What if? 1916 rising

minidazzler · 02-08-2010 8:57pm #1

This has been something I have thought about alot, even something I would love to write a book about if I wasn't a very very lazy person ha.

What if the Aud had made it?
What if the Gun-runners had been competant?

How would the rising have fared should it have had the extra 20,000 rifles, the million rounds, the explosives?

I would love to have all the information of the day really, of what was where and then theorise a battle plan to take over the whole country (as it was back then), but don't know where I could get that information.

So, if the rising had had 20,000 +rifles, how do you think it would have fared?

HavingCrack · 02-08-2010 11:11pm

Townsends book 'Easter:1916, The Irish Rebellion' discusses this hypothetical situation quite well if you're interested.

The 1916 rebels couldn't have won even if the Aud had landed successfully. They had no real strategic plans drawn up for the occupation of the rest of the island outside of Dublin. I think they only had Volunteer regiments active in 19 of the 32 counties anyway. The British army was a far superior fighting force to the Irish Volunteers and would havee beaten them in any 'open warfare' rather than the guerilla style of the War of Independance. Furthermore the rebels had very little support in Ireland until the executions of the Rising leaders so its unlikely they would have garnered much support from the population, especially since so many were fighting in France.

In short no, I don't believe the Rising oculd ever have militarily defeated the British.

jurgenscarl · 02-08-2010 11:17pm

The rebels did not have an efficient organisation to get the rifles or ammunition distributed rapidly around the country to make much of a difference before the British brought in reinforcements and artillery to shell rebel positions in Dublin.
Most of the rifles would have been undoubtedly captured in the aftermath of the Rising and the rest would have ended up in attics and under floorboards or hidden in cowsheds and barns.

The IRA that emerged in 1919 would have had some more fire power but at any one time during the War of Independence there were only a few thousand men available to actually do any really rebelling.
The British flooded the country with thousands of British troops, reinforced wth RIC with the Tans and the Auxillaries and rounded up thousands of republicans. The British had naval vessels, airplanes, tanks, artillery, tanks and armoured cars and were in full control of Dublin, all the major cities and towns and most of the countryside.
By the time De Valera and Collins accepted the truce, the IRA were actually only weeks away from total defeat.
No suprise that Collins signed the Treaty which created the Free State - it was the best deal they were ever going to get.
The anti-Treaty IRA might well have had more firepower at their disposal if the British had not raided their arms years before.
The rebels were always short of ammo and weapons, they were poorly trained and poorly led.
The Free State Army meanwhile swelled in numbers as ex-British officers took charge and ex-British servicemen joined up - the majority of them Catholics who had served in the British Army in the Great War who had supported Redmond and Home Rule - which is more or less what the Free State actually was.
The British supplied the Free State Army with armoured cars, artillery, machine guns and rifles and even airplanes.
The rebels had no chance.
By 1923 if any of the Aud rifle shipment still existed they would have made little or no real impact except to inflict a few hundred more casualties to the thousands killed in the Civil War and more destruction.

PatsytheNazi · 03-08-2010 3:52pm

jurgenscarl wrote: »

The rebels did not have an efficient organisation to get the rifles or ammunition distributed rapidly around the country to make much of a difference before the British brought in reinforcements and artillery to shell rebel positions in Dublin.
Most of the rifles would have been undoubtedly captured in the aftermath of the Rising and the rest would have ended up in attics and under floorboards or hidden in cowsheds and barns.

Weapons would have been landed in rural Kerry. Not exactly crawling with British soldiers in 1916. The Brits ddin't exactly do very well capturing the arms from the Howth gun running in 1914 did they. Managed to shoot and bayonet a few civilians on Bachelors Quay that's all :mad:

The IRA that emerged in 1919 would have had some more fire power but at any one time during the War of Independence there were only a few thousand men available to actually do any really rebelling.

The reason why they were " only a few thousand men available " was because they had only a few thousand arms - much of which was actually captrued from the British in successful attacks and raids. Shoudl tehy have successfully landed 20,000 arms then they would have had tens of thousands of men - including more weapons captrued from the British.

The British flooded the country with thousands of British troops, reinforced wth RIC with the Tans and the Auxillaries and rounded up thousands of republicans. The British had naval vessels, airplanes, tanks, artillery, tanks and armoured cars and were in full control of Dublin, all the major cities and towns and most of the countryside.

Yes they did but they still had to evcuate 26 of the 32 counties. An IRA tens of thousands strong would undoubtably have seen the entire back of them.

By the time De Valera and Collins accepted the truce, the IRA were actually only weeks away from total defeat.

The whole thing about the IRA being on the verge of defeat is one of the great lies about the period. If they were near total defeat in a few weeks the British would have held out and crushed them, not offer them a truce. Collins said this once as he was politicing trying to sell the treaty and has been seized on ever since by partitionists. By all accounts of senior IRA men, they were only getting stronger not weaker.

