Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

overseas capability question...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • overseas capability question...

    obviously i know this isn't going to happen, i'm not on crack or anything!

    however, i wondered if you could provide a rough idea as to whether and for how long Ireland could send an Infantry battlegroup to say, Afghanistan.

    650 strong infantry unit
    engineer sqn
    cavalry sqn
    artillery battery
    log spt
    helicopter spt

    operating under NATO logistic and air spt umberella.

    could the PDF do it and if the RDF helped out what difference in sustainability would it make?

    cheers.

  • #2
    i was thinking more of the military capability rather than the political questions - mainly because i know that such questions could not be overcome.

    i used the NATO standard battlegroup strength because any such mission would have to slot into a NATO system, therefore Irelands traditional battlegroup strength would be inapropriate.

    Comment


    • #3
      Under the current Headline goal, the DF has the capability to deploy a Battalion Group (bigger than that proposed above) and sub-units of Combat Support / Combat Service Support units.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DeV
        Under the current Headline goal, the DF has the capability to deploy a Battalion Group (bigger than that proposed above) and sub-units of Combat Support / Combat Service Support units.
        is that sustainable in the medium to long term - for say 3 to 5 years - with all the neccesary build up training, post tour leave, courses, track bashing as well as casualty replacements (say if an Irish battlegroup were suffering similar casualties to 3PARA in Afghanistan)?

        additionally, could an Irish BG operate at the same tempo and conduct similar operations as 3PARA?

        i'm asking because statistics and unit titles give an impression, but only inside knowledge could give an authorotitive answer.

        Comment


        • #5
          It is policy. It is a mechanised (ie wheeled APC) based infantry unit.

          This is potentially getting into sensitive information.

          Comment


          • #6
            We could probably deploy as a once off 6 month deployment but there's no way we could extend beyond that, not with the way the DF is being currently maintained and equipped.

            And anyone who thinks different is fooling themselves. Then there's the little problem of politics, there'll never be a politician who has the balls to send us to an AO where we might be involved in combat operations or take casualties.
            Death before Dishonour.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DeV
              It is policy. It is a mechanised (ie wheeled APC) based infantry unit.

              This is potentially getting into sensitive information.
              i'm tempted to suggest that if Ireland's 8,500 strong regular Army can't produce a continuous 1500 man battlegroup able to conductt overseas service in adverse conditions then it has far greater problems than whether other people know that.

              anyone who really wants/needs to know that information will do so anyway, any half-credible intelligence service will know through military attaches and SIGINT. somehow i suspect that the only reason the full (or almost full) capability isn't public knowledge is because its embarrassing.

              Comment


              • #8
                I've now discovered that some information is in the public domain from the DF Annual Report 2005.

                The Government has committed the DF to providing a pallete of forces under the Helsinki Headline Goal, all of which are on 30 days notice to move. The following combinations are offered:

                Light Infantry Battalion (650)
                Light Infantry Battalion Group (750)
                Light Infantry Company (300)
                ARW Pln (40)
                NBC Platoon (30)
                Truck Cargo Container Company (100)
                CIMIC Team (30)
                Explosive Ordnance Disposal Teams (10)
                Augmentees (30)
                Military Police (10)
                Observers (20)
                Press/Media Group (06)

                In 2005, 21% of the members of the PDF (all ranks) spent sometime serving overseas. Don't forget these personnel are also required in Ireland for ATCP and other operations, courses, and the day-to-day running the DF.

                Ireland doesn't nor is likely to have (in the short term at least) the capability to deploy a fully battlegroup as it doesn't have the necessary major equipment in suitable numbers. If it did we would all be paying a lot more tax.

                Of all the EU nations, only 4 of the 13 battlegroups are made up a single nation (France, Italy, Spain and the UK) - interestingly they are also able to contribute troops to other multi-national battlegroups. We look likely to contribute niche capabilities (for the time being).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ropebag
                  i'm tempted to suggest that if Ireland's 8,500 strong regular Army can't produce a continuous 1500 man battlegroup able to conductt overseas service in adverse conditions then it has far greater problems than whether other people know that.

                  anyone who really wants/needs to know that information will do so anyway, any half-credible intelligence service will know through military attaches and SIGINT. somehow i suspect that the only reason the full (or almost full) capability isn't public knowledge is because its embarrassing.
                  Neither embarrassing nor so ridiculous, actually. Think about it. If you had 1500 in theatre and 1500 in training to replace them, and 1500 on leave/repair and maintenance after coming back, not to mention, potentially and depending on the intensity of the operation, casualties suffered, people on sick leave or discharged due to injuries mental or physical, you wouldn't have many left to carry out the normal day to day roles of the DF, would you? Also, it is not likely that the DF would ever be committed to just one overseas operation, so there would be other people overseas (and again, others in training etc).
                  Last edited by passerby; 17 July 2006, 09:27.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by passerby
                    Neither embarrassing nor so ridiculous, actually. Think about it. If you had 1500 in theatre and 1500 in training to replace them, and 1500 on leave/repair and maintenance after coming back, not to mention casualties suffered and people, you wouldn't have many left to carry out the normal day to day roles of the DF, would you? Also, it is not likely that the DF would ever be committed to just one overseas operation, so there would be other people overseas (and again, others in training etc).
                    This leads into the integration of reserve units to increase the numbers either doing day to day stuff or eventually going overseas. anyway the cap on overseas deployment is 850 at any one time.
                    The school of artillery told us it couldn't be done...
                    They were wrong.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MOB87
                      This leads into the integration of reserve units to increase the numbers either doing day to day stuff or eventually going overseas. anyway the cap on overseas deployment is 850 at any one time.
                      the 850 limit is political leash - it could be removed tomorrow given political will. is there an element of chicken and egg here: a political plaster on a military problem or a military problem caused by political objective?

                      if the 11,000(?) reservists were used to suppliment the regular forces both at home and overseas - even without the high tempo of the TA in the UK - then one imagines that a continuous 1500 strong battlegroup would be achievable.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DeV
                        It is a mechanised (ie wheeled APC) based infantry unit.
                        Isn't it wheeled APC = motorised, tracked APC = mechanized?

                        Originally posted by ropebag
                        the 850 limit is political leash - it could be removed tomorrow given political will.
                        Political will needs finanacing.
                        Last edited by Victor; 23 July 2006, 12:44.
                        Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It depends on whose terminology you are using.

                          British Army's "Mechanised Infantry Battalions" are equipped with the wheeled Saxon APC.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Victor
                            Isn't it wheeled APC = motorised, tracked APC = mechanized?
                            I think these definitions were applied to Soviet/Warsaw Pact formations. Mechanised generally applies to any type of APC equipped troops.............OSOK

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DeV
                              CIMIC Team (30)
                              Augmentees (30)
                              What are these?
                              "Attack your attic with a Steyr....as seen on the Late Late Show..."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X