How would current Irish Military fare against the Wehermacht

burnnotice

Dead right Beauf, when I said landing craft, I meant the barges that they were gathering for the invasion of Britan towed to shore by captured civilian vessels from main land Europe.
Im sure if they landed in Dublin Port with a big troop carrier, or more than likely a civilian vessel turned into a troop carrier, it would have taken alot more time to encircle Dublin and thus the element of surprise and speed gone.
This of course is what I would do, with equipment and logisics available to me as if its 1941 Germany.
Numbers wise, Im at a total loss as to what would be needed to take Ireland so im not going to even guess what sort of forces landed in the inital wave, ill let the rest of you folks think about that

Beano

ken76 wrote: »

Would irish navy ships be effective in anyway, how would they be best used? Would irish modern machine guns also not be better?

irish navy ships would struggle against even a german destroyer let alone a cruiser or battleship. and thats before we even mention u-boats.

It really depends what you mean by machine gun. If you mean section or squad level then there would not be a lot of difference. The design of the MG42 is still in service with Pakistan, albeit it in 7.62 instead of 7.92. In terms of individual weapons then the steyr is obviously preferable to a Kar98k. However, german infantry doctrine was based around the use of the MG42 not around individual soldiers firing their rifles so the advantage might not be as great as you imagine.

Jawgap

beauf wrote: »

I think you missing the point about big ships. They would have a spotter aircraft, they could saturate an area. They would be moving, and they are armoured.

Also the Germans would probably have a parachute drop at the same time. Ala crete.

The lesson the Germans took from Crete was that airborne assault is a vulnerable exercise (the Allies took the opposite - airborne assault is formidable) - that's why they never mounted another one after Crete - so if the hypothetical invasion took place post-Crete it wouldn't have involved paratroops unless they were landed over a beach or into a port.

Unless you have total air supremacy you cannot operate unarmed spotter aircraft.

Any op mounted on this island would have to be done without close air support or even any degree of air control - we would be beyond the range of fighter cover.

The Germans would also lack any night vision gear.

Finally, the Allies went along a steep learing curve with amphibious ops in Europe. So is the suggestion that the Germans, a continental land army, could make an initial stab at an amphibious landing and do a better job than the US and Britain - the two pre-eminent sea powers of the day with a strong marine tradition and a history of launching such ops?

Every amphibious op launched by the Allies built on the experience of what went before - OVERLORD was only a success because the planners learned from SHINGLE (Anzio) - SHINGLE built on the experience of AVALANCHE (and BAYTOWN and SLAPSTICK to a lesser extent - an example of what happens if you land too far away from your objectives) - AVALANCHE definitely benefited from the cock-ups that marked out HUSKY which itself was built on the experience of TORCH.......

You only have to examine something like the load tables for each of these operations (I've looked at HUSKY, AVALANCHE, SHINGLE and some of the OVERLORD tables) to see how the planners' thinking evolved in the 11 months between HUSKY and OVERLORD.

.......I can't see how the Germans could cross 400km (at least) of the Celtic Sea, rock up here and pull off a successful landing, sustain it and make a success of it without serving their 'apprenticeship.'

Jawgap

Beano wrote: »

well they did have river barges that they planned to use for SeaLion. I suppose they could have towed them to ireland and then embarked the troops into them from troopships. they would not have worked for SeaLion because of the naval threat of the Royal Navy but they wouldnt have that worry with the Irish navy. Whether shallow draft river barges would make the trip to Ireland though is not one i can answer. In calm weather possibly but any kind of rough sea would sink them i imagine.

The barges that could not be towed faster than 5 kts and were likely to founder in anything greater that 1.5 to 2m seas?

Brest to Waterford is about 250nm - towing them at 5kts would take over two days.

Even at the moment we are having quite calm weather and the wave height in the Celtic Sea (according to Irish Marine Weather Buoy Network) is 1.83m average (max is 2.73m).

Beano

Jawgap wrote: »

The barges that could not be towed faster than 5 kts and were likely to founder in anything greater that 1.5 to 2m seas?

Brest to Waterford is about 250nm - towing them at 5kts would take over two days.

Even at the moment we are having quite calm weather and the wave height in the Celtic Sea (according to Irish Marine Weather Buoy Network) is 1.83m average (max is 2.73m).

