Ireland's Axis style uniforms

04-05-2021 12:16am #1

Is there an explanation as to why Ireland wore axis style military uniforms in the 30s and 40s. British pathe has some videos on YouTube documenting the Irish army one on St Patrick's Day, with Italian style fascist uniforms and the other in 1940 , with infantry wearing German style helmets?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EpjD9mgeEfA

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7bdOQ938Lmg

touts · 04-05-2021 12:23am

easyredrider wrote: »

Is there an explanation as to why Ireland wore axis style military uniforms in the 30s and 40s. British pathe has some videos on YouTube documenting the Irish army one on St Patrick's Day, with Italian style fascist uniforms and the other in 1940 , with infantry wearing German style helmets?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EpjD9mgeEfA

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7bdOQ938Lmg

Given most of the senior officers would have fought in the war of independence I suspect "not remotely British looking" was probably a big factor in the selection.

sparky42 · 04-05-2021 12:31am

easyredrider wrote: »

Is there an explanation as to why Ireland wore axis style military uniforms in the 30s and 40s. British pathe has some videos on YouTube documenting the Irish army one on St Patrick's Day, with Italian style fascist uniforms and the other in 1940 , with infantry wearing German style helmets?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EpjD9mgeEfA

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7bdOQ938Lmg

It's actually very simply, we tried a French helmet but it didn't work as expected, wanted the German style but due to Versailles they couldn't export them, so instead Vickers made them in the style of the German type with slight modifications (so German looking, British made):
https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/artefacts-vickers-helmet/

the_syco · 04-05-2021 12:31am

Regarding the German helmets; https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/artefacts-vickers-helmet/

So the Irish Free State had to look elsewhere: an order for 5,000 helmets was placed with Vickers & Co. Ltd, London, and the design was to be based on the German pattern worn during the Great War. The German consulate in Dublin reported to the Foreign Office in Berlin on 16 August 1927 to the effect that Vickers & Co. had been asked to deliver the helmets ‘to be tested for their expediency during the autumn manoeuvres next year’.
The helmet produced was similar to the German one except that the sides were more gently sloped and it was painted a dark shade of green.

SupaCat95 · 04-05-2021 12:54am

You are going to find most helmets are modelled on the german coal skuttle helmet.
They allow some protection for the neck and allow vision out. Also the water gathers and runs down the rear of the helmet. Its an excellent design, much like the German uniform, the material and colour changed but the pattern more or less unchanged (they finished them different, put a cloth covering and painted them different). Also see the British battledress (not liked at all). Up until now there has been not much variation in helmet design since medieval times. The Germans used a slow cold forging technique which made them better but slower and more expensive.

They were designed to protect against shrapnel and fragmentation. The newest helmets are for a different purpose to protect the mandible against side blasts from IEDs. I think it was the 1985/1986/1987 Battle Action Force Annual, they had a page from the Imperial War Museum in London. They were predicting there would be Heads Up Displays and laser rifles.

Stovepipe · 04-05-2021 3:11pm

The thing is,the Army had long since decided that it would model itself on the British simply because it was our nearest source of arms and equipment, our officers and NCOs had combat experience using those weapons and more than a few had served in WW 1 and knew British tactics intimately and also knew that the kit was good. Our economy was effectively dependent on exports to the UK and our money tied to it's currency,so we were aligned to the British in so many ways. Our officers went there for training or were trained here by British instructors and that has continued to this day. The Army had looked at and tested many non-British weapons and equipment and toured the US and parts of Europe and attended exercises and visited factories and so on and in the end, bought British. It made no sense to introduce metric measurements for tools and hardware or use non-British ammunition. A lot of people disagreed with this policy and urged Dev and others to buy from other places but in the end, the nearness to Britain decided it. As for the Vickers helmet, it was regarded as junk by anyone who wore it, as, unless it was fitted properly to the wearer, it was a bad fit and would roll around the head and the soldier was required to remove his capbadge and clip it onto the mount at the front of the helmet, from where it was often lost or broken and soldiers had to pay for new ones. The tunic of that era was also hated as it made the wearer sweat too much and it was very difficult to keep clean. Battledress, when it came into service, was initially disliked but the soldiers preferred it to the more formal tunic. Ironically, the Germans copied the BD in WW 2 as it was easier to manufacture than the standard tunic and used less materials. There were attempts to buy American equipment but such kit invariably came with conditions that suited the Americans,such as a demand to give access to the Treaty ports for anti-submarine ships.
As a side note, after the Civil War was over and the Army had settled down and was finding it's feet, they rounded up as many of the types of small arms used in the wars and examined and tested them all. My late grandfather was involved in that testing and the conclusion was that British weapons were the way to go,as many of the weapons and calibers used were either obsolete, hard to source or the weapons were regarded as unsuitable for first-line service. Beggars can be choosers so they did end up with quite a wide range of weapons on the eve of WW 2 but they did make a strenuous effort to standardise the small arms holdings.

