Siege of Jadotville

Topper Harley wrote: »

Your reaction to being challenged shows signs of either immaturity or an inferiority complex, neither of which lends itself to good decision making especially when it comes to life or death situations. To me, your reaction, has done far more harm to your argument than the fact that you haven't got military experience, which I'm sure a lot, if not most of the rest of the posters disagreeing with you on this thread haven't got either.

For what it's worth I don't have any military experience (Except a short stint in reserves.. which really doesn't count! )

I did study this for my leaving cert, and to be honest it always struck me as odd that there wasn't more complaints about the overall approach in the Congo - these soldiers were effectively abandoned behind enemy lines. While not the last, nor the worst of the strategic mistakes made as part of UN peacekeeping efforts it seems foolish that the company were sent to Jadotville.

This topic was argued a few yrars ago in this thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056433445


Note especially the letter from Brigadier Raja

Historical analysis is all well and good, but again, you're doing it without acknowledging the specific subject matter knowledge required for the military perspective here. I'm not for one second suggesting you need to have your own military experience in order to comment on issues of military history, but you can't do it without understanding some of the basic requirements of military operations, and you've failed to confront that.

Jesus. wrote: »

Good man McGruber

Nice and snarky there, but care to respond to my inquiries yourself about the military basis - and if you're a historian you should know that appropriate subject matter familiarity is essential for a proper historical analysis - for your supposition that a breakout was realistic and that a British unit with the same resources could have achieved that where the Irish didn't? Best not to make jabs at other people before you've responded to questions yourself.

Jesus. wrote: »

Incorrect. The ammo was not exhausted. There was some remaining, perhaps purposely spared in the event of having to break out or perhaps not, either way the ammo was not gone. As far as I'm aware the men were not at the bring of dying of thirst. As Mockler said, although their position was uncomfortable it was hardly desperate.

Ammunition levels were at a point where sustained fighting was not possible. Given that a breakout would involve heavy firing to support any possible movement, this idea that "shur there were a few rounds left" falls flat on its face. Also, having no water in Ireland is bad. Having no water in equatorial Africa is catastrophic. This does not take a military genius to understand. In those circumstances, the immediate situation may not be "desperate", but you have to assess the likelihood that your immediate situation might not be remedied, and in this case, there was no reason apparent to believe that they might have these critical assets replenished, so any assessment of their capacity to continue fighting based on imaginary ammo and water they didn't have or have any reason to suspect they might have in future is infantile, from both a military and a historical point of view.

Why was it unrealistic to expect the next attempt to succeed? After all a Helicopter had gotten through once and only owing to someone's cock up at E'ville was the water useless.

Because only on the fourth day, having already been without potable water for a day, did one helicopter arrive with enough water (had it even been potable) for approximately twenty men, and then it sustained fire on the ground. On the same day, an explosion was heard from the direction of the bridge at Lufira that was taken by troops to be its destruction, further diminishing the likelihood that any support might be forthcoming. Therefore, they knew that a resupply of water and ammunition by air was unlikely as one helicopter hadn't even the capacity to supply water for 20% of the force, had it been clean, and they had reason to believe that the support they were hoping for had had their avenue of approach cut off.

A breakout wasn't the only option. They could have dug in for longer and either defeated the Katangans or awaited another relief effort. It has been said - and this is the crucial point in all of this - that the African's morale was on the verge of collapse. The white officers were shooting deserters already and they were on the brink of deserting wholesale and giving victory to A Company. In a battle of wills had Quinlan just held out for a while longer it is very conceivable they could have won the battle.

Digging in in equatorial sun and conducting a sustained defensive campaign without water or ammunition is an impossibility. In order to mount a defensive operation your position has to be tenable. When you have no water, are at critical levels of ammunition, are surrounded by open sewers from bombing and shelling and have no reason to expect resupply, your position is not tenable as very soon, men are going to be overrun due to not being able to shoot back, or will succumb to thirst, or disease will take hold. These are basic facts you're not dealing with. It's not a battle of wills; it's a battle of warfare, and they were reduced to the point where they didn't have the capacity to conduct the defensive operation required of them. These are absolute basic military facts and any historical analysis that ignores them is deeply flawed. It's all well and good to say they might have held out, but they weren't in a position to do so for some indefinite and unknowable length of time against an enemy of such numerical superiority and whose ability to resupply was clearly far superior to the besieged Irish troops.

Studying history does not make you an historian. An historian is a professional who has qualifications in the subject. Yes I do study history but that does not make me an historian.

I'm well aware that merely studying history doesn't make you a historian but these are errors you're making that a second or third year history student would be castigated for when I studied it. Your analysis lacks any depth or sophistication and relies entirely on supposition for which their is no basis.