No suprise that Collins signed the Treaty which created the Free State - it was the best deal they were ever going to get.

The leading IRA men who led the fight believed entirely different - e.g. Tom Barry, Liam Lynch, Dan Breen, Ernie O'Malley.

The anti-Treaty IRA might well have had more firepower at their disposal if the British had not raided their arms years before.
The rebels were always short of ammo and weapons, they were poorly trained and poorly led.

The majority of the IRA were against the Treaty, needless to say they had outstanding battle hardened leaders, their defeat had more to do with the con job of lies of the treaty, the boyos at the pulpit denouncements and of course the news papers - who had been vehementally pro British just before the treaty.

The Free State Army meanwhile swelled in numbers as ex-British officers took charge and ex-British servicemen joined up - the majority of them Catholics who had served in the British Army in the Great War who had supported Redmond and Home Rule - which is more or less what the Free State actually was.

Yes their were some ex members of the British army who joined the Free State army, but their also was ex members of the British army who were in the IRA, bitter at the actions of the Tans and been misled by Redmond and co into WW1. Tom Barry been a fine example. The officers of the Free State army were practically all ex IRA men.

The British supplied the Free State Army with armoured cars, artillery, machine guns and rifles and even airplanes.

Agreed, but don't rule out the influence of the the con job of lies of the treaty, the boyos at the pulpit denouncements and of course the news papers.

The rebels had no chance.
By 1923 if any of the Aud rifle shipment still existed they would have made little or no real impact except to inflict a few hundred more casualties to the thousands killed in the Civil War and more destruction.

So if the IRA had 20,000 rifles plus machine guns and explosives it " no real impact except to inflict a few hundred more casualties " ......:D

PatsytheNazi · 03-08-2010 4:17pm

HavingCrack wrote: »

Townsends book 'Easter:1916, The Irish Rebellion' discusses this hypothetical situation quite well if you're interested.

The 1916 rebels couldn't have won even if the Aud had landed successfully. They had no real strategic plans drawn up for the occupation of the rest of the island outside of Dublin. I think they only had Volunteer regiments active in 19 of the 32 counties anyway. The British army was a far superior fighting force to the Irish Volunteers and would havee beaten them in any 'open warfare' rather than the guerilla style of the War of Independance. Furthermore the rebels had very little support in Ireland until the executions of the Rising leaders so its unlikely they would have garnered much support from the population, especially since so many were fighting in France.

In short no, I don't believe the Rising oculd ever have militarily defeated the British.

Ah yes, there's nothing quite like British pluck now is there :rolleyes: The British had up to 20,000, the IRA about 1,250. Now if their had been 20,000 IRA volunteers - it would have been a very, very different story.

Also, the IRA surrended not due to British pluck and military capacity but to stop the civilian death toll which was largely been caused by the British navy and artillery. And if the 1916 rising wasn't open warfare then what is ?

jurgenscarl · 03-08-2010 6:39pm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Ah yes, there's nothing quite like British pluck now is there :rolleyes: The British had up to 20,000, the IRA about 1,250. Now if their had been 20,000 IRA volunteers - it would have been a very, very different story.

Also, the IRA surrended not due to British pluck and military capacity but to stop the civilian death toll which was largely been caused by the British navy and artillery. And if the 1916 rising wasn't open warfare then what is ?

There never were 20,000 trained IRA men who could have used those rifles. There is no point in handing a rifle to a man who does not know anything about shooting accurately at long distance - a Mauser or Lee-Enfield or comparable bolt-action repeating rifle from the WW1 era can hit targets at a range of hundreds of yards in skilled hands but in unskilled hands would be practically useless except maybe as a club.
It's no good being patriotic if you are no match for trained soldiers.
Only a handful of IRA units who had anything like the discipline and training of a regular British military unit and only a few IRA officers had military experience.
Tom Barry and other commanders managed to pull off some brilliant ambushes but that was it.
The IRA might be lucky to pick off a soldier or two before they were forced to scatter or risk capture.
Even so the British had superior numbers, they had tanks, armoured cars with mounted machine guns, cavalry, artillery, naval vessels to bombard cities and towns and airplanes.
The IRA agreed to a truce because the British offered them a political path and a Free State or total defeat.
The British agreed to the truce because they were giving the Irish more or less the same deal as Home Rule under the new Free State. They could get their troops out and leave the Irish to administer their own affairs while remaining in the Commonwealth. Problem solved.
At no time during the conflict did the British ever lose control of major population centres or lose control of the country side. The patrolled aggressively and made it harder and harder for the few active IRA flying columns to operate.
Thousands of men were rounded up in prison camps.
If the IRA had fought large scale battles with the British they would have been wiped out completely.

PatsytheNazi · 03-08-2010 7:36pm

jurgenscarl wrote: »

There never were 20,000 trained IRA men who could have used those rifles. There is no point in handing a rifle to a man who does not know anything about shooting accurately at long distance - a Mauser or Lee-Enfield or comparable bolt-action repeating rifle from the WW1 era can hit targets at a range of hundreds of yards in skilled hands but in unskilled hands would be practically useless except maybe as a club.