SupaCat95 · 04-05-2021 4:16pm

Stovepipe wrote: »

Our economy was effectively dependent on exports to the UK and our money tied to it's currency,so we were aligned to the British in so many ways. Our officers went there for training or were trained here by British instructors and that has continued to this day. The Army had looked at and tested many non-British weapons and equipment and toured the US and parts of Europe and attended exercises and visited factories and so on and in the end, bought British. It made no sense to introduce metric measurements for tools and hardware or use non-British ammunition. A lot of people disagreed with this policy and urged Dev and others to buy from other places but in the end, the nearness to Britain decided it.............................. There were attempts to buy American equipment but such kit invariably came with conditions that suited the Americans,such as a demand to give access to the Treaty ports for anti-submarine ships. .

How do you choose between the devil you know and the enemy you dont know. There would have been some job to dislodge the American Naval bases out of the Free State at the end of the war.

sparky42 · 04-05-2021 5:13pm

SupaCat95 wrote: »

How do you choose between the devil you know and the enemy you dont know. There would have been some job to dislodge the American Naval bases out of the Free State at the end of the war.

If the US had been in the Ports then Ireland would have been in the war anyway (one way or the other) and would likely have joined NATO, remember Dev floated a US-Ireland agreement post WW2 but the Americans weren’t interested. We did buy something like 10k of rifles from the States around the time of Dunkirk from memory but the US was highly hostile to us staying neutral so it was a pain in the arse to get them.

sparky42 · 04-05-2021 8:08pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

The US already had a significant presence soon after their entry into WW1 in Bantry Bay and Cork harbour and it's environs. It was only the Depression that saw them withdraw, and the facilities became abandoned, as it became more difficult to maintain staff isolated overseas.
The shenanigans that certain US diplomats carried out to weaken Free State Ireland's neutrality are worth reading about.

Not really they pulled out after the Armistice, long before the Depression.

sparky42 · 04-05-2021 8:23pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

Why did they leave so much infrastructure in place then?

What should they have done, dig up all the slipways and hangars etc? I’m presuming there might have been an agreement with the U.K. to hand them over for RN/RAF usage that never happened due to the war. Either way they had pulled out after the Armistice, not the Depression, it’s not very likely that the British Empire would have wanted a USN base in the Home Islands without a major war happening.

whisky_galore · 04-05-2021 8:34pm

Stovepipe wrote: »

The tunic of that era was also hated as it made the wearer sweat too much and it was very difficult to keep clean.

They were sending lads in WW1 grade "bulls wool" uniforms to the Congo of all places.

SupaCat95 · 04-05-2021 9:23pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

Why did they leave so much infrastructure in place then?

The American army are always like that where ever they go. The cost of carry home with mileage on machinery against the cost of getting a contractor to replace them for the next big adventure. There are stories of Harley Davidson motor cycles being buried in fields up north than bringing them back state side.

Look at the British in the Falklands? Most of their stuff that they brought was near End Of Life, the cost of bringing it home against the chances of the Argentinians reinvading? They decided to keep a full motor pool there and maintain the fleet against bringing them home. I know its easy to say in hind sight but they might have been selling them at scrap costs to the Islanders.

SupaCat95 · 04-05-2021 9:25pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

They were sending lads in WW1 grade "bulls wool" uniforms to the Congo of all places.

Dont even start on that on!!! One Private tells the story of an officer on an inspection parade telling him to button up his top button. "We dont want the natives thinking we are savages!".

SupaCat95 · 04-05-2021 9:29pm

sparky42 wrote: »

If the US had been in the Ports then Ireland would have been in the war anyway (one way or the other) and would likely have joined NATO, remember Dev floated a US-Ireland agreement post WW2 but the Americans weren’t interested. We did buy something like 10k of rifles from the States around the time of Dunkirk from memory but the US was highly hostile to us staying neutral so it was a pain in the arse to get them.

