What could the Defense Forces equip in an emergency?

the O Reilly connection

Hi

I was wondering what the present day Defense Forces could equip if the Emergency of 1939-1946 were to repeat itself? I know the country is a lot wealthier than it was back then and the population much greater, I was thinking maybe a 1000,000?

What do you think?

Thanks

RavenP

an interesting question. There certain many Irish firms capable of making military equipment, but there would be many challenges to overcome before a substantial amount of Irish military equipment could be manufactured domestically. Firstly things like aircraft are entirely out as there is not a significant aircraft industry in Ireland (except perhaps Bombardier in Belfast). Military vehicles have been manufactured in Ireland in the past, during WW2 and in the 70s and 80s Timoney of course. I am sure Timoney could still do that but the sensors and weapons control systems and the weapons themselves would be a tough challenge. They could, of course, be built in Ireland but there would be a significant development time. The biggest problem is that the development costs would have to be borne for a relatively small number of vehicles, say several hundred. So they would be much more expensive than buying foreign built vehicles. Ships could also be built on Ireland but all the points made above apply here too. Perhaps one area where Ireland might develop an indigenous defence industry is munitions. The idea that machine shops might make 105mm shells (or larger!) and other munitions is perhaps credible.

LambshankRedemption

I think the OP is asking about numbers in personnel, hence the 1,000,000 number mentioned.

Considering the recent report mentioned a current strength of 7500 across all services, I think a million to be unlikely.

OP, look at the latest census, filter by 18-35 year olds and remove 20% and you should have the maximum theoretical number.

ZeroThreat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058397685/what-could-the-defense-forces-equip-in-an-emergency

"maybe a 1000,000?" - you think we could muster defence forces of 1 million from a population of just barely 5 million?

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123199856#Comment_123199856

forget the population totals, given the utter lack of trained defence personnel or even reservists there’s no way to train or equip such a number in any reasonable timeframe.

RavenP

Yes, even during the Emergency, regular forces never topped 40,000 with maybe a total force including reserves of 100,000, at its peak.

Larbre34

A quick looks at CSO data shows there are about 1.4 million people, of both sexes, aged between 20 and 50. So lets call that fighting age.

From that, you remove all the essential jobs, those unavailable due to any sort of infirmity, and also one parent from every two parent household and each single-parent who is a sole custodian.

Lets say 50%, for the sake of argument. So that leaves you with a potential fighting force of 700,000. Then from that, you remove the unsuitable, the untrainable, the grossly criminal, and the objectors who would literally rather be in prison.

So, what, 500 to 550,000? Lets say 600,000 if you include all kids over 18 rather than age 20.

In World War 2, the combined standing Army and LDF peaked at 147,000 strength. Population at that time was 2.95 million. So 5% served, all men obviously.

So today, 5% of men plus 5% of women, adds up to about 520,000 people, which isn't far off my estimate.

So, at an absolute push, and with unlimited resources, the State could probably muster a trained cohort of 550,000.

From that, you need enough 2 star trained drivers, cooks, clerks, MPs, intelligence folk, analysts, technicians, engineers, logisticians, medics, nurses, etc etc, to support perhaps 3 Army Corps (6 Divisions), Navy and Air Force. Lets say 150,000 of those.

Leaving 400,000 to put in the front-line.

tom1ie

Would the theory not be that because we are an island we should be just stopping an enemy getting into the island, no?

So all our efforts should be in a Navy to protect our waters and an air force to patrol and defend our skys, plus automated hardware to defend our skys and waters.

Maybe not though?

Eclectic Econometrics

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123200281#Comment_123200281

Your ratio, even when reversed to 150,000 front line and 400,000 support, would be optimistic.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123200281#Comment_123200281

Yeah, in a functional military and not some showboat regime force, the tail is going to be larger than the teeth by a wide margin, think its 3-1. However even more when you consider the scale of specialists for both navy and air force roles.

Larbre34

Fair enough. But the number of people of suitable age, available to serve, is probably close to the question that was asked.

the O Reilly connection

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123200281#Comment_123200281

What do you think the advantages and disadvantages are of those 400,000 defending an island? I'm assuming 400,000 of those would be mostly infantry.

Larbre34

Well realistically, a comparison with World War 2 is redundant, because those sort of wars aren't fought anymore.

Yes, Russia invaded Ukraine by good old-fashioned ground assault, but that did not work, and the course of the War has been dictated largely by drones and smart weaponry. And also by good intelligence, which never goes out of style, even if its tools have evolved.

When it comes to Ireland, the chances of an amphibious invasion, by anybody, are next to nil. A direct attack on this Country in 2025 would consist of destruction of infrastructure, interference with communications and data, blockade of commerce, denial of airspace, and political interference in the form of an information war, the replacement of democratic leaders with puppets and so on.