" unskilled hands " The so called unskilled hands didn't do too bad on Easter Week 1916 and other gun battles around the country now didn't they :rolleyes:

It's no good being patriotic if you are no match for trained soldiers. Only a handful of IRA units who had anything like the discipline and training of a regular British military unit and only a few IRA officers had military experience.
Tom Barry and other commanders managed to pull off some brilliant ambushes but that was it.
The IRA might be lucky to pick off a soldier or two before they were forced to scatter or risk capture.

The proved more than a match for " for trained soldiers " as above. Now if the had 20,000 ( plus how many captured weapons this would have yeilded ), they have done as good if not even better than another bunch of untrained - the Boers. And as for the " discipline and training of a regular British military unit ", at times they were often drunk as looting pubs and shops was their common practise. And I'm not just talking about the Tans, read Tom Barry and the Essex regiement.

Even so the British had superior numbers, they had tanks, armoured cars with mounted machine guns, cavalry, artillery, naval vessels to bombard cities and towns and airplanes.
The IRA agreed to a truce because the British offered them a political path and a Free State or total defeat.

IRA were never close to defeat, the carrot of the treaty split the movement instead of allowing the IRA to develop and international pressure on Britain. It was a political stroke not a miltiary one which led to the crime of partition.

The British agreed to the truce because they were giving the Irish more or less the same deal as Home Rule under the new Free State. They could get their troops out and leave the Irish to administer their own affairs while remaining in the Commonwealth. Problem solved.

The Free Sate was vastly differnet from Home Rule :rolleyes:. The FS had it's own army, police, taxation powers etc. It was a de facto independent state, with a imperial few bells and whistles, the Oath, the Viceroy etc

At no time during the conflict did the British ever lose control of major population centres or lose control of the country side. The patrolled aggressively and made it harder and harder for the few active IRA flying columns to operate.
Thousands of men were rounded up in prison camps.
If the IRA had fought large scale battles with the British they would have been wiped out completely.

Well the IRA couldn't fight large scale battles as they hadn't the chance to obtain 20,000 or more rifles !!!

And the Brits were far from being able to throw their weight around as you'd like to make out. Firstly their was Irish America ( which was criplling British trade with Britain by the dockers and Teamsters unions refusing to handle British goods ) and it's political clout, secondly the British public which was war weary after WW1 and certainly would not have supported the introduction of Boer War type war crimes, and thridly international opinion which was totally on Ireland's side.

PatsytheNazi · 03-08-2010 7:54pm

Just occured to me, the two of us are going completely off topic here and have been since his post #3............... Ooops

xflyer · 03-08-2010 9:31pm

Guns are useless without ammunition. The British had an endless supply. The Volunteers didn't. Pearse and many other of the leaders knew they couldn't win but chose the blood sacrifice. It led to our independance of sorts but mostly it condemmed us to 90 years of misrule by the sort of people who still sit in Leinster house.

The truth was that we would have got Home Rule after the war anyway. That in turn would have led to Dominion status and then the Republic eventually. All without the nonsense that went on. We might even have a United Ireland by now because the Unionists would have little to be paranoid about. My own opinion was that the British got off lightly by allowing the Free State. They no longer had to pay for Ireland but they still benefited from trading with us. They should have subsidised us for years to make up for the exploitation of centuries.

We got the worst sort of independance far too soon. A poor compromise that continues to bedevil us.

HavingCrack · 04-08-2010 12:17am

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Ah yes, there's nothing quite like British pluck now is there :rolleyes: The British had up to 20,000, the IRA about 1,250. Now if their had been 20,000 IRA volunteers - it would have been a very, very different story.

Also, the IRA surrended not due to British pluck and military capacity but to stop the civilian death toll which was largely been caused by the British navy and artillery. And if the 1916 rising wasn't open warfare then what is ?

What are you attempting to imply with that comment that I've highlighted????? I get the impression that it was directed at me personally but if I'm wrong I apologise.

The Irish Volunteers of the 1916 Rising and the IRA of the War of Independance were two very different organisations so its misleading to refer to the Irish Volunteers of the Rising as the IRA.

The Irish Volunteers could never have amassed 20,000 skilled soldiers in the field at the time of the Easter Rising, the only had about 12,000 members for a start.

I'm not attempting to deny 1916 wasn't open warfare but the British would have militarily defeated the Irish Volunteers and Citizen Army eventually as the rebels were never capable of driving the British out of Dublin.

PatsytheNazi · 04-08-2010 3:41pm

xflyer wrote: »

Guns are useless without ammunition. The British had an endless supply. The Volunteers didn't. Pearse and many other of the leaders knew they couldn't win but chose the blood sacrifice. It led to our independance of sorts but mostly it condemmed us to 90 years of misrule by the sort of people who still sit in Leinster house.