I never heard of the Irish having American rifles but I have no idea where we bought the Browning 50 Cals and 30 Cals from. Then there were the 90mm Korean war era recoilless rifles. Were these ever fired in anger?

sparky42 · 04-05-2021 9:42pm

SupaCat95 wrote: »

I never heard of the Irish having American rifles but I have no idea where we bought the Browning 50 Cals and 30 Cals from. Then there were the 90mm Korean war era recoilless rifles. Were these ever fired in anger?

In January 1939, the department of finance restated its position and the department of defence did likewise. For once, with the shadows of war looming, the defence submission was accepted and officers were sent to the War Office in London to place orders for anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, searchlights, radios, Bren guns, artillery pieces and ammunition. They found that the British, while willing to accept the order, could not hold out any hope of delivery for a considerable time. Colonel (later major general) M.J. Costello and a principal officer of the department of finance were then sent to the United States but to Costello’s frustration all that resulted was the purchase of 20,000 Springfield rifles. When war broke in September 1939 the weapons picture was decidedly bleak.

https://www.dublincity.ie/library/blog/irish-army-during-emergency-transcript
Getting the ammunition supply was problematic given Irish-US relations at the time.

SupaCat95 · 04-05-2021 10:03pm

sparky42 wrote: »

https://www.dublincity.ie/library/blog/irish-army-during-emergency-transcript
Getting the ammunition supply was problematic given Irish-US relations at the time.

How would that have worked half Enfields and half Springfields? two different calibers for rifles with the same function? Didnt we have loads of surplus .303 ball ammunition until recently (15 years approx), when we sold the Brens to India? Y'know when you are looking at Nick Moran on the Chieftans Hatch on youtube? You would swear the Department of Finance or Foreign Affairs officials are buying the equipment for the Irish Army not a soldier in sight.

SupaCat95 · 04-05-2021 10:06pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

Instead many of the Civil war era artillery pieces was converted from horse drawn to being truck towed.
Numerous decoy heavy weapons were also used, such as timber artillery guns etc.

Some Quarter Master in the US Army must have seen them saps coming a mile off. I am not surprised he didnt sell them chain mail and a few maces!

sparky42 · 04-05-2021 10:09pm

SupaCat95 wrote: »

How would that have worked half Enfields and half Springfields? two different calibers for rifles with the same function? Didnt we have loads of surplus .303 ball ammunition until recently (15 years approx), when we sold the Brens to India? Y'know when you are looking at Nick Moran on the Chieftans Hatch on youtube? You would swear the Department of Finance or Foreign Affairs officials are buying the equipment for the Irish Army not a soldier in sight.

Think the main problem was concerns that the UK wouldn't supply us either a) due to their own demands or b) as we stayed neutral they wouldn't supply us at all, so the idea I think was redundancy, though yes we should have had more than enough .303 ammo...

In terms of buying, particularly in this period you still have plenty of "lack of institutional knowledge", I mean in the 1927 conference the Irish delegation was talking about building up to a Cruiser and Destroyer Squadron, while the AC procurement in this period is just an utter mess that would make you cry...

Post WW2, its simply, as cheap as we can get it, with as little capabilities that the DOD/Finance can get away with as possible, with no lessons learned from operational deployments.

Stovepipe · 04-05-2021 11:55pm

SupaCat95 wrote: »

I never heard of the Irish having American rifles but I have no idea where we bought the Browning 50 Cals and 30 Cals from. Then there were the 90mm Korean war era recoilless rifles. Were these ever fired in anger?

They had American Springfield and Canadian Ross rifles. Springfields required the .30-06 round and the Ross required Canadian .303 rounds, which suited the existing stocks of British .303............the 90mm recoilless rifles were Swedish P1110 weapons and we donated them to Latvia or Lithuania. They actually packed a ferocious punch but were not really that mobile or up to date when faced with modern tanks...........refitting artillery guns with modern roadwheels instead of wooden artillery wheels was a common practise in the 1930s and our Army Staff wanted all of our artillery to be vehicle-towed as they recognised that horse-drawn guns would be too vulnerable. All of the pre-war nations aimed to achieve this and most of them did, with varying degrees of success.

05-05-2021 12:01am

sparky42 wrote: »

https://www.dublincity.ie/library/blog/irish-army-during-emergency-transcript
Getting the ammunition supply was problematic given Irish-US relations at the time.

Why was a neutral US hostile to a neutral Ireland?