A direct assault on a port it is then

Stovepipe

Because taking Dublin would probably involve street fighting, which is usually bad news for the invaders and huge civilian casualties, as well as provoking a refugees-block-roads crisis and it leaves the centre of the DF alone, so that they can continue the fight outside the capital. Smashing the Curragh, Baldonnel and Haulbowline would ruin the three centres of military force in Ireland and ruin the ability of what's left to fight, as they would be cut off from much of the ammunition and spares for vehicles and so on. As for runways, wartime LW aircraft needed good meadows to lift off from, not international airports. They'd easily capture Cork and Waterford airports if they needed hard runways.

beauf

Jawgap wrote: »

The lesson the Germans took from Crete was that airborne assault is a vulnerable exercise (the Allies took the opposite - airborne assault is formidable) - that's why they never mounted another one after Crete - so if the hypothetical invasion took place post-Crete it wouldn't have involved paratroops unless they were landed over a beach or into a port.

Unless you have total air supremacy you cannot operate unarmed spotter aircraft.
...

I think you have to consider what air supremacy means. All the spotter has to do is retreat under the protection of the ships and ground forces AA. The Germans AA was awesome. Seven 9M with machine guns and light bombs and rockets. Are not going to go near that.

When the Battle of France began, Battles were called upon to perform unescorted, low-level tactical attacks against the advancing German army. This put the aircraft at risk of attack from Luftwaffe fighters and within easy range of light anti-aircraft guns. In the first of two sorties carried out by Battles on 10 May 1940, three out of eight aircraft were lost, while, in the second sortie, a further 10 out of 24 were shot down, giving a total of 13 lost in that day's attacks, with the remainder suffering damage. Despite bombing from as low as 250 ft (76 m), their attacks had little impact on the German columns.[13]


The sergeant air gunner of a Battle mans the aircraft's defensive weapon, a single pintle-mounted rapid firing Vickers K machine gun, France 1940

The bomb aimer position in the Battle was in the floor of the aircraft; here the CSBS Mk. VII is being demonstrated.
On 11 May, nine Battles of the Belgian Air Force attacked bridges over the Albert Canal on the River Meuse, losing six aircraft,[14] and in another RAF sortie that day against a German troop column, only one Battle out of eight survived.[15] During the following day, five Battles of 12 Squadron attacked the bridges; four of the aircraft were destroyed with the final aircraft crash-landing back at its base.[16] Two Victoria Crosses were awarded posthumously for the action, to Flying Officer Garland and air observer/navigator Sergeant Gray of Battle P2204 coded PH-K, for pressing home the attack in spite of the heavy defensive fire. The third crewmember, rear gunner Leading Aircraftsman Lawrence Reynolds, did not share the award. Both fighters and flak proved lethal for the Battles. Although Garland's Battle destroyed one span of the bridge,[17] the German army quickly erected a pontoon bridge to replace it.


Wreckage of a Fairey Battle shot down by the Wehrmacht, France May 1940
On 14 May 1940, in a desperate attempt to stop German forces crossing the Meuse, the Advanced Air Striking Force launched an "all-out" attack by all available bombers against the German bridgehead and pontoon bridges at Sedan. The light bombers were attacked by swarms of opposing fighters and were devastated. Out of a strike force of 63 Battles and eight Bristol Blenheims, 40 (including 35 Battles) were lost.[18][19] After these abortive raids, the Battle was switched to mainly night attacks, resulting in much lower losses.[20]

Consider then that's 1940/41 and we can allow the Germans their AA ability in 44/45.


So I think you have to assume that rather Dublin. An Airfield would be their primary objective.

Stovepipe

This is all about assuming that the British don't intervene, because as they proved at Crete, invasion forces are woefully vulnerable to naval intervention. They slaughtered a lot of Germans in Greek caiques. The Germans would have to get here by air for an initial landing and be supported by surface ships and U-boats. Remember, in Norway, they used fast combat ships to move Army units and even seaplanes to move men to seize bridges and port facilities. If the Germans managed to land in Wexford and establish a beachhead and establish an airfield and keep it protected, they could supply enough men and materials by Ju52s and HE-111s to consolidate and establish a secure corridor to get Panzers and artillery landed from conventional freighters. Rosslare would be ideal. The terrain around there is essentially flat so an airfield would not be an issue and there are good beaches so Siebel ferries or coasters could beach and offload. Also, people have to remember that Rhine barges are considerably bigger than UK narrowboats and quite a few of them are perfectly capable Cross-channel vessels and operate as coasters. The Germans didn't have a direct equivalent of the LCI and LCT as seen on D-day and those were hopeless at sea, which is why they were transported there on other ships.
Someone made the very good point that the Germans didn't have night vision, but what they did have was lots of well-trained gunners with very good guns and very good anti-aircraft defences and a very well motivated, aggressive soldiering mentality. One other thing they would lack would be field communications of the level that today's Irish army would have, as today's comms are down to section and individual soldier level, whereas the average German section soldier depended on shouted or written orders. They also had no radar at field level, so detection of air attack would depend on the eyeball or a ship's radar, if it was near enough. Nor did they have computers so data-linking between vehicles didn't exist.