The Germans sent a million rounds of ammo with the rifles. If the weapons and ammo had been successfully landed and distributed and put to good effect, the Germans, no doubt would have been sending even greater supplies coming. Sure if they had tried to fight a conventional war they would have been eventually over run, but I would have thought that the use of the tatics of the Boers was what they had in mind in the long term and the Boers had a damn good stab at beating them. But like the thread title, it's all an if........:)

The truth was that we would have got Home Rule after the war anyway. That in turn would have led to Dominion status and then the Republic eventually. All without the nonsense that went on. We might even have a United Ireland by now because the Unionists would have little to be paranoid about. My own opinion was that the British got off lightly by allowing the Free State. They no longer had to pay for Ireland but they still benefited from trading with us. They should have subsidised us for years to make up for the exploitation of centuries.

We got the worst sort of independance far too soon. A poor compromise that continues to bedevil us.

No offence, we're wandering off topic again. 1919 onwards, treaty etc

PatsytheNazi · 04-08-2010 4:17pm

One of the interesting comments I heard about the Rising and Arthur Griffith and Sinn Fein was " Sinn Fein did not make the Rising, but the Rising made Sinn Fein ".

Grizzly 45 · 29-08-2010 1:42am

Not to mind those rifles,were already obsolete scrap by ww1.They were captured Mauser single shot rifles by the Germans,who had orginally sold them to the Russians in 189somthing.They were NOT mauser 98K models.A common misconception.Hence the Germans sent them,as they couldnt afford to equip the Irish with state of the art equipment,or even a few competant German officers.The Imperial command looked at it as some mischeif,If the Irish succeeeded ,well and good.It would pullmaybe a few divisions off the western front to sort out the Irish.If not,not much lost.

" unskilled hands " The so called unskilled hands didn't do too bad on Easter Week 1916 and other gun battles around the country now didn't they

Well, if you call a static defence of a bunch of isolated from each other buildings,where you allow yourselves to be trapped with no viable escape plans.You fail to disrupt or control the communications with the UK or the rest of Ireland or prevent reinforcements arriving from the Curragh,you dont plan on thaing the magazine fort in the Phoenix park,and two of your heroic freedom fighters shoot a ten year old kid in the back.Not to mind you fail to bring the citizens of Dublin with you with you .You are lead by no one with any great military training,but by an ego manic who is into blood scarfice.Yeah ..a great sucess!!:rolleyes:
As for the Boer tactics.It was the British that beat them by the use of concentration camps and forcing the Boers to operate in a vaccum,of no resupply or a friendly poulation.It wouldnt have taken them that long to figure out that tactic would have worked fine in W Cork either.A patrol gets ambushed..Burn out four villages in the area,execute every man and boy in the district and and remove the women and children to a holding pen somwhere.Those kinds of reprisel activities were much favoured by the people who were under the second part of your signature in the 1940s in the countries they visited in Europe:(.Wouldnt have mattered if the IRA had been effective then.They would have been demoralised totally,not to mind the civil war and war of independance really only happened in 5 of 32 counties of Ireland.What were the other27 doing to support their independance??The British calculated that it would have required 250,000 full time troops and ancillary,plus naval ,airforce,etc to subjugate Ireland if the Irish hadnt signed the treaty.David Lyod George told them this was their stark choice.Sign and gain a freedom to be free or face a total and bloody destruction.A bunch of old mausers and what not wouldnt have stopped it.

And the Brits were far from being able to throw their weight around as you'd like to make out. Firstly their was Irish America ( which was criplling British trade with Britain by the dockers and Teamsters unions refusing to handle British goods ) and it's political clout, secondly the British public which was war weary after WW1 and certainly would not have supported the introduction of Boer War type war crimes, and thridly international opinion which was totally on Ireland's side.

As if Britan would be really too botherd.They still had an Empire where the Sun more or less still never set,it could still produce anything the US could.Nor was the US very intrested in European affairs as it was becoming isolationist and looking into the Depression.So what a bunch of Irishmen did in NYC or New Jersey on the docks was being monitored already by an up and coming J Edgar Hoover.
As for international opinion condeming Britans actions,what sanctions could be taken by whom?The leauge of Nations was just a talking shop with no policing powersor sanctioning powers.It was really effective in stopping the British with the Amistar massacre in India,Mussolini stomping around Libya and Ethopia and Adolf helping himself to half Europe.
War weary Britan would only have been too happyto have been able to boost up its forces to go Paddy bashing again.It was a job wasnt it??
Why do you think the Auxies and Tans were over here in the 1st place??

