Siege of Jadotville

um7y1h83ge06nx

I was reading another thread when this was brought up. I had no knowledge of this whatsoever, although I did know that the Congo was a particularly dangerous mission for the DF.

Having just read some information about it I'm astounded that this piece of Irish history has been effectively buried. I read some of the reasons why it was buried but I strongly disagree about this. The Defence Forces get a lot of stick from civilians so I believe the DF should be publicising the heroics of the Irish in Jadotville.

Anyone have any good sources of information on this incident (I just resorted to Wikipedia for the moment)?

Here's what I read:

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

concussion

Check out the Further Reading section in the wiki article. I read Rose Doyles book, it was pretty informative, and really highlighted how far out on a limb they were sent by the UN command.

Utrinque Paratus

Jermaine Bald Guitarist wrote: »

I was reading another thread when this was brought up. I had no knowledge of this whatsoever, although I did know that the Congo was a particularly dangerous mission for the DF.

Having just read some information about it I'm astounded that this piece of Irish history has been effectively buried. I read some of the reasons why it was buried but I strongly disagree about this. The Defence Forces get a lot of stick from civilians so I believe the DF should be publicising the heroics of the Irish in Jadotville.

Anyone have any good sources of information on this incident (I just resorted to Wikipedia for the moment)?

Here's what I read:

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

Heres what I dont understand :

A combined force of European mercenaries, Belgian settlers and local tribesmen attacked the Irish. They had a strength of 3,000 to as many as 5,000 men, mostly tribal bands of Baluba warriors but also many regular French, Belgian and Rhodesian mercenaries armed with a mix of light and heavy armament and even supported by a Fouga Magister jet, for several days.

The Katangese attacked in waves of 600 or so, preceded by bombardment from 81-mm mortars and a French 75-mm field gun. The Irish soldiers successfully mowed down massive waves of attackers from their defensive positions. The Irish Support Platoon also knocked out most of the Katangese mortar and artillery positions with effective counter-battery fire from 60-mm mortars. After withstanding four days of repeated attacks, the Irish opened up on identified Katangese mortar and machine gun positions with several hours of continuous and concentrated fire from their own mortars and machine guns.


......... A Company, 35th Battalion, suffered five to seven wounded in action during the six days of the siege


A 6 Day siege, 3000-5000 attackers, bombardments from mortar and machine guns and a 105 mm field gun, even attacks from a fighter.

yet
........ A Company, 35th Battalion, suffered five to seven wounded in action during the six days of the siege




Even though A Company 35th Battalion had tactically defeated a much larger enemy force at Jadotville the Defence Forces buried all record of the battle, presumably over shame that A Company had in fact surrendered. Commandant Quinlan eventually retired as a full Colonel but never served overseas again, and it was recognized by the officers who fought at Jadotville that it was best for one's career not to mention the battle.

..................Why would it be a shame to surrender after six days of fierce fighting to a massively larger and better equipped force ?

OS119

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Heres what I dont understand :...


...

it depends on the definition of 'wounded' - some people count wounded as anything you could might put a dressing on, some people count wounded as something that puts you in hospital for 24hrs or more.

i could point you to a British infantry Bn in Musa Quala that, according to the second measure, might have suffered a 7 - 8% casualty rate - but if you used the first measure of 'wounded' you be reading about 80 - 90% casualty rates.

tbh i wouldn't be surprised if political 'interest' was the reason for very low figure - the government at the time didn't exactly trumpet the whole episode, it would therefore hardly been in their political interests for the full casualty figures to be released.

concussion

They surrendered, were disarmed and were taken prisoner for weeks. From what little I recall, this is the main thing that was circulated throughout the army before the full facts came out. By then the damage was done. The men who were with him on the ground had nothing but praise for how he handled the preparations, battle and surrender but those who weren't only focussed on the surrender.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Yeah I don't understand it either but then again I have never served in any military force.