beauf

Well involving other countries is a game changer. Kind of a different thread no?

beauf

Also I think the German comms where a little better than you give them credit for.

http://www.armyradio.com/arsc/customer/pages.php?pageurl=/publish/Articles/William_Howard_German/German_Tank_Radios.htm

Jawgap

beauf wrote: »

I think you have to consider what air supremacy means. All the spotter has to do is retreat under the protection of the ships and ground forces AA. The Germans AA was awesome. Seven 9M with machine guns and light bombs and rockets. Are not going to go near that.



Consider then that's 1940/41 and we can allow the Germans their AA ability in 44/45.


So I think you have to assume that rather Dublin. An Airfield would be their primary objective.

To be honest German AA capacity in 1944/45 forms a large part of what I'm involved in from a research perspective.

The Brenner was the most heavily defended bit of Axis airspace by December 1944 - nearly a thousand tubes of various calibres pointed skyward - even with the radar, the control system (giving ample warning of raids), the precision optics and the fire predictors it took 2,000 shells of 88mm calibre or heavier to bring down a single B-25 - not that a B-25 could sustain too many hits, only that 99.75% of shells expended missed.

The 20mm flak wagons they put on trains gained something of a fearsome reputation in the minds of the P-47 pilots but still failed to stop the onslaught. A low level fast moving PC9 would be a tricky target - could you manually traverse even the 20mm flak guns fast enough to track, lead and hit one?

I would've thought the easiest thing for PC9s to do is fight at night?

And there is a precedent - the Germans fought several Irish regiments through the mountains in Italy and even in the most favourable defensive terrain they were consistently out fought in the small unit, squad-on-squad type fighting that made up the mountain fighting there.

knucklehead6

beauf wrote: »

Well involving other countries is a game changer. Kind of a different thread no?

not only that, but what era other country?

Modern day UK comes back in time to help us? Or WW2 Era UK helps out in an anti german invasion of ireland...

burnnotice

The "Resistance" to the German invasion I feel would be alot stiffer than people give our defense forces credit.
Im guessing in terms of equipment and logistics as I have no idea what the true number is but Im sure the DF have a large amount of anti tank launchers (Milans, Gustaves, Javlins) and missiles for those launchers. These weapons would have no trouble destorying even a Tiger tank at a reasonable distance.

Night vision even at the individual level would cause untold trouble for the Germans. Imagine a supply depot or staging and rest area being attacked in the middle of the night by a unit of Rangers or even conventional troops all equipped with NVGs. It would be devastating on both a manpower and morale level.
With NVGs, units would be able to move into ambush positions under the cover of darkness easily, sentries being eliminated quietly using modern suppessors and weapons, recon units being able to observe camps quietly at night and call in arti strikes using modern radio and gps equipment, even call in super accurate mortor strikes from a few hundred meters away without the enemy being able to find spotters.

Due to modern technology any anchored battleships or supply ships would be targeted by naval divers and rangers ( Im sure they have excellent underwater traning) using modern scuba equipment and drive propulsion vehicles (the little underwater motor things that are all available to the public). Fast boat to a safe distance away without drawing attention and then quietly attack the boats with mines/IEDs etc

beauf

Jawgap wrote: »

To be honest German AA capacity in 1944/45 forms a large part of what I'm involved in from a research perspective.

The Brenner was the most heavily defended bit of Axis airspace by December 1944 - nearly a thousand tubes of various calibres pointed skyward - even with the radar, the control system (giving ample warning of raids), the precision optics and the fire predictors it took 2,000 shells of 88mm calibre or heavier to bring down a single B-25 - not that a B-25 could sustain too many hits, only that 99.75% of shells expended missed....