In the end,it was proably just as well the aud was scuttled.It wouldnt have speed up anything and proably only prolonged things.

judestynes · 24-10-2010 9:29am

Some else had started a thread similar to this in the after hours section of the site it was in fact a poll and the crux of it was who thought the easter rising was a terrorist act or fight for freedom. Usually they are one and the same depending on what side of the fence your on. An awful lot of what if's came up in the thread, this was my contribution [ Ireland... easter week. Perhaps if the Irish republican forces had made their stand in London, it might be considered terrorism, their biggest mistake was assuming that Dublin meant as much to the crown as it did to themselves. It would be hard to imagine a warship being sailed up the Thames and systematicly levelling the city. The crown forces had no compulsions at all about shelling or machine gunning the civilian population until unconditional surrender was delivered by the republicans, a poilcy they continued I might add during ww2, by indiscriminately bombing German cities years after the lufwaffe ceased bombing British cities. So in conclusion, there were terrorists operating in Dublin during easter week, but they weren't Irish.]

I think an additional 20,000 rifles wouldn't have made any difference, not in easter week of that year. Perhaps the following year when the volunteers were suffiecently trained. If there was a force of 20,000+ volunteers of the same quality and calibre that were out in easter week 1916 would have made a serious impact but as I've said, landing the weapons a few weeks before the rising wouldn't have mattered much.

tac foley · 24-10-2010 6:21pm

judestynes wrote: »

It would be hard to imagine a warship being sailed up the Thames and systematicly levelling the city. The crown forces had no compulsions at all about shelling or machine gunning the civilian population until unconditional surrender was delivered by the republicans, a poilcy they continued I might add during ww2, by indiscriminately bombing German cities years after the lufwaffe ceased bombing British cities. So in conclusion, there were terrorists operating in Dublin during easter week, but they weren't Irish.]

There is just so much wrong with this diatribe that I hardly know where to begin, except, for a start, to recommend that you look up the difference between 'compulsion' and 'compunction'.

A 'warship' sailing up the Liffey and 'systematicly [sic]' levelling the city? Details, please.

Also, please note that those taking on the Crown Forces in Dublin that Easter were, as far as the British were concerned, ALL civilians.

Who, I would remind you, were jeered, spat on and deriled by their fellow-Irishmen as they were marched through the streets for bringing such devastation to Dublin.

As for the WW2 allies' treatment of nazi Germany as the '...indiscriminate bombing of German cities', please let me know how this applies to the Easter Rising. AFAIK there was no bombing of Dublin by the British or Americans. Tell a survivor of Coventry that the bombing of nazi Germany would be 'minimal to avoid delicate sensitivities', or the relatives of any of the more than 40,000 dead who died in the luftwaffe's blitz of London. There is no way on earth that you can begin to compare the Easter Rising - a VERY localised affair - with WW2. And you can be sure that the bombing of nazi Germany was not indiscriminate - it was all very deliberate. It is thanks to the effectiveness of that bombing that you are able to post your opinion on this site. Without it you would be either speaking German, or more likely, Russian. Or, if you were Jewish, disabled, mentally-ill or a gypsy, you wouldn't be here at all.

tac

judestynes · 24-10-2010 8:40pm

The ship was called the Helga, it flattened liberty hall, then made it's way as far as carlisle bridge (O'Connell bridge today) and commenced shelling Sackville street (today O'Connell street), Abbey street, Henry street, Moore Street and another few buildings mistaken for the Bolands mill garrison.
It is true British soldiers to large extent protected the republican forces from the public who misdirected their anger at them for the destruction of their city but the republicans had no artillery so how could they cause such damage.
Just face it, the crowns conduct in Ireland aswell as India and Australia was deplorable.

tac foley · 24-10-2010 8:44pm

judestynes wrote: »

The ship was called the Helga, it flattened liberty hall, then made it's way as far as carlisle bridge (O'Connell bridge today) and commenced shelling Sackville street (today O'Connell street), Abbey street, Henry street, Moore Street and another few buildings mistaken for the Bolands mill garrison.

Thank you for that information, I was not aware of it.

tac

deise go deo · 24-10-2010 9:50pm

jurgenscarl wrote: »

There never were 20,000 trained IRA men who could have used those rifles. There is no point in handing a rifle to a man who does not know anything about shooting accurately at long distance - a Mauser or Lee-Enfield or comparable bolt-action repeating rifle from the WW1 era can hit targets at a range of hundreds of yards in skilled hands but in unskilled hands would be practically useless except maybe as a club.

The West cork column that wiped out the auxiliaries at Kilmichal were just such untrained men, They had only fired 3 shots in training before that action, Tom Barry was quite clear in his book, You don't need to be a marksman at 30 yards.
There were never 'Trained IRA men' The men who fought in the Columns during the war were not trained, they were amateurs fighting for a cause they believed in. Yet in many areas skilled leadership saw the IRA take on and beat the British time and again.

It's no good being patriotic if you are no match for trained soldiers.
Only a handful of IRA units who had anything like the discipline and training of a regular British military unit and only a few IRA officers had military experience.
Tom Barry and other commanders managed to pull off some brilliant ambushes but that was it.
The IRA might be lucky to pick off a soldier or two before they were forced to scatter or risk capture.

