Irish (?) contract No4 rifles

[Frederick303]

Captain Laidler,

Prior to going over the serial number issue you have raised, I would like to make the case that the Irish Army would have considered purchasing 50,000 rifles, which is one of your primary arguments as to why they did not purchase 50,000, they had no reason to. As this involves figures, let me list the primary sources for each assertion prior to putting out the data itself:

For quantity of Arms held by the Irish army in 1945:

“The Irish Sword” Journal of Irish military history, “the Emergency Army” pages: 36 to page 39
And:
A History of the Irish Army, John p. Duggan, Gill and MacMillian 1991


For the size of Irish Army in WWII and the post war period up to 1961 (establishing their need for arms)

A History of the Irish Army, John p. Duggan, Gill and MacMillian 1991
And
Irish Army Orders of Battle, 1923-2004, A. J. English, Tiger Lily books, division of General Data LLC 2008


For the quantity of No1 MK III rifles left in Irish hands as of between 1961 and 1987

Small Arms Today, Edward Ezell, 2nd edition, 1988
And
Email communications with Nick Price, Helston Gunsmiths, Cornwall UK.


Best on-line source that covers the WWII era and is the source of all WWII LDF arms counts (also has the regular army stocks listed) is:

The War Room - Irish Defense Forces 1939-1945



Now to the numbers of SMLE/Rifles/army size/FCA size/etc:

As previously stated here were the stocks of small arms held by Ireland in 1945:

Enfields, SMLEMKI*** and SMLE MK III/III* ~42,413
P14 sniper rifles 112
M1917 .300 cal rifles ~19,985
Total: 62,510

So the Irish Army held over 60,000 rifles in May of 1945, of which no less than around 55,000 were serviceable (according to best estimates).


Strength of Irish Army:

Here are the official figures on the Irish defense forces and FCA as of the dates listed:

Regular Army

April 1940 Total strength, officers and ranks, 17,156
March 1943 Total strength, officers and ranks, 38,394
March 1944 Total strength, officers and ranks, 36,211
March 1945 Total strength, officers and ranks, 32,115

To this must be added the local defense forces (LDF):

March 1941 Total strength, officers and ranks, 88,035
March 1942 Total strength, officers and ranks, 98,439
March 1943 Total strength, officers and ranks, 103,530
March 1944 Total strength, officers and ranks, 96,152
March 1945 Total strength, officers and ranks, 84,449

Not all the LDF were armed; here are their issued arms as of various dates. Rifles include both SMLE and M1917 rifles, with the M1917 figure being around 19,960 of the total.

March 1942 Rifles 21,589, Shotguns 11370 total long arms: 32,959
March 1943 Rifles 27,689, shotguns 11365 total long arms: 39,054
March 1944 Rifles 27,009, shotguns 11944 total long arms: 38,953
March 1945 Rifles 27,298, shotguns 08218 total long arms: 35,516


So by the end of the war they had muster strengths, between the army and LDF of between 116,000 and 139,000, with around 62,000 rifles and 11,000 shotguns or 73,000 long arms. At that there were shortages of long arms throughout the war; you only see the numbers of shotguns issued declining in 1945 when the shotgun issue strength drops to 8,200 from a high of 11,944 in March of 1944.

So I think my case is made right here, in the mobilized state the Irish army could justify at least 60,000 rifles being on hand. But being the through engineering chap I am, let’s look at the post war plans, strengths to see if the post war period could justify 50,000 rifles, let alone the total figure I would assert, which is ~61,000 Serviceable bolt action Enfield Rifles (of all types) held between 1961 and 1987. Mind you the first major Irish sale of arms occurred to Interarms in 1961 so between 1956 and 1961 the peak holding of the Irish army exceeded 105,000 rifles of Enfield or M1917 pattern, with 5,000 + unserviceable arms that would eventually be dumped at sea between 1961 and 1966.

Post war strengths between 1946 and 1961:

After WWII both the regular defense forces and the LDF saw rapid declines:

In Feb 1945 the parliament approved a peace time defense force of 12.740 ranks and officers, with the army strength authorized at 10,900. For the entire period from 1946 to 1961 the strength of the Army declined from ~9000 men at the end of 1945 to ~8000 men in 1961

March of 1947 the strength was down to 8,803
March of 1948 the strength was down to 8,539
March of 1952 the strength was down to ~8,400
March of 1956 the strength was down to ~8,230
March of 1960 the strength was down to ~8,249

The formal Army reserves (not LDF or FCA) numbered around 5,750 during this entire period.

So in that regard Capt. Laidler is very much correct, the strength of the regular army was very low with an establishment of no more than 9 Infantry Battalions on paper, with most of them at less than full strength. On mobilization, (Full WWII style) the Army had plans to expand to 2 divisions + independent units, a hopeless task as it would have required something like 45,000 men considering the regulars and reserves forces.