I was chatting to a RDF friend and he described it as "majorly embarrassing" and "mortifying". Reasons given were they had a lack of equipment and didn't have the will to beat the enemy when it came to the wire.

The lack of equipment does sound like a bit of a blunder but I don't have enough info to decide if it was the DF's fault or the UN's so I can't comment too much.

As regards the enemy, they weren't exactly a bunch of tribesmen with spears according to the little I read. The regular Katanga troops were backed by mercenaries which I doubt were raw recruits. They also had "a mix of light and heavy armament and even supported by a Fouga Magister jet", "81-mm mortars and a French 75-mm field gun"

I think given the circumstances they did exceptionally well but that view comes from an ignorant civilian.

Utrinque Paratus

Jermaine Bald Guitarist wrote: »

Yeah I don't understand it either but then again I have never served in any military force.

I was chatting to a RDF friend and he described it as "majorly embarrassing" and "mortifying". Reasons given were they had a lack of equipment and didn't have the will to beat the enemy when it came to the wire.

The lack of equipment does sound like a bit of a blunder but I don't have enough info to decide if it was the DF's fault or the UN's so I can't comment too much.

As regards the enemy, they weren't exactly a bunch of tribesmen with spears according to the little I read. The regular Katanga troops were backed by mercenaries which I doubt were raw recruits. They also had "a mix of light and heavy armament and even supported by a Fouga Magister jet", "81-mm mortars and a French 75-mm field gun"

I think given the circumstances they did exceptionally well but that view comes from an ignorant civilian.

The account does not add up.

An enemy force of 3-5000 with a fighter jet, 105 mm fieldgun, heavy machine guns supported by professional mercenaries, attack a lightly armed company armed with a small number of ancient water cooled machine guns and Lee Enfield 303 bolt action rifles for 6 days,who kill up to "2,000 attackers" yet only sustain 6 lightly wounded ? After days of "waves of attacks", attack from the air, artillery etc.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

The account does not add up.

An enemy force of 3-5000 with a fighter jet, 105 mm fieldgun, heavy machine guns supported by professional mercenaries, attack a lightly armed company armed with a small number of ancient water cooled machine guns and Lee Enfield 303 bolt action rifles for 6 days,who kill up to "2,000 attackers" yet only sustain 6 lightly wounded ? After days of "waves of attacks", attack from the air, artillery etc.

Yeah, it does sound a bit far-fetched. Maybe it's one of those things that we'll never know the full truth of?

Poccington

Jermaine Bald Guitarist wrote: »

I was chatting to a RDF friend and he described it as "majorly embarrassing" and "mortifying". Reasons given were they had a lack of equipment and didn't have the will to beat the enemy when it came to the wire.

I'd suggest to your RDF friend that he'd do well to think a little before he spoke so ill of those that wore the uniform before him, especially when he's not fit to polish such mens boots.

The way the DF treated the men who fought at Jadotville was absolutely disgraceful, much the same way as they treated the survivors of Niemba.

It should be noted that while no men died at Jadotville, three Irish troops and three Gurkha's were killed when UN forces attempted to break through the lines at Lufira Bridge.

It took the men of Jadotville over 40 years to clear their name, it's a disgrace.

OS119

Jermaine Bald Guitarist wrote: »

Yeah, it does sound a bit far-fetched. Maybe it's one of those things that we'll never know the full truth of?

or people don't want you to know the truth of...

put simply, the infantry battle where a lightly armed force of 100 or so soldiers kills 2,000 enemy soldiers out of a force of between 3,500 and 5,000 backed by crew served heavy weapons and limited artillery and air support over 6 days while sustaining only a handful of light casualties hasn't been fought yet.

either:

a) the enemy wasn't quite as warlike as has been described. ie: it was unarmed save for a visciously sharp mango.

b) the enemy force suffered nothing like 2,000 casualties - and was nothing like 5,000 strong.

c) the Irish had a low yeild tactical nuclear weapon.

d) the Irish suffered 60% walking wounded, 30% serious injuries, and 10% fatalities but somehow managed to cover it up.