Yet that is not how it played out in the war, Untrained IRA men time and again broke British units in ambushes, The vast majority of engagements between the Irish and British ended in Victory for the IRA, The British did win some times, they managed to destroy a column in east cork once but that was the exception.

In many cases engagements between the IRA and British where the British were in greater or equal strength to the IRA ended in victory for the IRA, The fact is the IRA proved they were a match for Trained British Soldiers.

Even so the British had superior numbers, they had tanks, armoured cars with mounted machine guns, cavalry, artillery, naval vessels to bombard cities and towns and airplanes.

And yet it was the British who time and again were defeated, They had all these things in 1919 and 1920 and yet the IRA consistently grew in strength.

The IRA agreed to a truce because the British offered them a political path and a Free State or total defeat.
The British agreed to the truce because they were giving the Irish more or less the same deal as Home Rule under the new Free State. They could get their troops out and leave the Irish to administer their own affairs while remaining in the Commonwealth. Problem solved.

The British gave far more in the Treaty than had been on the cards for home rule.

At no time during the conflict did the British ever lose control of major population centres or lose control of the country side. The patrolled aggressively and made it harder and harder for the few active IRA flying columns to operate.
Thousands of men were rounded up in prison camps.
If the IRA had fought large scale battles with the British they would have been wiped out completely.

That simply isent true, The IRA never came close to loosening British control of the major population centers that is true, But at the same time the IRA was active in both Dublin and Cork cities from start to finish. To say the British were in control of the countryside is plain wrong, They were kept in Barracks for the most part, unable to move unless it was in strength. The IRA had the freedom of the countryside and it was the British who found it harder and harder to operate in the countryside due to IRA activities, The British forces were blind, deprived of their RIC Intelegence network, and the IRA hampered their movements with ambushes and trenching roads.

jonniebgood1 · 09-11-2010 11:32am

Posted by deise go deo> The West cork column that wiped out the auxiliaries at Kilmichal were just such untrained men, They had only fired 3 shots in training before that action, Tom Barry was quite clear in his book, You don't need to be a marksman at 30 yards.
There were never 'Trained IRA men' The men who fought in the Columns during the war were not trained, they were amateurs fighting for a cause they believed in. Yet in many areas skilled leadership saw the IRA take on and beat the British time and again.

Yet that is not how it played out in the war, Untrained IRA men time and again broke British units in ambushes, The vast majority of engagements between the Irish and British ended in Victory for the IRA, The British did win some times, they managed to destroy a column in east cork once but that was the exception.

In many cases engagements between the IRA and British where the British were in greater or equal strength to the IRA ended in victory for the IRA, The fact is the IRA proved they were a match for Trained British Soldiers.

And yet it was the British who time and again were defeated, They had all these things in 1919 and 1920 and yet the IRA consistently grew in strength.

Tom Barrys column at Kilmichael were not untrained. Barry himself had only been allowed association with the IRA (given his service in the British army) if he would assist in the training of their men. He did this with his first association being the organisation of training camps. If you are familiar with his book 'Guerilla days in Ireland' as you indicate, you should know this as he details it quite clearly in the early chapters. To call them untrained does not do Barry's preparations justice.

It is also untrue to say that IRA columns regualrly beat 'greater or equal strength' British sources. Kilmichael for example saw 36 men of Barry's column beat 18 Auxillaries in a prepared and well planned ambush. The nature of Guerilla war as developed by Barry and others saw the British engaged in terms that they were not prepared for and thus they found it difficult to fight back initially, and crucially it rendered their standard military training useless. Your post is fanciful but not realistic.

judestynes · 09-11-2010 12:08pm

tac foley wrote: »

Thank you for that information, I was not aware of it.

tac

Is that an apology?

deise go deo · 11-11-2010 10:52am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Tom Barrys column at Kilmichael were not untrained. Barry himself had only been allowed association with the IRA (given his service in the British army) if he would assist in the training of their men. He did this with his first association being the organisation of training camps. If you are familiar with his book 'Guerilla days in Ireland' as you indicate, you should know this as he details it quite clearly in the early chapters. To call them untrained does not do Barry's preparations justice.

I believe it states quite clearly that the men at Kilbarry were a new column, very few of whom had seen action before, I believe they had a weeks training prior to the engagement.

It is also untrue to say that IRA columns regualrly beat 'greater or equal strength' British sources. Kilmichael for example saw 36 men of Barry's column beat 18 Auxillaries in a prepared and well planned ambush. The nature of Guerilla war as developed by Barry and others saw the British engaged in terms that they were not prepared for and thus they found it difficult to fight back initially, and crucially it rendered their standard military training useless. Your post is fanciful but not realistic.

Indeed to say regularly beet superior would be fanciful, but then that wasent what I said. There were cases where IRA units took on and beat superior British forces, even without the benefit of training camps.

jonniebgood1 · 11-11-2010 3:20pm

deise go deo wrote: »

I believe it states quite clearly that the men at Kilbarry were a new column, very few of whom had seen action before, I believe they had a weeks training prior to the engagement.