SupaCat95 · 05-05-2021 12:03am

fvp4 wrote: »

Why was a neutral US hostile to a neutral Ireland?

The USA wasnt neutral, it was waiting for an excuse to enter the war, Ireland was trying to keep out of the way but still cheering the Allies on from the sidelines.

sparky42 · 05-05-2021 12:11am

fvp4 wrote: »

Why was a neutral US hostile to a neutral Ireland?

The US position was particularly after the fall of France was, Ireland could only stay free as long as the UK survived to stop the Reich, therefore staying neutral and denying support to the UK wasn't something they accepted. Not helped at all with the US Ambassador's attitude.

sparky42 · 05-05-2021 12:13am

SupaCat95 wrote: »

The USA wasnt neutral, it was waiting for an excuse to enter the war, Ireland was trying to keep out of the way but still cheering the Allies on from the sidelines.

Not exactly right around the 1939/40 period, FDR and some wanted to join the war, but the majority of the public were still against it, think FDR ran his 1940 campaign with pledges not to join the war for example. Nor were we really quietly cheering, there was plenty of engagement with the Allies throughout the war and in particular the period post Fall of France when there was the invasion scare.

SupaCat95 · 05-05-2021 12:15am

sparky42 wrote: »

The US position was particularly after the fall of France was, Ireland could only stay free as long as the UK survived to stop the Reich, therefore staying neutral and denying support to the UK wasn't something they accepted. Not helped at all with the US Ambassador's attitude.

That wasnt strictly true we were neutral either, where did you think those Supermarine Spitfires came from? "they crashed here in good nick and the British never asked for them back?" They were given for U-Boat spotting off the south coast.

sparky42 · 05-05-2021 12:25am

SupaCat95 wrote: »

That wasnt strictly true we were neutral either, where did you think those Supermarine Spitfires came from? "they crashed here in good nick and the British never asked for them back?" They were given for U-Boat spotting off the south coast.

Ah, no actually the RAF were allowed to enter the state and either recover the aircraft or destroy them. We never had Spitfires in service, we bought Seafires after the war. We did manage to restore one Hurricane in 1940 (though I don't think it was flying until '42 or so), but didn't get anymore till 1943 by which time the UK sold them to us as they were no longer usable in frontline combat (or really any combat). Pretty much anything that landed/crashed but was recoverable was repaired and returned to the UK/US otherwise we'd have B17's and the like around in the AC as well.

Nor were the handful of fighters ever used for U boat spotting, the Anson and Hudson (all 3 aircraft) were for coastal patrol but lack of spares always limited their flight hours. Just as the AC was never able to sustain Hurricane operations out of Shannon either, due to lack of parts.

SupaCat95 · 05-05-2021 12:26am

sparky42 wrote: »

Not exactly right around the 1939/40 period, FDR and some wanted to join the war, but the majority of the public were still against it, think FDR ran his 1940 campaign with pledges not to join the war for example. Nor were we really quietly cheering, there was plenty of engagement with the Allies throughout the war and in particular the period post Fall of France when there was the invasion scare.

Who really cares what the public think? A politician will tell you what ever they need to get elected. Ford and CocaCola were selling to the Allies and the Axis powers at the same time. Rotheschilds were financing the war from opposite sides. Same with loads of others like Dupont and others.

SupaCat95 · 05-05-2021 12:31am

sparky42 wrote: »

Pretty much anything that landed/crashed but was recoverable was repaired and returned to the UK/US otherwise we'd have B17's and the like around in the AC as well.

So We werent unofficially neutral?

sparky42 · 05-05-2021 12:37am

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Who really cares what the public think? A politician will tell you what ever they need to get elected. Ford and CocaCola were selling to the Allies and the Axis powers at the same time. Rotheschilds were financing the war from opposite sides. Same with loads of others like Dupont and others.

Of course Politicians lie, my point is that even into 1940 there's still a huge amount of public opinion support for Isolationism, and that the US was wrong to engage with WW1. Even with FDR pushing things and the increasing incidents in 40/41 I don't think he could have managed to get a Declaration of War passed, remember it was Hitler that was insane enough to declare war on the States after Pearl Harbour, not the US declaring war on him.

05-05-2021 1:19pm

SupaCat95 wrote: »

The USA wasnt neutral, it was waiting for an excuse to enter the war, Ireland was trying to keep out of the way but still cheering the Allies on from the sidelines.