I know nothing about it, other than...

rom 6 November, 1944 to 25 April, 1945 the B-25's of the 57th. Bomb Wing had fought the "Battle of the Brenner". They flew over 6,849 sorties over enemy targets in the Brenner Pass. They had dropped 10,267 tons of bombs on the following targets - (south to north) Verona, Domagliara, San Ambrogio, Bolargne, Cerano, Dolce, Peri, Ossenigo, Vo Sinistro, Ala, San Margherita, Mori, Rovereto, Galliano, Aldeno, Terento, San Felice, San Michele, Lavis, Solorno, Ora, Brozolo, Ponte, All'Isarco, Bressanone, La Cave, Campo, Vipieno, Colle, Isarco, and Brennero. The B-25's ranged past these Italian targets and bombed Austrian bridges at Steinach and Matrei.The battle had not been without cost. During this shot period, 46 B-25's had been lost (2 to fighters). Flak had damaged 532 more. From 2 January, 1945, ten men had been killed and 131 were missing in action. Ninety two men had been wounded, 12 critically. The casualty count was 223 men from the 57th. If the B-25 had not been the exceptionally sturdy aircraft it was, the losses would have been far higher.

My highlighting.

Not that a fleet would have anything like that firepower. But if you only had 7 aircraft. Any damage or loss would be critical.

Stovepipe

When it comes to Dublin Port, there's one entrance and exit. A battleship sitting in the entrance could block it completely and shell, as has been pointed out, anywhere within the M50. Which means, with their excellent recce photos, they can pinpoint targets of interest, such as McKee Barracks, the airport, the M50, all the bridges, DFHQ and so on. Nothing like plunging 15in, 11 inch and 105mm fire to settle things. There are no defences to the Port so an offloaded infantry company could seize the deepwater quays and cranes in a short space of time.
Problem is, going all the way up to Dublin is effectively confining a fleet in a comparatively narrow body of water. It also makes the transit for an amphibious force much longer. Far better to land in Wexford with several usable beaches and head for the Curragh. As for defending against Cork, you could put up a blocking force on the land axis from Cork to Wexford and get the Luftwaffe to keep an eye out. As for fuel, the country is awash with fuel sources and a low-compression Panzer petrol engine will run on unleaded and many of their trucks were diesel so the farmers and garages will supply that.
German radios were good but nothing like the personal role radio that the infantry have, not to mind microwave data links and satellite links that the Wehrmacht wouldn't have. Also, our lot would have GPS whereas they would be depending on recce photos and road maps.
Also, the Germans would have to have sufficient U and E-boats and destroyers and gunboats to screen the bigger ships, especially slow freighters. With regard to landing ships, the Germans had seized many ships from France and Holland so an early-war army would not have lacked shipping. Ships of that era often had their own cranes and unloaded themselves, pre-containerisation and would be well used to operating from very simple ports.
To avoid getting tied up in guerilla warfare, the Germans would have to stay on the flatland for the initial assault. I'd also imagine that they'd be true to form and take hostages/shoot opposing civilians and impose martial law/curfews as soon as possible.
politically, I think the country would collapse inside a week but guerilla fighting would kick off, especially if Irish soldiers could retreat to the hills and mountains and if the promise of external aid existed.

beauf

I'd love to see a Total War Version of this...

Jawgap

beauf wrote: »

I know nothing about it, other than...



My highlighting.

Not that a fleet would have anything like that firepower. But if you only had 7 aircraft. Any damage or loss would be critical.

Happy to discuss the Battle of the Brenner all day:)

From January to March 1945 the Germans never had less than 800 flak guns in the Brenner - about half of which were heavy.

The worst month for the USAF was March when AA on the Pass was at it's heaviest - 454 heavy guns, 498 light. Even then they only suffered 15 a/c lost and 50 Damaged Cat II (requiring out of unit repair). To put it in context, the effort that month amounted to just over 2800 sorties with nearly 3000 tons of bombs dropped. Also because of the mountain terrain, the bombers had to fly fairly predictable runs (in many cases there was only one way to strike a target) and the flak batteries could be sited on mountain sides with excellent fields of fire.

They also had to fly for extended periods over enemy territory through excellent radar cover meaning the batteries were well warned and well prepared.

Even with all the advantages they still only managed to knock down 15 a/c in their 'best' month - or one every second day. And I suspect most of what they hit were not bombers detailed to attack the primary target but the aircraft in the flak suppression flights that accompanied each raid.

Losses in air to air combat tended to involve the fighters picking off stragglers.

