|
TIMJOT -> (8/27/2002 10:42:36 PM)
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Caranorn
[B]June – July 1942
21 (EA) Inf. Bde Grp – Ceylon, (Burma and India in 1944-45)
22 (EA) Inf. Bde Grp – Madagaskar, (Burma in 1944-45)
(25 (EA) Inf. Bde – seems to have been far under strength starting june july, (Burma and India 1944-45))
26 (EA) Infatry Bde – Abyssinia, (Ceylon, India and Burma in 1943-45)
27 (NR) Inf. Bde Grp – East and South Africa, (Madagaskar in 1942-44)
28 (EA) Inf. Bde – Abyssinia, (Ceylon, India and Burma in 1944-45)
(29-31 (EA) Inf. Bdes – formed too late, (never served outside Africa))
1 (WA) Inf. Bde Grp – West Africa, (India and Burma in 1944-45)
2 (WA) Inf. Bde Grp – West Africa, (India and Burma in 1944-45)
3 (WA) Inf. Bde Grp – West Africa, (India and Burma in 1943-45)
4 (WA) Inf. Bde Grp – West Africa, (India and Burma in 1944-45)
(5 (WA) Inf. Bde Grp – formed too late, (Burma and India in 1943-45))
6 (WA) Inf. Bde Grp – West Africa, (Burma and India in 1943-45)
(7 (WA) Inf. Bde – formed too late, (never served outside Africa))
So from my accounting, 10 Infantry Brigadess or Brigade Groups of East or West African origin were potentially available for service in mid 1942. 2 of them were already in the general vicinity. 2 others have battle honors for 1941 and I assume can be considered veteran. All but 1 of those 10 Brigades later served in Burma and India (the 10th served on Madagaskar). Of the 6 Brigades not operational in mid 1942, 2 later served in Burma and India. The others took up training and garrison duties.
Few if any of these Brigade Groups were at the same establishment level as British Brigade Groups. They generally had only 1 LT Artillery Battery. All seem have had their full RE and even recon contingents. But it seems the same was true for most Indian Army units.
What concerns quality levels, Japanese troups could at no time be compared to German troops, so service in India did not require the same qualifications as service in North Africa.
For the rest, African troops performed well in both East Africa and later Burma, whether their quality was sufficiently appreciated is another question. But then I feel the danger of losing India would have waranted using these African units, even if War Office deemed them of lesser quality.
Concerning required garrisons in Africa, many of the old brigades I feel could have been relieved earlier by the newly formed or forming brigades (they seem to have done so starting in early 1943).
For the Indian units in Iraq I can’t really say anything as to their level of training, iirc at least one of those divisions was later transferred to North Africa and Italy doing good front line service there. From all I can see, Indian unit quality seems to have been fairly underestimated. The Indian troops themselves were good combatants. So were the British regiments making up roughly 1/3rd of all Indian brigades and divisions. If there was any problem it was British command over those units (though it seems to have been better then in WWI). Just remember, he British also never fully estimated the qualities of their ANZAC units. Finally, I can try and trace the identity of Indian brigades and divisions not used in North Africa and Europe by looking up the attachments of British units on the Indian establishment, but that would tell little of the actual strength and quality of the Indian units. I wish Joslen or someone else had worked on a complete Commonwealth Order of Battle after WWII and not just Britain and the African collonies.
Marc aka Caran…
P.S. : EA stands for East African, NR for North Rhodesian, WA for West African. The difference between a brigade group and a brigade is that the brigade group has support elements permanently attached and is expected to operate independently. Technically, all African brigades were at least at one time brigade groups. Most of the brigades and brigade groups listed above were later incorporated into new Colonial divisions.
P.P.S.: I never count Commonwealth units in either Britain or Egypt-Palestine-Jordan-Syria-Lebanon for possible releases. Commonwealth forces in Britain were substantial, but I doubt much would or could have been transferred to India. Concerning 18 Infantry, that unit was a second line division, I never heard of it being aimed for North Africa originally, certainly not for 1st line duties. [/B][/QUOTE]
If you look at your deployment schedule closely. You will notice that its almost entirely garrison duty. Yes the EA units recieved battle honors for there contribution in the Ethopia campaign, but from what I read this was pretty much a walk over against mostly native colonial levies. even so the 4th Indian division did the bulk of the actual fighting. In Madascar the 5th British division made the inititial landing. The EA units made up the follow-up occupation force. Then they were sent to Ceylon to relieve British units from garrison duty there, so they could be sent to India. Even in Burma/India, I think the EA units were mainly used as line of communication troops. I dont believe they took part in any of the major battles in that theater.
Re: Indian divisions. The problem was that the Indian army become the largest volunteer army in the world in a very short time. Which consequently caused an extreme shortage of quailified offers and NCOs. The quaility of an Indian division was dependent the "hand crafting" of these officers and NCOs. This was particulary the case with the higher newer high numbered divisions. Where it is true that the regular Indian divisions were generally 1/3 British. The newer divisions garrisoning India at this time were almost entirely Indian raw recruits and where nowhere near the quality of the units fighting in Africa.
PS. The British 18th Division was a fully equiped front line division. It was at sea on its way for deployment to N.Africa. when Japan attacked Malaya. It was quickly diverted to Singapore, just in time to be captured. As part the reinforcements to make up for the losses in Crusader. It had been trained in desert warfare and was expected to take up front line combat duty.
PPS. RE: the quality of those Japanese troops. They were good enough to rout a numerically superior force in Malaya. Which by the way were superior in quality to any of the troops garrisoning India and E.Africa at this time.
Finally. All you need to know about how lowly the African divisions were regarded is to ask this question. Why at a time when the British had been routed in Malaya, kicked out of Burma, the IJN roamed freely in the Indian Ocean, and there was a real threat in their eyes of an invasion of both Ceylon and India. Did the British strip away from the 8th army the sorely needed 70th Div and 7 Arm Bgd. and chose to send all the way from England the 5th Division as reinforcement to India. When all the while some 10 African Brigades were sitting on their asses in East Africa????
|
|
|
|