It definitely was neutral. Largely the same as Ireland in fact, pro the allies on the sideline.

There was strong hostility to entering the war amongst the general population and it took an attack on the US and a German declaration of war on the US to get them into both theatres.

Dohvolle wrote: »

Joe Kennedy (JFK's Father) and many others in US Politics were staunch isolationists, and they were supported by high profile figures like Lindbergh. Kennedy himself was US Ambassador to the UK at the time and did not impress in the UK during the blitz, stating publicly that the UK would be defeated quickly by the Nazis.
It didn't help either that much of the Isolationists were also Anti Semitic, and agreed that the Jews were the cause of many of Germany's economic problems, and as such, when word begun to spread of mass deportations of Jews in Europe, they "had it coming".

The great mass of the people were not isolationist because of anti Semitism. They just saw it as a European war and not their issue.

SupaCat95 · 05-05-2021 1:29pm

fvp4 wrote: »

It definitely was neutral.

Coca Cola was selling Fanta to the Germans, and Ford were selling Trucks to the Germans. The US would have ended up on top after the war but Joseph Kennedy was lined up to be the next president of the USA if he kept the States out of the war but Business interests wanted the War. Colt was sold out of Thompsons at the start of the war, they had been lying idle for 20 years in storage. Fords and GM were all retooled. Cutlery companies were making bayonets. Industry not only thrived but it lifted the USA out of the great depression. The People might have been indifferent to the war for a very good reason after the doughboys returning but the real business interests took priority. Then there is all the gold the USA stole from Iran, China and Europe.

05-05-2021 1:58pm

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Coca Cola was selling Fanta to the Germans, and Ford were selling Trucks to the Germans. The US would have ended up on top after the war but Joseph Kennedy was lined up to be the next president of the USA if he kept the States out of the war but Business interests wanted the War. Colt was sold out of Thompsons at the start of the war, they had been lying idle for 20 years in storage. Fords and GM were all retooled. Cutlery companies were making bayonets. Industry not only thrived but it lifted the USA out of the great depression. The People might have been indifferent to the war for a very good reason after the doughboys returning but the real business interests took priority. Then there is all the gold the USA stole from Iran, China and Europe.

In general though neutral in terms of feet on the ground the US, despite Fanta, was giving more aid to the allies.

Fanta was a local Coca Cola plant trying to replace coke which was prohibited as an export (well the syrup) I don’t think you can blame the US for that.

On the other hand I don’t believe the US would have entered the war directly without Pearl harbour. In fact if the Germans had not declared war it’s uncertain if they would have entered into Europe.

Stovepipe · 05-05-2021 2:10pm

SupaCat95 wrote: »

That wasnt strictly true we were neutral either, where did you think those Supermarine Spitfires came from? "they crashed here in good nick and the British never asked for them back?" They were given for U-Boat spotting off the south coast.

We didnt have Spitfires until after the War. We were constantly short of spares for all arms and the British allowed us to keep what force-landed here unless they specifically asked for it back. We also allowed quite a few aircrew to go back across the Border unchallenged, as long as we could keep the aircraft. As for spotting U-boats, RAF aircraft operating from Wales and the Devon airfields covered that. Openly reporting the presence of U-boats would have got us a bombing from the Luftwaffe, which could easily reach any part of Ireland from France, so when we did report U-boats, it was done very discretely.

Irish History · 09-09-2023 2:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117071112#Comment_117071112

Maybe, but I'm not so sure about that.

The Freestaters had no problem using enemy British army uniforms redyed, artillery and armoured cars during their illegal coup d'etat against the the 32 county Irish Republic.

Manic Moran · 12-09-2023 10:46pm

[MOD]I’m OK with zombie thread necromancy if relevant…. However…

@Irish History

Necromancy with deliberately provocative statements are immediately going to attract attention. I suggest you reaquaint yourself with the Forum Charter, particularly the language about the good order and running of the place.[/mod]

Irish History · 15-09-2023 12:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103138#Comment_121103138

I didn't know there is a problem commenting on older threads. I don't see why there should be.

As for my actual post - my comment was historical fact, and I can back up any of my posts with the relevant period documentation.

It is a historical fact that the usurper unelected provisional 'Southern Ireland' House of Commons had no problem using enemy British army uniforms redyed, artillery and armoured cars during their illegal coup d'etat against the the 32 county Irish Republic.

Ireland's Axis style uniforms

Comments