In summary - German flak looked terrifying but countering it, even when it was at its supposed maximum efficiency, was relatively straightforward.

The Air Corps just need to watch a few You Chube videos.....:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP_-WUMi-nw

beauf

Is it not different hundreds of guns aimed at many aircraft so the fire is defused. Hundreds of guns firing at a handful.

How big is this valley.

Jawgap

beauf wrote: »

I'd love to see a Total War Version of this...

I've run some post WWII scenarios involving the Soviets and Ireland on the 'Command: Modern air/ Naval Ops' simulation programme - it never ends well for us!

CZ 453

Could we effectively destroy their ships or battleships using civilian aircraft loaded with fuel?

Jawgap

beauf wrote: »

Is it not different hundreds of guns aimed at many aircraft so the fire is defused. Hundreds of guns firing at a handful.

How big is this valley.

the size / length of the valley is immaterial (it's about 160 km) - the flak batteries were grouped around the bridges, corniches and fills that the Mediterranean Tactical Air Force were targeting.

Their 'overture' was operation BINGO - the destruction of the electricity transformer stations on the Verona - Trento section to deny the electric traction on the rail line.

This section was heavily defended and Verona in particular because of its role as a key transport node was the most heavily defended sector.

I was going to suggest that if the P-47s could handle the flak then the PC9 should be able to - but then I checked the respective speeds! If the data is right then the P-47 has got about a 100 km/hr speed advantage on the PC9 and can carry twice the bomb load - wonder if you could integrate modern avionics into a few 'Jugs'

Beano

interesting info jawgap. what was the makeup of those sorties? high altitude bombers or ground attack planes?

ken76

this is really interesting thanks

Jawgap

Beano wrote: »

interesting info jawgap. what was the makeup of those sorties? high altitude bombers or ground attack planes?

About 50:50 between medium bombers (bombing from 12 to 15,000 ft) and fighter bombers. Some night bombing was carried out by the light bombers but only a few hundred sorties.

Up until about October / November it was thought not possible to operate mediums over the Alps - within three months the crews proved they could operate deep into the Alps and with ever increasing accuracy.

beauf

A Jug P47 was well know for being able to handle damage much better than say a mustang. I would think a PC9 would fair even worse. Maybe my view is coloured because I'd mainly read about fighters rather than bombers.

The P-47s ability to absorb battle damage and still get make it back to base is legendary, and many pilots owe their lives to the rugged construction of the Thunderbolt and the reliability of the air cooled Pratt +Whitney R 2800 engine. Unlike the liquid cooled engines of the P-51 Mustang, with which loss of coolant would give the pilot approximately 10-15 minutes flying time before the engine seized, P-47’s returned to base with whole cylinders missing and the contents of the oil reservoir coated along the fuselage sides but still flying. As the saying goes, “If you want to get a girl fly a P-51, if you want to get home in one piece fly a P-47”

I had thought AA was more effective. Maybe I'm thinking of more recent conflicts. Or maybe just pilots obsession with it.

Recently just finished
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wrong-Stuff-Adventures-Misadventures/dp/0806134224

I think the only other thing I've read with bombers is this
http://www.amazon.com/Lightning-Strikes-Story-Bomber-Fortunes/dp/1841450340

Other than modern stuff. Oh and Enemy Coast Ahead but thats a different kind of book altogether.

ken76

Although we may not have the man power, whatever troops we do have would have much better communication capabilities, mobile phones, Internet, modern radar, IT capabilities, that would surely help, we could move our troops to safer positions as we would always know where the Germans were.

Would mo wags or scorpions be effective? Would they be faster than what Germans would have etc?

beauf

Dunno but always loved the Puma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SdKfz_234

Stovepipe

A PC-9 has no armour for crew or engine and it's PT-6 engine is much less capable of surviving flak damage than the big piston engines. Also, it is not too fast for WW 2 antiaircraft guns to track as they were perfectly capable of shooting down P-51s and Spitfires. Assuming this Mitty battle takes place these days, ken 76s point about modern comms, radar, GPS,etc etc would probably swing the battle in the Irish favour, not to mind fighting on familiar soil. Stretched supply lines would be very hard for the Germans to defend. This island also has many, many airfields and airports for it's size so aerial operations against them could be conducted from pretty much anywhere.

Leonidas BL

Whats all this about Irelands modern radar?? We cant even intercept a Cessna!!