C and D are out - you can't hide nuclear warfare or 10 blokes who don't come home and another 30 blokes who come home with fewer limbs than they left with.

it leaves some unpleasent choices - because someone is telling porkies...

Wicklowrider

concussion wrote: »

They surrendered, were disarmed and were taken prisoner for weeks. From what little I recall, this is the main thing that was circulated throughout the army before the full facts came out. By then the damage was done. The men who were with him on the ground had nothing but praise for how he handled the preparations, battle and surrender but those who weren't only focussed on the surrender.

Very well put. Sums it up perfectly from the several books I've read. Also I was told Evening Herald published photos from air showing rows of ponchos
and claiming that they covered the irish dead. The families here all believed their men were slaughtered. Emerged later that the ponchos were covering the entrenchments and not a single irish man had been killed.

Jermaine Bald Guitarist wrote: »

I was chatting to a RDF friend and he described it as "majorly embarrassing" and "mortifying". Reasons given were they had a lack of equipment and didn't have the will to beat the enemy when it came to the wire.

Outmanned, Outgunned Out of WATER - Quinlan decided to save his men and he did it honorably AFTER they'd given a ferocious account of themselves. Will doesn't come into it - if you haven't the resources like water and bullets you have a choice - die in hand to hand combat or surrender. Personal opinion, I cannot praise those men enough and am sickened at any hint of wrong doing.

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

The account does not add up.

An enemy force of 3-5000 with a fighter jet, 105 mm fieldgun, heavy machine guns supported by professional mercenaries, attack a lightly armed company armed with a small number of ancient water cooled machine guns and Lee Enfield 303 bolt action rifles for 6 days,who kill up to "2,000 attackers" yet only sustain 6 lightly wounded ? After days of "waves of attacks", attack from the air, artillery etc.

I've never heard claims of 2000 enemy dead, I believe it was more like 500.Enemy initially attacked over open ground in light skinned vehicles into well dug in Irish positions that were protected by mortars and machine guns - what don't you get? What effect do you imagine a single machine gun would have in those circumstances? Enemy artillery piece was taken out very early by accurate Irish mortar fire ( was it really a 105? I thought it may have been a 25 pounder?). Jet fighter was limited use against well dug in troops - you beginning to see a picture here? Quinlan and his men took it to the limit hoping for reinforcements that didn't make it in time....
There are numerous VALIDATED accounts of what happened over those days. If anyone is interested read them - if you aren't interested fair enough but ffs don't you think those guys were denied their honour long enough by ill informed comments? As for Mercenaries - you are aware that one of their officers, an ex French Foreign legionnaire boasted he'd have Quinlans head but the mercenary was instead captured by an Irish patrol?

Poccington

The largest claim I've seen for enemy casualties was 300 dead.

Wicklowrider

OS119 wrote: »

or people don't want you to know the truth of...

put simply, the infantry battle where a lightly armed force of 100 or so soldiers kills 2,000 enemy soldiers out of a force of between 3,500 and 5,000 backed by crew served heavy weapons and limited artillery and air support over 6 days while sustaining only a handful of light casualties hasn't been fought yet.

either:

a) the enemy wasn't quite as warlike as has been described. ie: it was unarmed save for a visciously sharp mango.

b) the enemy force suffered nothing like 2,000 casualties - and was nothing like 5,000 strong.

c) the Irish had a low yeild tactical nuclear weapon.

d) the Irish suffered 60% walking wounded, 30% serious injuries, and 10% fatalities but somehow managed to cover it up.

C and D are out - you can't hide nuclear warfare or 10 blokes who don't come home and another 30 blokes who come home with fewer limbs than they left with.

it leaves some unpleasent choices - because someone is telling porkies...