And so we would never need 400,000 infantry, or even 150,000. Even if my scenario above evolved and an invasion of boots on the ground did take place, it would only after national capacity on all fronts had been heavily degraded, so you would be talking about asymmetric resistance rather than battlefield encounters anyway.

Which brings us back to the shortcomings that do exist in the real World, the lack of ability in the State to surveil, defend and repel any sort of aggression against any of our resources in any environment, ie sea, air, land, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and cyber.

And takes us back to what the strategic review and reform is all about.

Lets face it though, the only absolute existential threat to the Country is a nuclear assault, or even a nuclear attack on the NATO nations which would leave us in a nuclear winter and without any modern technology right along with them.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123199900#Comment_123199900

A well known Japanese General was asked after his surrender why Japan never invaded the USA and his answer was that it was too risky because " To many private held firearms in the population

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123205266#Comment_123205266

Bull, they never invaded America because they never had anything close to the military strength to do so, in any category even if they won ever naval battle. Not too mention the fact that the Japanese Army had feck all interest in the Pacific campaign, that was all navy driven.

thomil

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123205464#Comment_123205464

Yes and no. I’m pretty sure they could have mustered a sizeable landing force had the need arisen. The big problem was not so much in the raw military strength of the Japanese empire but in the power projection capabilities of the Imperial Japanese Navy. They simply did not have enough supply ships, fleet oilers, etc. to provide a decent escort and covering force for the troop transports and landing ships. Bringing the Kido Butai from the Kuril Islands to its attack position Northwest of Oahu was about the most they could handle given the limited amount of oilers they had, despite the fact that the IJN was at this point far ahead of the US Navy, let alone the Royal Navy, with regards to the ability to resupply ships and task forces at sea.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123205579#Comment_123205579

If the Japanese Army wasn’t fully engaged with China, and no other navy or air force existed, and the US Army hadn’t started its build up… Maybe they could have landed a force, but that’s an completely different world to what happened. More likely given it’s the Japanese they would have come up with a plan that had forces landing from Alaska to the Panama Canal all at the same time with ships darting between each force trying to avoid defeat.

Japan managed much of what they did because of Allied weaknesses or screw ups, not because they had any massive advantage. Also not sure about your suggestion about resupply, Japan treated logistics as a dirty word, and the USN had been far more advanced in underway replenishment by that stage.

Larbre34

Have ye never seen The Man in the High Castle? Fiction, yes, but based on many tales that came out of the Axis.

The ultimate plan to defeat the United States was after Germany had taken Moscow and St. Petersburg and consolidated Western Europe.

The Japanese merely had to hold the Pacific Rim until Nazi naval and air forces could have decapitated the US federal administration and ultimately occupied the sites of strategic importance; New York, Washington, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, Texas, California, New England etc. There was never any realistic chance of occupying the continental US, the Axis only needed the important bits, to render the wide open spaces of the plains and mountains as a vassal.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123205851#Comment_123205851

fiction is fiction for a reason, none of that could have happened in reality, people seem to forget that America was the Arsenal of Democracy for WW2 for a reason. Combined Germany and Japan didn’t have the economic resources to win against them, just look at what they churned out. I mean any plan that starts with “Nazi naval and air forces decapitating the US” has already failed. They couldn’t do that against the U.K. for crying out loud, but somehow project forces across the Atlantic unopposed?

It’s no more realistic than that British shite about Arabs taking over Ireland and the U.K. alone saves the day…Christ that was a shite book.

Notmything

Perhaps the question is what would the defence forces need to look like to field a battalion group in a conflict in Europe?

For the sake of a scenario Russia attacks NATO and decides that Shannon airport is too tempting to ignore.

Larbre34

Irish DF battallions number about 450. Battalions in real militaries stand about 1,000 strong.

To field a mechanised, if not armoured, battalion on the continent, quite simply you'd need the full implementation of the recommendation of the Commission of the DF at Level of Ambition 3.

1,000 frontline troops deployed, another 1 to 2,000 grunts in support roles, depending on what facilities we may be sharing with other nations.

You'd need another 3,000 training up in Ireland to replace the casualties and rotate the fatigued.

Which means you'd need a combined permanent and reserve land component of at least 20,000 strength.

For kit, you'd need a troop ship (car ferry would do), a Multirole military cargo vessel / command and evac platform and at least two corvette escorts with multi-domain capability.

You'd want 2 x A400m size and maybe 6 x C295 size tactical transports for supply, rotation and evac, while accounting for maintenance and losses.

On the field, again it depends on the function of the formation.

An armoured battalion would need 40 to 60 main battle tanks, with recce and support vehicles of the infantry fighting vehicle type. Also perhaps as many as 20 self-propelled Howitzers and multi-launch rocket systems platforms such as the proven LRU MLRS based on the Bradley chassis.