Indeed to say regularly beet superior would be fanciful, but then that wasent what I said. There were cases where IRA units took on and beat superior British forces, even without the benefit of training camps.

1. Agreed- they had received training.

2. Could you give me examples of your second point for my own information?

deise go deo · 11-11-2010 6:58pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

1. Agreed- they had received training.

Their training was a far cry from the training recieved by the British army. The Column at Kilbarry had never fired a shot in anger before the Fight with the Exception of Barry and i believe one other volenteer.

2. Could you give me examples of your second point for my own information?

I can give a few instances but i would need to look it up to provide details.
One example Would be the Piltown ambush in West waterford. The Column consisted of 13 men. These were I beleive backed up by some men from the Local Company who had some shotguns taken from the local estates. (An Rinn/Old Parish) who ambushed a lorry at Piltown Cross.

I can not give an exact figure for the British army involved but a good estimaite is 18 men and one officer.(This was the number of rifles captured, And the account mentions the officer jumping the ditch to land in the middle of the shotgun party.)

2 British soldiers were killed and 6 injured. The IRA suffered no casualties.

All British Weapons and ammo was captured by the IRA. This then helped the West Waterford Brigade to put a column of around 30 into the feild.

I suppose the Standout example of the IRA beating superior British Forces was the Battle of Mount street Bridge in 1916

jonniebgood1 · 11-11-2010 9:38pm

deise go deo wrote: »

Their training was a far cry from the training recieved by the British army. The Column at Kilbarry had never fired a shot in anger before the Fight with the Exception of Barry and i believe one other volenteer.

If you mean Crossbarry then I would agree that it was a great acheivement in evading capture. The British were not defeated in this battle from my recollection of Barry's account of events. As refered earlier the British soldiers were not trained to combat guerilla warfare, thus to make an important issue out of their training is not necessary. The flying columns were drilled regularly to instill a discipline and control over them. This profesionalism is detailed in Barry's book and also Dan Breens 'My Fight for Irish freedom' where travelling officers assisted with this.

deise go deo wrote: »

I can give a few instances but i would need to look it up to provide details.
One example Would be the Piltown ambush in West waterford. The Column consisted of 13 men. These were I beleive backed up by some men from the Local Company who had some shotguns taken from the local estates. (An Rinn/Old Parish) who ambushed a lorry at Piltown Cross.

I can not give an exact figure for the British army involved but a good estimaite is 18 men and one officer.(This was the number of rifles captured, And the account mentions the officer jumping the ditch to land in the middle of the shotgun party.)

With respect, A column of 13 men backed up by local men ambushing a truck is not really as you described -

There were cases where IRA units took on and beat superior British forces, even without the benefit of training camps.

I would say 13 men with back up against 18 men is fairly even particularly when the 13 with back up engage terms.

deise go deo wrote: »

I suppose the Standout example of the IRA beating superior British Forces was the Battle of Mount street Bridge in 1916

Come out of it you- The IRA was'nt formed until 1918/19. Mount street was a great victory but if thats your standout example then you lose as its before the IRA was not even formed at this stage in the battle for independence. And for someone who thinks military training is important you would be interested in the amount of training some of the British soldiers had in this case.

deise go deo · 12-11-2010 1:07am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you mean Crossbarry then I would agree that it was a great acheivement in evading capture. The British were not defeated in this battle from my recollection of Barry's account of events. As refered earlier the British soldiers were not trained to combat guerilla warfare, thus to make an important issue out of their training is not necessary. The flying columns were drilled regularly to instill a discipline and control over them. This profesionalism is detailed in Barry's book and also Dan Breens 'My Fight for Irish freedom' where travelling officers assisted with this.

The IRA did atempt to train, No argument there, But there is an undeniable difference between the training of both sides. You can hardly claim there is anything even approaching a similarity between the training of the two forces.

With respect, A column of 13 men backed up by local men ambushing a truck is not really as you described - I would say 13 men with back up against 18 men is fairly even particularly when the 13 with back up engage terms.

I agree, that is an instance of an IRA Unit beating a better armed and trained enemy of comparable strength, I gave it as I know the details of the battle, It happened in my local area.

Come out of it you- The IRA was'nt formed until 1918/19. Mount street was a great victory but if thats your standout example then you lose as its before the IRA was not even formed at this stage in the battle for independence. And for someone who thinks military training is important you would be interested in the amount of training some of the British soldiers had in this case.

Actually the IRA came about during Easter Week, There are letters written and signed by James Connelly as a Commandant of the Dublin Brigade, IRA.

jonniebgood1 · 12-11-2010 11:09am

deise go deo wrote: »

The IRA did atempt to train, No argument there, But there is an undeniable difference between the training of both sides. You can hardly claim there is anything even approaching a similarity between the training of the two forces.