Where did you get your numbers?
Because the Irish accounts don't mention anything like 2000 enemy dead.
I think people may be confusing things. There are validated reports of large numbers of katangan and gendarmie fleeing during concentrated irish mortar and machine gun fire that lasted hours and took out most enemy artillery. Don't forget there are validated accounts of the aftermath from Swedish and Gurka sources - including sketches of devasted enemy field gun and mortar positions. TBH I don't care how many they killed - they fought honourably and professionally. When the much lauded and honoured Gurkas and Swedish forces arrived they found the opposition tough so I don't understand anyone detracting from the inexperienced hard pressed Irish with company strength minus support weapons? Few military actions impress me as I get older and further away from service - but fck it, those guys were brilliant.

concussion

Thanks for reminding me of the ponchos Wicklowrider. I forgot about this, and the massive negative reaction at home as a result. Comdt. Quinlan should never have had to live with the stigma that was attached to him after this action. He was put in an impossible situation by the UN Command; a single rifle company with minimal support weapons 150 miles away from friendly forces with no reaction force on standby and no clear instructions from his superiors.

Utrinque Paratus

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Where did you get your numbers?
Because the Irish accounts don't mention anything like 2000 enemy dead.
I think people may be confusing things. There are validated reports of large numbers of katangan and gendarmie fleeing during concentrated irish mortar and machine gun fire that lasted hours and took out most enemy artillery. Don't forget there are validated accounts of the aftermath from Swedish and Gurka sources - including sketches of devasted enemy field gun and mortar positions. TBH I don't care how many they killed - they fought honourably and professionally. When the much lauded and honoured Gurkas and Swedish forces arrived they found the opposition tough so I don't understand anyone detracting from the inexperienced hard pressed Irish with company strength minus support weapons? Few military actions impress me as I get older and further away from service - but fck it, those guys were brilliant.

My typo said 2,000 in a previous post.

The A Company, 35th Battalion, suffered five to seven wounded in action during the six days of the siege. The Katangans, on the other hand, suffered heavy losses. Up to 300 were killed, including 30 white mercenaries, and an indeterminate number of wounded, with figures ranging from 300 to 1,000 who attacked in waves of 600 at a time.


Seems a bit strange after a 6 day siege and running out of food and ammunition they were accused of "cowardice".

And why was the commanding officer never allowed to command overseas again ?

If the claims of 1 lightly armed company armed mainly with bolt action rifles against a 3-5000 force backed with artillery and a fighter, and led by European mercenaries are true, why did they not get medals ?


Why were accused of "cowardice" ?

It makes no sense.

"Even though A Company 35th Battalion had tactically defeated a much larger enemy force at Jadotville the Defence Forces buried all record of the battle, presumably over shame that A Company had in fact surrendered. Commandant Quinlan eventually retired as a full Colonel but never served overseas again, and it was recognized by the officers who fought at Jadotville that it was best for one's career not to mention the battle."

um7y1h83ge06nx

Poccington wrote: »

I'd suggest to your RDF friend....

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Personal opinion, I cannot praise those men enough and am sickened at any hint of wrong doing.

Well put. I agree completely.

I think this topic took me by surprise as I would consider myself pretty well read on many aspects of Irish history and can't believe how what appears to have been the biggest engagement by Irish military post Civil War passed me by.

Definitely a lot of interests, politics etc. must have got involved in this whole matter and the reporting of it and to bury it all so deep.

As I said, if what I read is fairly accurate, it would seem to an ignorant civilian like myself that this could have been one of the Defence Force's finest hours, not something to be ashamed of at all.

R.Dub.Fusilier

From what i remember of reading about Jadoville the Irish were attacked early in the morning after church parade and were un-armed . a sergent on his way back from his ablutions was carrying an SMG and gave the enemy a few bursts of fire which gave his men enough time to get to their positions and defend themselves and their position. Many of the Irish hand never been outside Ireland never mind fired a shot in anger. They faced as many as ,a reported, 5000 soldiers led by experienced mercenaries who seen action in WW2 Indochina Algeria and other conflicts in Africa.
IMO the stood up well to a far superior force. This action is on a par with the defence of Rorkes Drift and could have been disaster on a scale with Custers stand at Little Big Horn.