If its to be a mechanised battalion, then delete the tanks and include perhaps 150 APC/IFV chassis with mix of types covering command, anti-armour missile, mortar, rapid 30mm, ambulance, radio and comms, fast recce, bog standard carrier etc etc. You'd still need self-propelled guns but also in this day and age, no large land formation will be going anywhere without attack helicopters, troop and mats helicopters and an extensive drone capability.

Realistically air cover would come from coalition air forces, but if things were that bad politically, we'd surely need three dozen Gen 4.5 fighter interceptors to protect the homeland, at a minimum. Along with all the tools to maximise operations; tankers, AWACs, hardened ground facilities, radar and ground launched advanced SAMs.

Lets say €10 Billion minimum.

Lorddrakul

@Larbre34 Thanks for that.

That's a fairly lucid assessment of what's needed.

However, even if such a plan were put into operation in the morning, I think Ireland would be so far down the priority list in supply chains that it would take decades to achieve.

Larbre34

Well exactly. No matter what we do now, no matter what money we throw at it now, we are beginning from 50 years behind where we should be.

And now is the worst time to be trying to tool up in a large way, since 1946.

Although I read Rheinmetall are taking over several empty factories in Germany to expand production because of the demand. There could be a mini economic boom in the EU countries with large defence industries. And depending how badly things continue to go with the Americans, we could see a wartime level of production.

the O Reilly connection

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123199856#Comment_123199856

Sorry I meant a 100,000.

This article was in the paper recently. I think Ireland can afford to develop a modern air-force but the government are just unwilling to spend money on one.

https://www.thejournal.ie/tanaiste-convinced-of-need-for-ireland-to-have-fighter-jets-and-move-to-highest-defence-funding-6636062-Feb2025/

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123228410#Comment_123228410

The article is literally the Minister of Defence talking about having the Department start the process of scoping buying fighters…

the O Reilly connection

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123228515#Comment_123228515

Ya and it took them until 2025 to do it.

RavenP

I think that decision has been made some time ago, but now is the time chosen to sell it to the public. When they started to make plans for long range military radars the clear implication was that it was a first step to a full airforce.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123228554#Comment_123228554

yep, cause voters didn’t/don’t care.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123206096#Comment_123206096

You seem to be conflating battalions with task forces with brigades, though, overstating the numbers a bit.

A US new combined arms battalion (infantry heavy) has a HQ company with BN staff, a scout platoon with 6x Brads, mortar platoon, medic platoon and a few other odds and ends. 185 strong. Plus a tank and a Brad for the HQ.

2xArmored Assault (mech infantry) companies, each with two 33 man infantry platoons and two 18 man armor platoons with 6x IFV each, and another for the CO. Plus odds and sods, 122 men each.

1x tank company, 14 tanks, 93 men if I recall.

Grand total of 522 men, 15 tanks, 33 IFVs and a few AMPVs and the like for ambulances, transport, mortars, etc.

Habitually, it has a Forward Support Company attached, another 100 or so mechanics, cooks, and truckers. Brings us to about 625. The relationship is pretty much “fixed”, my FST basically reports to me and is treated as part of my unit.

That’s for an armored battalion. My light Cav squadron is about 380 strong, including the FST. 80 vehicles, mainly HMMWVs and a score or so trucks (and 7 boats, 4 SMETs and a few other thingies). The infantry battalions I support are each 650 strong, 750 with the FSS and about 100 vehicles, mainly again HMMWVs. They might be getting another score or so ISVs.

BNs, of course, are not supposed to deploy without support. If a battalion is being deployed independently, maybe to Sinai or something, it will be deployed as a task force and plussed up with additional assets from its source (think air defense, artillery, EW etc).

However, if it’s being deployed as part of a larger unit, such as a battalion being deployed as part of a multinational brigade, it is quite acceptable to deploy it “as is”, and receive attachments from the brigade organisation. Bde won’t mind at all if you bring your own engineers, air defense, sigint, etc (subject to logistics complications since Bde will have to supply them) but it’s not expected.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123205266#Comment_123205266

In fact, the general was so well-known that none of the people who recycle this fiction can remember his name.

This is nonsense. The reason Japan never invaded the USA is because (a) it had no desire to invade the USA, and (b) even if it had wanted to invade the USA, it completely lacked the capacity to do so. It had no way to deliver an invasion force, or to supply one if delivered.

Grassy Knoll

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123208042#Comment_123208042

I do hope that Enterprise Ireland and the like are taking note. This should present some opportunities for Irish firms to get involved as sub-contractors or involved in supply chains. With so much investment involved there will be niche areas for firms here to seek out business opportunities across the continent. It is always a good calling card to have worked in sectors where rigorous specifications and design are a leading component.

I do hope the peacenik fraternity keep out of it.