We agree on this so, the reason I objected to calling the IRA 'untrained' is that I believe credit must go particularly to column commanders for the discipline they attempted to drill into their men. Kilmichael is a great example of how Barry's column were able to follow his orders precisely. His tactical awareness in this ambush was studied in military academy's across the world.

deise go deo wrote: »

I agree, that is an instance of an IRA Unit beating a better armed and trained enemy of comparable strength, I gave it as I know the details of the battle, It happened in my local area.

Indeed- I have'nt read Lennons book yet but you abviously have http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1856356493/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 not that I've been following you!

Actually the IRA came about during Easter Week, There are letters written and signed by James Connelly as a Commandant of the Dublin Brigade, IRA.

My understanding is that the Mount street battle which you referenced was carried out by members of the 'Irish Volunteers', not the IRA as you mentioned.

deise go deo · 12-11-2010 12:41pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

We agree on this so, the reason I objected to calling the IRA 'untrained' is that I believe credit must go particularly to column commanders for the discipline they attempted to drill into their men. Kilmichael is a great example of how Barry's column were able to follow his orders precisely. His tactical awareness in this ambush was studied in military academy's across the world.

Im sure you will agree that Barry was the exception rather than the rule though, Even in West cork there were several near misses due to breaches in Discipline.

Indeed- I have'nt read Lennons book yet but you abviously have http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1856356493/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 not that I've been following you!

Thats the book yes, well worth a read, It is a good Example of a Brigade that was never as active as West Cork or South Tip but still managed to hold their own against the Enemy. It was very interesting for me as all the actions took place in areas I knew already.
Kinda puts the monuments in perspective when you know what they are for.

My understanding is that the Mount street battle which you referenced was carried out by members of the 'Irish Volunteers', not the IRA as you mentioned.

Indeed the men involved were Volunteers, However the Idea of the IRA started in Easter week, The Men in the GPO took to calling themselves the IRA, I suppose it was really a thing of the Republic had been declared and they were its army, Also it effectively joined the ICA and the IV into one force.

Thats why it was the IRA and not the IV that emerged in 18/19.

When I have time I will go through some of the other examples Of what I am talking about, I have about 20 books on the subject, Unfortunatly I don't have them with me.

It is fair to say that the IRA, Though comparatively poorly trained and very badly armed, were able to hold their own against the British army, Even when both forces were evenly matched in Numbers. (Im sure there are examples of the IRA beating superior numbers but I wont include that till I have the Details.)

kevinhalvey · 13-11-2010 8:43pm

even if they did get there extra 20,000 rifles and 1,00000 bullets it would have still failed for two main reasons

1 . the rebels took over building and stayed in them with out enough men essentially trapping themselves . if they hadnt done this and used michael collins tactics eg hit and run they may have won as they did not havve the skill or fire power to take on the british army

2 . the british army got 12,000 reinforcments in from the curragh and athlone

deise go deo · 15-11-2010 2:20am

kevinhalvey wrote: »

even if they did get there extra 20,000 rifles and 1,00000 bullets it would have still failed for two main reasons

1 . the rebels took over building and stayed in them with out enough men essentially trapping themselves . if they hadnt done this and used michael collins tactics eg hit and run they may have won as they did not havve the skill or fire power to take on the british army

2 . the british army got 12,000 reinforcments in from the curragh and athlone

The IRA dident have much training, and had Less fire power in 1921. They dident lose then and there were 80000 british troops in Ireland. Why do you assume the British, who were heavily Distracted by WWI would have won?

mbiking123 · 04-12-2010 12:48am

British soldeirs always pride themselves as being the best trained in the world however in WW1 it is widely accepted that the soldiers had poor training especially Kitchener's army. Those troops themselves accepted after some time they had poor training. They passed by the fields of poppy's and when the reached the front line their lives changed forever, they did not understand war, never explained the effects etc. I would say the troops stationed in Ireland would have had the same type of training.

Wiki leaks is also showing critism of British army tactics, afghan's supposed to prefer US Marines over British Army. Perhaps its all in the mind ? Maybe we over estimate this whole 'training' thing. In the end if your in a building and shooting out of a window maybe you just need to be a good shot and a fast loader ? No camoflague etc etc in those days. Possibly IRA were just as good as the British soldier. Just outnumbered and lack of firepower

Perhaps tactics are more important

krd · 26-12-2010 12:48pm

jurgenscarl wrote: »

There never were 20,000 trained IRA men who could have used those rifles. There is no point in handing a rifle to a man who does not know anything about shooting accurately at long distance

I believe Tom Barry said something like everyone's a good shot a ten feet.

He applied trench warfare techniques to guerilla warfare. His ambushes were always up close.

And I'm not sure it takes that long to train someone to shoot a rifle accurately at long range. The I.R.A had a shortage of weapons and munitions - they probably couldn't practice much.

What if? 1916 rising

Comments