But that leaves out the LDF, or after 1946 the FCA.

In 1946 the plan was laid down to have 99 battalions, with 6 of the urban battalions to be equipped on par with the regular army (at full strength). The rest of the battalions were required to have at least 150 effective volunteers (effectively companies). FCA battalions were to have Enfield rifles (no automatics) and each battalion would have no less than 6 or 12 (full strength battalion) .22 cal conversions which would be used for training, as most FCA units had no ranges to use, other than local small bore ranges.

So the 1946 requirements for the FCA were as follows:
6 battalions 700 rifles 4,200 rifles
93 battalions x ~350 rifles. 32,550 rifles (the highest anticipated strength being ½ TOE)
105 x 6 .22 cal conversions 630 rifles

Or a total requirement for 37,380 Enfield rifles

If you consider most units struggles to meet the 150 minimum requirement; or say 175 on average being closer to the real count, the numbers needed were far less. That is a total requirement for 21,105 Enfield rifles

Now as to actual strengths:

In March 1946 25,776 remained in LDF when it became the FCA
At the end of 1946 only 21,784 remained.

So the above analysis is not far off.

Exact figures are not published after the above date, but it would seem, reading between the lines that between 1946 and 1956 the FCA remained at strength of between 19,000 and 24,000 total (estimates). After Integration in 1957/58 the numbers went up (figure not found) only to decline again after 1962 when mandatory age limits took effect and the permanent defense forces were once again reequipped with modern arms such as the FN-FAL and FN-MAG. It would seem from 1963 to 1988 when the FCA was re-equipped with retired FAL rifles the FCA strength was always declining and units consolidating. This occurs just about the time of a young British soldier joining the British army as an armourer apprentice, and so would have been the underlying current of his time in service.

But the purchase of the No4 MK II rifles dates from the period of 1953 through 1955. What matters is the thinking then. At that period, a decade after WWII the Irish defense forces were still thinking in terms of WWII style mobilization and once again making a sizable defense force.

The regular Army was first equipped with No4 MK II rifles in October of 1954
The FCA was equipped with No 4 MK II rifles starting in 1956.

After re-equipment and trials in 1957 the FCA was integrated into existing units with the regular starting in 1958. Between 1958 and 1960 there was an increase in enrollment and use, along with the Border troubles. The highest estimate I have seen for enrolled FCA soldiers in this period was on the order of 27,000 in the 1957 to 1959 time frame. It might have been lower but in that crucial time of the rifle purchases the Irish defense forces were thinking about a larger FCA force, not a declining one.

So if you add up the authorized strength of the total defense forces ( 12,740), Authorized Army reserve (5,750) and theoretical FCA full bore requirement (36,7500) you get : 55,240 rifles , but bear in mind that not every single soldier needs a rifle so 50,000 might do handy.

I think this makes the point as well, on paper there could be a requirement for 50,000 rifles.

One last note: If we go by official figures, even after the great big Interarms sales in 1961 of over 44,000 rifles (see the FF rifle sticky on Gunboards under Fritz for my write up on that), the facts indicate that 10,000 SMLE MK III rifles were retained, along with 500 No 1 MKIII barreled actions.

That they existed is testified by the 1966 film the Blue Max, filmed in Ireland. You will note in that film the German infantry is equipped with Brand new No4 MK II rifles, No 9 bayonets and Vickers M29 helmets, while the Brits seem to be equipped with SMLE MKIII rifles. All the equipment for the ground forces in that film came from Irish army/FCA stocks.

In any case the held SMLE MKIII rifles were not sold off until late 1987. So the Irish army kept a stock of 60,000 Enfield rifles on hand (plus the .22 trainers), if the letter from the Irish army archives is to be believed. Which is very much in line with the what they had on hand at the end of WWII.

Which brings us back to the final issue you raised, the serial number ranges: I have some what of an answer to that, but rather than write it up, once I have found a way to send you the letter from the Irish army and you have reviewed it and you have read the above I ask for the following:

Do you agree that the above addresses the possibility that the Irish army would have seen a requirement for 50,000 rifles?

I see no further reason to go on until the acceptance of A) sources and B) reason that they might want that many rifles is resolved. Once in agreement on that, I will then present the evidence I have researched regarding the serial number range and how to identify a rifles as being from Ireland. A great part of that was tracing down when the guns were sold, where they went, ETC.

If you do disagree, lets resolve the above before proceeding. I recognize I could be wrong on this but I am laying all the data I have on the table for you to see. I would ask you do to the same, subject to any data that must be held in confidence. I would love to see tables of serial numbers found in the middel east, it woudl help refine my estimates.

With much respect

Frederick