Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Size of Irish Military

Options
13»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,065 ✭✭✭Maskhadov


    I think the Defence Forces should be brought up to division strength as opposed to the 3 brigade structure. Basically another Brigade.

    Of course this would be very unlikely. The government already cut troop numbers to a really low level. The divison if deployed overseas would really be impressive. Most militaries deploy an all arms division as the lowest unit.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭cushtac


    Maskhadov wrote:
    I think the Defence Forces should be brought up to division strength as opposed to the 3 brigade structure. Basically another Brigade.

    Of course this would be very unlikely. The government already cut troop numbers to a really low level. The divison if deployed overseas would really be impressive. Most militaries deploy an all arms division as the lowest unit.

    If you bring the DF up to divisional strength, then deploy it overseas, who's left in Ireland? Whatever the size of the unit you plan to send overseas, you really need three of them - one deployed, one in training for deployment and one resting off & doing duties. So therefore you'd need three divisions, plus all their kit, in order to deploy one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,065 ✭✭✭Maskhadov


    Well there is the three reserve brigades. However any deployment overseas could only be up to 12 months. After that the entire force would have to come home. And yes its not likely that the government would spend the money mechanising all the units.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭theCzar


    Kaiser_Sma wrote:
    i was speaking primarily in an apparently impenitrable form of cinical humour.

    I'm sorry, I mistook you for a CS muppet of which I've seen a few hereabouts.

    But I would venture that making cynical comments isn't very useful, perhaps some actual argument one way or t'other wouldn't be so easy for a poor simp like myself to misunderstand.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭cushtac


    Maskhadov wrote:
    Well there is the three reserve brigades. However any deployment overseas could only be up to 12 months. After that the entire force would have to come home. And yes its not likely that the government would spend the money mechanising all the units.

    So you'd increase the size of the PDF to four brigades, send them overseas for up to 12 months & then pull every reservist out of full-time employment to cover for them? And if you're going to send everyone overseas at once for a year you'll have to leave at least as long between deployments for rest, re-fitting & training, so you can only go overseas every two years.

    So every two years, the entire PDF goes overseas & the RDF leave their jobs to fill in for them. How long do you think that's sustainable in a country this size?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,065 ✭✭✭Maskhadov


    no. I said it could only be deployed as a once off. Like the invasion of iraq for example. Stay there for one year and then pull out. Might not make another deployment like that for 5 or 10 years.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 250 ✭✭Bam Bam


    Maskhadov wrote:
    no. I said it could only be deployed as a once off. Like the invasion of iraq for example. Stay there for one year and then pull out. Might not make another deployment like that for 5 or 10 years.


    A once of deployment would be pointless.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,065 ✭✭✭Maskhadov


    Bam Bam wrote:
    A once of deployment would be pointless.

    Freeing Kuwait wouldnt. Those kind of missions usually only come around once a decade. The DF can continue to deploy 500 troops for the rest of the period.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭theCzar


    Maskhadov wrote:
    Freeing Kuwait wouldnt. Those kind of missions usually only come around once a decade. The DF can continue to deploy 500 troops for the rest of the period.

    But the US freed Kuwait, what would sending our troops as well accomplish? We get any goodwill we need by allowing them to ship persons of questionable legality through our airports.

    Without the US, we wouldn't have a chance against pre-kuwait Iraq. The Irish army, even with massive expansion, lacks the numbers to break down a strong military resistence and is better at policing in slightly stale war zones after the main battles have passed, which is what we do with the UN.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,065 ✭✭✭Maskhadov


    theCzar wrote:
    But the US freed Kuwait, what would sending our troops as well accomplish? We get any goodwill we need by allowing them to ship persons of questionable legality through our airports.

    Without the US, we wouldn't have a chance against pre-kuwait Iraq. The Irish army, even with massive expansion, lacks the numbers to break down a strong military resistence and is better at policing in slightly stale war zones after the main battles have passed, which is what we do with the UN.

    Hence the need for us to build up our defence farce in line with other western nations. Our expeniture of GDP on defence is extremely low.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭theCzar


    Maskhadov wrote:
    Hence the need for us to build up our defence farce in line with other western nations. Our expeniture of GDP on defence is extremely low.

    I would say that even if we brought our expenditure in line, greatly increasing numbers and equipment, we would still lack the strength to fight a country like Iraq (or most other countries) on our own because we'd have to spend so much on logistics to transport the troops, there'd be none left to pay for the massive airpower neccessary!

    Because we are a v.small country, with a small population hence small GDP compared to their countries, and since the "rogue" states are probably over-spending on military, we haven't much of a chance IMO. Only America (not even Britain, France etc. have the logistical support neccessary I would say) can break down and conquer a nation.

    A more interesting question, is why we should try and become like America? Why should we promote ourselves as the World Police? e.g. to come back to the original post, why is it justification for increased money into the Irish military?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,065 ✭✭✭Maskhadov


    theCzar wrote:
    I would say that even if we brought our expenditure in line, greatly increasing numbers and equipment, we would still lack the strength to fight a country like Iraq (or most other countries) on our own because we'd have to spend so much on logistics to transport the troops, there'd be none left to pay for the massive airpower neccessary!

    Because we are a v.small country, with a small population hence small GDP compared to their countries, and since the "rogue" states are probably over-spending on military, we haven't much of a chance IMO. Only America (not even Britain, France etc. have the logistical support neccessary I would say) can break down and conquer a nation.

    A more interesting question, is why we should try and become like America? Why should we promote ourselves as the World Police? e.g. to come back to the original post, why is it justification for increased money into the Irish military?

    I dont have the figures but our expeniture on defence is incredibly low. It it were brought up in line with other similar sized countries we would have all the transport aircraft etc that we would need.

    Of course any action Ireland takes will be with a UN mandate and in the case of Iraq it would have been operating with coalition forces.

    This thread is about the size of the Defence force not about politics. The strenght of the PDF should be nearer 16,000.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭Vorsprung


    Maskhadov wrote:
    This thread is about the size of the Defence force not about politics. The strenght of the PDF should be nearer 16,000.

    WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    There is no reason to do this!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,065 ✭✭✭Maskhadov


    WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    There is no reason to do this!!


    so we can have another brigade and bring the PDF up to divisional strength. The division should be completely mechanised (mowags for infantry, commmand+ control, calvary units etc).


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭Vorsprung


    Maskhadov wrote:
    so we can have another brigade and bring the PDF up to divisional strength. The division should be completely mechanised (mowags for infantry, commmand+ control, calvary units etc).

    Units can be completely mechanised without being at divisional strength. You still haven't explained WHY you want the PDF to be a division sized operation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭cushtac


    Maskhadov wrote:
    no. I said it could only be deployed as a once off. Like the invasion of iraq for example. Stay there for one year and then pull out. Might not make another deployment like that for 5 or 10 years.

    You'd raise the Army to division-strength, mechanise it, deploy it for a year, then keep it at home for 5 or 10 years after that? That's rediculous. There's nowhere to house a division (the DF has sold off the surplus barracks) there's nowhere big enough to train a division in maneuver and there's no way you'd be able to justify the expense if this division is to spend 5 to 10 years at home doing very little.


Advertisement