The Irish soldiers that fought at the siege of Jadotville are true heroes.

twinytwo

concussion wrote: »

They surrendered, were disarmed and were taken prisoner for weeks. From what little I recall, this is the main thing that was circulated throughout the army before the full facts came out. By then the damage was done. The men who were with him on the ground had nothing but praise for how he handled the preparations, battle and surrender but those who weren't only focussed on the surrender.

Would they have preferred to have them all die in a hale of bullets.

What you will find very little written on is the fact that both american and belgian governments but pressure on the irish government at the time not to seek a 'rescue' attempt. They wanted to leave them there.

Utrinque Paratus

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

From what i remember of reading about Jadoville the Irish were attacked early in the morning after church parade and were un-armed . a sergent on his way back from his ablutions was carrying an SMG and gave the enemy a few bursts of fire which gave his men enough time to get to their positions and defend themselves and their position. Many of the Irish hand never been outside Ireland never mind fired a shot in anger. They faced as many as ,a reported, 5000 soldiers led by experienced mercenaries who seen action in WW2 Indochina Algeria and other conflicts in Africa.
IMO the stood up well to a far superior force. This action is on a par with the defence of Rorkes Drift and could have been disaster on a scale with Custers stand at Little Big Horn.

The Irish soldiers that fought at the siege of Jadotville are true heroes.

"This action is on a par with the defence of Rorkes Drift and could have been disaster on a scale with Custers stand at Little Big Horn."


The British lost 17 dead of out 1 company and many wounded over 24 hours at Rorkes drift against 3,000 Zulu warriors with spears.


The Irish army action allegedly involved 1 lightly armed company against 3,000 milita and mercenaries armed with FN assault rifles and backed by a fighter jet and artillery, mortars, the heavy fighting lasted 6 days before they ran out of food, water and ammo.

"A combined force of European mercenaries, Belgian settlers and local tribesmen attacked the Irish. They had a strength of 3,000 to as many as 5,000 men, mostly tribal bands of Baluba warriors but also many regular French, Belgian and Rhodesian mercenaries armed with a mix of light and heavy armament and even supported by a Fouga Magister jet, for several days."

.................................5 were lightly wounded.



"The Katangese attacked in waves of 600 or so, preceded by bombardment from 81-mm mortars and a French 75-mm field gun. The Irish soldiers successfully mowed down massive waves of attackers from their defensive positions"

"The Katangese then asked Commandant Quinlan for a cease-fire, as their forces had been decimated, and were on the verge of collapse. By this time, their effective strength may have been reduced to 2,000 men. Commandant Quinlan agreed."


................With bolt action weapons and a few ancient machine guns they held a force of 3-5000 led by battle hardened mercenaries, backed with a jet fighter and artillery, only sustaining 5 lightly wounded.

Extraordinary.

Utrinque Paratus

twinytwo wrote: »

Would they have preferred to have them all die in a hale of bullets.

What you will find very little written on is the fact that both american and belgian governments but pressure on the irish government at the time not to seek a 'rescue' attempt. They wanted to leave them there.

A rescue attempt ?

Wicklowrider

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

From what i remember of reading about Jadoville the Irish were attacked early in the morning after church parade and were un-armed . a sergent on his way back from his ablutions was carrying an SMG and gave the enemy a few bursts of fire which gave his men enough time to get to their positions and defend themselves and their position. Many of the Irish hand never been outside Ireland never mind fired a shot in anger. They faced as many as ,a reported, 5000 soldiers led by experienced mercenaries who seen action in WW2 Indochina Algeria and other conflicts in Africa.
IMO the stood up well to a far superior force. This action is on a par with the defence of Rorkes Drift and could have been disaster on a scale with Custers stand at Little Big Horn.

