played, but attacking barges and destroying barges are two different things completely.

Plus the fact remains that while the barges were assembled they were completely unsuitable for use in the Channel - they couldn't stay afloat in anything other than calm seas and had to be towed.

Think about how you might get a string of barges across the Channel, and then what? How do you get them on and off the beaches (under fire)?

Also while they were at the Channel ports they were not available for use on the rivers and canals of the Germany and the occupied countries, severely hampering the transport of supplies forward.

obplayer wrote: »

Overlord was not a 'closely run thing', Omaha beach was the only beach in question at any point of that 'Longest Day', the other beaches were taken and secured quickly and with fairly low casualties.

D-Day was NEPTUNE - OVERLORD was the NEPTUNE landings plus the follow-on operations associated with the establishment of a lodgement on the Continent (the Battle of Normandy), plus a rake of other operations including FORTITUDE (the deception plan) etc

In any amphibious operation the challenge for the invader is to build up their forces in the area quicker than the defender - something that is quite difficult to do over an open beach. The Allies did an incredible job, but were helped by some dubious German decisions in the run up to the landings and in the immediate aftermath- A decision, for example, by the Germans to commit their reserves immediately, or at least earlier, would have been catastrophic for the Allies.