Jump to content

Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wipe out

[edit]

Hello Jdorney,

I didn't mean to wipe out your article, I just tried to fix a little typo in one section (to which the article was reduced on saving, sorry about that). Tried to revert that but found the previous version locked, I don't what went on last night... So I decided to wait until Monday, maybe server load would be less. By then you had it already restored. Gabh mo leithscéal - --Atirador 19:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Jdorney 19:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Love the article! I was just editing it so its a bit clearer. I put a cite in for the Hk19- is there such a weapon? Thanks Fluffy999 21:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again i've added some things and have linked to this page from the IICD page after adding to it also. I still have an issue with the section on recent arms sales, but I do some research into it and see if I can find any more convincing items/evidence to put in there. Fluffy999 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added more detail on the previous Libyan arms shipments from Bowyer Bell- could make a nonsense of the Janes guesstimates so pointed that out in the footnotes. Depends of course if the PIRA used any of those SAM's, there is some ancedotal evidence they may have. Fluffy999 14:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HK 91

[edit]

Hi,The HK19 refers to a Heckler and Koch rifle. However they acronym may not be accurate, I would have to check it out. There is, or was, a citation in the article about them, they were bought from the US by Megahey in the late 1970s or early '80s. A couple were recovered at Loughall in 1987, see Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade. Re the SAMs, yes, some certainly got through, but by all accounts (Moloney Secret History, Harnden Bandit Country), they were never used in action. They were test fired in South Armagh a couple of times but they couldn't be got to hit anything, so were stored away until last year. Jdorney 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, there was some feedback on Talk:Heckler & Koch about the "HK19" Fluffy999 19:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no HK 19 rifle or SMG. There is however a HK 91 rifle, a semi-auto version of the G3. --D.E. Watters 19:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Gabriel Megahey purchased some semi-automatic H&K rifles (which would have been HK-91s and/or HK-93s, the two main types available at the time). But most of the H&K G3-style rifles you see Provisional volunteers using are the Swedish-built AK4s, which the IRA imported from Sweden in the mid-80s. Also, I am fairly certain they never, EVER used the SAMs, except in one test-firing. All of the helicopters they destroyed were downed with HMGs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:25, 27 April 2007 (talk • contribs) 193.61.200.145

Disparity in weapons

[edit]

Someone just changed the weapons footnote on the janes estimate to explain the Janes /Bowyer Bell mismatch. Its maybe accurate to say that they got captured but I dont remember any capture of SAMs during the period talked about- might be wrong and will need to check. To clarify that is the dispartity I was talking about:

  • Janes says 7 unused SAMs destroyed
  • Bowyer Bell says 12 got through

Its not a huge issue, and from the Talk page archive 003 over on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 003 theres an unsigned comment saying some were fired at British Army helicopters: "Note to above the "Tet" style offensive was cancelled due to the IRA's lack of a relaible counter to British Army helicopters. The SA-7 "Strela" missles procured from Lybia were made in the 1960's and were easily defeated by 80's era anti-heat seeking flares & shields mounted on BA Helo's. The PIRA did actually test fire several of the missiles at BA Helo's only to see them utterly fail to lock on to their targets 195.7.34.195 12:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC) K.B."

Dont know how accurate all that is but its probably about right. Fluffy999 16:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's pretty much what an IRA source says in Moloney's Secret History alright. But he says the Tet thing was cancelled due to the loss of the element of surprise as well, due to the Eksund's interception. Jdorney 13:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, plus the informer factor. PIRA in metropolitan centers been riddled with informers/criminal element last 15 years. The AC could only rely on rural units- people who have a long family linked tradition- harder to penetrate etc. to successfully pull off operations. Fluffy999 15:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be responding to messages left on my talkpage or on pages for articles I have worked on. Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Thank you. Fluffy999 13:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Father Patrick Ryan

[edit]

Is there any evidence that Father Patrick Ryan was involved in getting the sophisticated timer that was used in the 1984 Brighton bombing?Phase4 20:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sophisticated timer, it was the same type of timer used in a video recorder, so it wouldn't have been hard to get.--padraig 21:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression from reading newspaper reports in 1988 was that Fr Ryan obtained the timer when he took holidays in Switzerland. As to how sophisticated it was, this is a quote from a Guardian article about the conviction of Patrick Magee for the bombing that took place on October 12, 1984:

"A police operations room in the hotel monitored the building during the conference week. But Magee had circumvented all those security measures by planting the bomb on September 17, 1984, setting its 'deadly accurate' timing mechanism for a time 24 days, six hours and 35 minutes later."[1]Phase4 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1984 that would have been regarded as sophisticated, video recorders where not as commonplace then as they are today, also it would have been the first time the IRA used such a device.--padraig 22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move....sort of

[edit]

Any objections to this being moved to Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation and manufacture once I finish an addition I'm working on. The IRA's manufacture of various types of improvised weaponry has been covered quite a lot and it doesn't really fit in the other two main articles, but with a slight change in scope of this article it'll work quite well I think. 2 lines of K303 14:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with "scotch" as a verb.

[edit]

What does this sentence mean in the "Decommissioning of arms" section?

"These reports have since been scotched by the group overseeing the activities of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland – the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC)." Glaug-Eldare (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definition from Oxford Languages: scotch /skäCH/ verb 1. decisively put an end to. "a spokesman has scotched the rumors". However, it is probably not appropriate for encyclopedic writing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"106mm canon"?

[edit]

Moloney states Spectaculars were also planned: 106-millimeter canons, whose presence on the Eksund has never been acknowledged by the Irish or British authorities, were to be mounted on motorboats and used to bombard and sink the British naval patrol boat that policed the waters of Carlingford Lough dividing Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic. Oppenheimer also acknowledges these weapons, again only describing them as 106-mm cannons. The only weapon I can see that fits this description is the M40 recoilless rifle. Evidence to support this is on Mallie/Bishop page 462 they discovered 20 Sam-7 ground to air missiles, mortars, recoilless rifles, rocket propelled grenades and their launchers, 1000 Kalashnikov rifles and two tons of plastic explosives. Similarly Boyne page 272 The consignment inclyced at least twenty SAM-7 surface-to-air missiles; approximately 1,000 AK-47 rifles, at least 600 Soviet F1 grenades, approximately ten Soviet 12.7mm heavy machine guns with anti-aircraft mounts; a quantity of anti-tank recoilless rifles, and ammunition for them etc etc. The New Spies by James Adams page 226 says including 20 SAM-7 surface-to-air missiles, 1,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 10 Soviet 12.77mm Kalashkinov machine guns with ammunition and anti-aircraft mounts, 1,000 82mm mortar rounds, 120 RPG-7 portable rocket launchers, 3000 rounds of ammunition for an American-made 106mm M40 recoilless rifle etc etc. So although we don't have a reference explicitly stating the weapon they received was an M40 recoilless rifle, we do have two references that describe it as a 106mm cannon and two that describe it as a recoilless rifle, plus a reference stating they received ammunition for the M40 recoilless rifle.

While it's obviously enough to add they received a 106mm cannon, how best to describe this? Simply as 106mm cannon without a wikilink to M40 recoilless rifle? Or how about 106mm cannon? Or just M40 recoilless rifle? I'd like to think either of the two latter options are acceptable per WP:IAR, but happy to leave out a wikilink if consensus disagrees. FDW777 (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DagosNavy: any thoughts on this? FDW777 (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FDW777: Hi mate. It's obvious that both authors (I am not particularly prone to praise them regarding accuracy, specially Oppenheimer) refer to the M40, the more common recoilless rifle produced by the US (Argentine infantry made an extensive use of it during the Falklands War). The Soviet/Russian 73-mm recoilless rifle is a lighter, man-portable version of the M40, I learned that in my seven-year editing the War in Donbas chonologies. May be Moloney and Oppenheimer have use the same source with the same mistake or typo, but as far as I know, there is no 106-mm ammo, neither for this anti-tank weapon nor for any other gun. Agree with you, this is a case of "ignore all rules" and go ahead. Regards and work job as usual. Darius (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per M40 recoilless rifle, The bore was commonly described as being 106 mm caliber but is in fact 105 mm; the 106 mm designation was intended to prevent confusion with incompatible 105 mm ammunition from the failed M27, so I don't believe we can hold the 106mm thing against them as it's clearly something that happens a lot. Any preference for 106mm cannon or M40 recoilless rifle? And since four authors say they received some kind of cannon/recoilless rifle, I think we can amend the Ed Moloney claimed that the Eksund shipment also contained military mortars and a 106-millimetre cannon, an assertion never confirmed by the Irish authorities wording? FDW777 (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are international versions listed at M40 recoilless rifle#Non-US production, so a link would still be valid even if they were non-US made versions I think? FDW777 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. FDW777 (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FDW777:@DagosNavy:

Several months late to the conversation, but here's what a contemporary newspaper report (Evening Herald, November 4 1987) says:

But equally important from the IRA quartermasters' viewpoint were heavy anti-tank weapons suitable for blasting fortified British Army and RUC bases at a range of over two miles. The "Eksund" cargo is believed to have included potent US made 106mm recoilless anti tank guns. Mounted on a two wheel trailer, this gun includes a spotting rifle, which first fires a tracer bullet at the target. The big 106mm gun is then automatically aligned with the target.

I'd say that confirms the "cannon" mentioned by Moloney is the M40 recoilless rifle, if there was any lingering doubt.

NelsonEdit2 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IRA presence in Republic of Ireland

[edit]

Recently, a swathe of information pertaining to the Provisional IRA's acquiring of arms in the Republic of Ireland during the 1970s and 1980s has been added to this article. Much of this new text seems to be copied directly from A Broad Church The Provisional IRA in the Republic of Ireland, 1969–1980 by Gearóid Ó Faoleán and as well as constituting a disproportionate (in my opinion) share of the article's total length, is made up of information totally divorced from the subject of the article, IRA arms importation e.g.

IRA veteran Gerry Kelly recalled how he and other prisoners from the 1983 Maze Prison escape stayed in the homes of prominent homes of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil members.

If there are no spurious objections I'll see to cleaning up this section and refocusing it on the article's intended subject matter. NelsonEdit2 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it's not entirely clear whether the Provisional IRA poaching arms from civilian arms dealers and state security forces really constitutes arms importation in the context of organisation that operated across Ireland. Similar theft of arms in Northern Ireland are not touched upon in the article. NelsonEdit2 (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Final thought: A separate article detailing Provisional IRA activity in the Republic of Ireland might be what's needed. Until then though, having received no comment I'm going to follow through with parent topic from 9 April 2023. NelsonEdit2 (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As @NelsonEdit2: has pointed out, content has to be looked at "in the context of organisation that operated across Ireland". This article is not about "Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation into Northern Ireland and England" as the recent change to the lead has claimed, if that is the case I will simply remove 90% of the article which concerns arms importation into the Republic. This article is about arms importation into the island of Ireland for the overwhelming majority of the time, and specifically into the Republic for an equally overwhelming majority of the time. Cross-border transport of materiel from the Republic to the North (or England) is outside the scope of the article. Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because from what I see, there's no consensus here that the article/title should only mention "arms importation into the island of Ireland" nor excludes the Republic of Ireland's role in the conflict. ROI and NI are not part of the same country, the former barely received any constant major attacks like NI and England and the latter is part of the UK (where war mainly took place), hence the Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border. Third, the Troubles is about the war that took place in NI and England, the ROI and mainland Europe were barely affected by this conflict apart from a few notable events, so I have no idea why this "NI arms importation by this logic" argument would be included in this article. It wouldn't make sense to mention arms importation in places where wars occurred there. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is by default due to the the fact that ever since the page was created in March 2006 the article was about importation into Ireland, not transfer within Ireland. Indeed, the original lead of "The Provisional Irish Republican Army imported large quantities of weapons and ammunition into Ireland" makes this explicitly clear. Kathleen's bike (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an example of consensus, and this can be changed anytime. The Troubles barely affected the Republic of Ireland in the way it did for Northern Ireland and England. Not to mention this article also deals with arms imported by nations, not geographical locations in general. There's simply no reason why my edits regarding the ROI's role in the Troubles should be removed at all. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "ROI's role in the Troubles" is at best only tangentially related to this article's subject matter. The extent to which the Troubles did or didn't impact the Republic of Ireland is neither here nor there. The discovery of IRA arms dumps, training camps etc. by security forces on either side of the border is simply off-topic.
The title of this article is Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation. This article is not a vehicle for other facets of the Provisional IRA as an organisation. There exists no consensus to re-orient the article from the topic it's covered for 15+ years and it's unclear what the purpose of such a move would be. NelsonEdit2 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_arms_importation&oldid=1256744073"