The Irish soldiers that fought at the siege of Jadotville are true heroes.

Hi there,
You are correct. It has been reported that the enemy believed the Irish were backward and superstitious and they had knowledge about the lads being at mass. If the books I read and accounts I've listened to are correct the Irish were armed in the Church and on hearing the warning shots were able to stand to rapidly.
Interesting you compare to Rorkes drift - I always thought that too except at Rorkes drift the Brits had the better weapons!

Wicklowrider

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srBJNRoCpvo

bit diddly ya but worth a look.

One of the books I have on Jadoville:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Siege-Jadotville-Irish-Forgotten-Battle/dp/0954870719

Its not the greatest writing tbh but the facts are so amazing you keep reading

OS119

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

................With bolt action weapons and a few ancient machine guns.

if they had the mighty Vickers .303 water-cooled machine gun (and thats what it sounds like), then you'd be surprised.

the SASC did a staged (ish) test with a Vickers gun in the 60's - they formed the worlds longest belt of .303 and fired one weapon continuously for seven days and seven nights. the barrels were changed every hour our so and this one weapon fired just short of five million rounds without a stoppage.

when the test was complete the weapon was taken apart and found to have sustained no damage.

allegations of Bn's going to Afghanistan rumaging though their Regimental Museums are entirely unsubstansiated...

Utrinque Paratus

OS119 wrote: »

if they had the mighty Vickers .303 water-cooled machine gun (and thats what it sounds like), then you'd be surprised.

the SASC did a staged (ish) test with a Vickers gun in the 60's - they formed the worlds longest belt of .303 and fired one weapon continuously for seven days and seven nights. the barrels were changed every hour our so and this one weapon fired just short of five million rounds without a stoppage.

when the test was complete the weapon was taken apart and found to have sustained no damage.

allegations of Bn's going to Afghanistan rumaging though their Regimental Museums are entirely unsubstansiated...

How you expain 5 - 7 lightly wounded after 6 days of heavy fighting ?

From an enemy with a jet fighter, artillery, mortars, machine guns, FN assault rifles v bolt action etc ?

3-5,000 strong and who had the element of surprise when they attacked ?


Its impossible to have such low casulaties after 6 days of heavy attacks from such a force.

The Vickers was highly reliable but first used in 1912.

OS119

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

How you expain 5 - 7 lightly wounded after 6 days of heavy fighting ?

i don't, as you can see from my posts on this thread...

Wicklowrider

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

How you expain 5 - 7 lightly wounded after 6 days of heavy fighting ?

From an enemy with a jet fighter, artillery, mortars, machine guns, FN assault rifles v bolt action etc ?

3-5,000 strong and who had the element of surprise when they attacked ?


Its impossible to have such low casulaties after 6 days of heavy attacks from such a force.

The Vickers was highly reliable but first used in 1912.

And the Vickers has killed an awful lot of people since 1912 and would still be capable of doing so. The fact that there were lighter air cooled weapons available would have little impact on the effectiveness of a dug in weapon.
.303's were are bloody accurate. With 80 odd of them firing at you as you traverse open ground you are going to sustain casualties. With some of those rifles in the hands of some very handy shots you'd have difficulty driving light vehicles closer than 400 metres - then your drivers start dying.
400 metres into machine gun fire is a long distance......

Its been explained to you that the Irish were prepared for an attack. They were dug in. DEEP. They held key terrain that could only be approached over open ground. They had machine guns with interlocking fields of fire.
How do you expect a jet (flying at speed) to effectively engage an enemy thats properly dug in? Do you think I made up the fact that in the first minutes of engagement the Irish mortars zeroed in on the enemy artillery piece? Or does it make more sense that the irish neutralised the main threats first? I don't understand what you want to be told. Believe it or don't believe it. I doubt the lads who fought care.BTW do you think the Gurkas and Swedes spoofed their reports?

Poccington

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Its impossible to have such low casulaties after 6 days of heavy attacks from such a force.

Obviously it's not, because it happened.

Utrinque Paratus

Wicklowrider wrote: »

And the Vickers has killed an awful lot of people since 1912 and would still be capable of doing so. The fact that there were lighter air cooled weapons available would have little impact on the effectiveness of a dug in weapon.
.303's were are bloody accurate. With 80 odd of them firing at you as you traverse open ground you are going to sustain casualties. With some of those rifles in the hands of some very handy shots you'd have difficulty driving light vehicles closer than 400 metres - then your drivers start dying.
400 metres into machine gun fire is a long distance......

Its been explained to you that the Irish were prepared for an attack. They were dug in. DEEP. They held key terrain that could only be approached over open ground. They had machine guns with interlocking fields of fire.
How do you expect a jet (flying at speed) to effectively engage an enemy thats properly dug in? Do you think I made up the fact that in the first minutes of engagement the Irish mortars zeroed in on the enemy artillery piece? Or does it make more sense that the irish neutralised the main threats first? I don't understand what you want to be told. Believe it or don't believe it. I doubt the lads who fought care.BTW do you think the Gurkas and Swedes spoofed their reports?

Because its BS.

The Irish were not prepared for an attack, it states they left their support weapons behind. Although they had dug trenches.


5 wounded after 6 days of heavy fighting from a 3-5000 strong enemy, led of ex Foreign Legion mercenaries who had FN assault rifles and belt fed machine guns.

Did every mortar miss ? Did the jets ordnance miss its target. Only five bullets from the enemy struck in 6 days of heavy fighting ?

How the f.... do you destroy enemy artillery without fwd observers telling you its position to zero in ?


"How do you expect a jet (flying at speed) to effectively engage an enemy thats properly dug in?"

.................:rolleyes: Its what ground attack aircraft do.
Fouga Magister
Armament

* 2x 7.5 mm or 7.62 mm machine guns, 200 rounds/gun
* Up to 140 kg (310 lb) of weapons on two underwing hardpoints, including 50 kg (110 lb) bombs, unguided rockets, and Nord Aviation SS.11 anti-tank missiles.


Its total bs.

Hence why the army never like to speak about it and the CO never went abroad again.



"I doubt the lads who fought care.BTW do you think the Gurkas and Swedes spoofed their reports?"

...They lost men and had alot more logistical support and there was 500 of them and could still not break through.


As I said the claim of a 6 day fierce battle does not tally with the evidence.

Poccington

You mean the evidence that books have agreed with and used? That the DF commissioned a report on? That survivors spoke and still speak of? That Col Jonas Waern, who was Bde Commander in Katanga at the time, confirms?

Or the evidence that you personally, just don't think it happened?

In my opinion

Also read letter of Appreciation of Service 35th Irish Batt from KAS Raja Brigadier Katanga Command. He describes Quinlan as an example for all soldiers.

I fully agree with this comment too.

Utrinque Paratus

Poccington wrote: »

You mean the evidence that books have agreed with and used? That the DF commissioned a report on? That survivors spoke and still speak of? That Col Jonas Waern, who was Bde Commander in Katanga at the time, confirms?

Or the evidence that you personally, just don't think it happened?

Im agreeing with what the Irish army believed about it.

"Even though A Company 35th Battalion had tactically defeated a much larger enemy force at Jadotville the Defence Forces buried all record of the battle, presumably over shame that A Company had in fact surrendered. Commandant Quinlan eventually retired as a full Colonel but never served overseas again, and it was recognized by the officers who fought at Jadotville that it was best for one's career not to mention the battle."



I expect some posters to try to spin it and claim this was because they surrendered after a 6 day battle in which they had run out of ammo, water, food and thats they never got ackowledgment.

Why would the army never want to speak of such a glorious defence ?


Against thousands of enemy and lightly armed.