Siege of Jadotville

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 ?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

Perhaps someone could post a comparable battle in the history of modern warfare ?


............I bet they cant.


I dont belive it because the casualties dont reflect the claims of the battle.

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Perhaps someone could post a comparable battle in the history of modern warfare ?


............I bet they cant.


I dont belive it because the casualties dont reflect the claims of the battle.

Much as it pains me to glorify the SAS

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

Wicklowrider wrote: »

There were forward observers as well as patrols that left Irish lines but if you knew anything about preparing defensive positions you'd know weapons are zeroed in and aiming posts used so that accurate fire can be brought to bear - even at night.
You seem to rate the mercenaries very highly despite the fact that they were little better than an armed criminal gang- how come their commander was captured from their midst by a lightly armed fighting patrol?( interviews with him are recorded, he was treated well and speaks highly of the Irish...) Also I believe less than one quarter of the enemy were armed with modern rifles - don't forget the enemy numbers were greatly swelled by tribesmen.
The Fouga present was not armed with the ordinance you mention according to the books I've read but even if it had been it would need direct hit on a six foot long entrenchment to make a difference - how hard do you think that would be when they were well dug in and camoflaged? If you are travelling at 400 plus mph ( a guess) and relying on machine guns to hit entrenched targets how effective do you expect it to be?
Even after its been clearly explained to you that the approachs, into machine gun and mortar fire, was over open ground you don't want to believe that the irish held the advantage?

quoteYou seem to rate the mercenaries very highly despite the fact that they were little better than an armed criminal gang

.................Many would have been WWII vets and ex French Foreign Legion. They would have had alot of combat experience. They also had FN assault rifles.



quoteThere were forward observers as well as patrols that left Irish lines but if you knew anything about preparing defensive positions you'd know weapons are zeroed in and aiming posts used so that accurate fire can be brought to bear - even at night.


....................Yet the fwd patrols never warned of the surprise attack ? Nor spotted their build up.

..................."The initial attack by the Katangese occurred while many of the Irish troops were attending Mass. Expecting that the men would be unarmed during Mass, the first attackers moved in rapidly. They were spotted and a warning shot by Sgt Billy Ready alerted the entire company to the threat"

........You need to know the enemies position to bring artillery and mortars to bear, there is no evidence such information was supplied by fwd observers or that the enemy mortars and fieldguns were in view.

The Fouga present was not armed with the ordinance you mention according to the books I've read but even if it had been it would need direct hit on a six foot long entrenchment to make a difference - how hard do you think that would be when they were well dug in and camoflaged.


............The Fouga carried a paylaod of 300lbs of ordnance. I dont know if this one was armed.


quoteIf you are travelling at 400 plus mph ( a guess) and relying on machine guns to hit entrenched targets how effective do you expect it to be?

..........A jet drive bombing with its machine guns would cause significant damage. It can come in alot slower then that.



you don't want to believe that the irish held the advantage?[/QUOTE]

..................Lol, How did a force mainly armed with bolt action rifles and a few WW1 machine guns and cut off hold the advantage against a force of 3-5000 and much better equipped ?


This is getting even more ridiculous.

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

..............Mike Hoare was ex SAS.

Is that the same SAS that planned and carried out the Bravo Two Zero patrol?

Everyone has a bad day be it Baluba Tribesmen backed by mercenaries or SAS troopers in the Gulf.

With over 150 witnesses (A lot of them still proping up bar stools in the West of Ireland) the best part of 300 casualties and a couple of shed loads of ordnance expended in the Katanga province. The evidence tends to back up the story.

It would be the greatest hoodwink in Military History if none of it took place.

An outstanding example of textbook company in defence. Of which I'm sure many a lesson could be learned.
I'd be inclined to give credit were credit is due. Especially to survive as POWs for a few months after.

For a comparitable battle in recent times, didn't a British unit defend a CIMIC house in Iraq with minimal casualties?

A small determined force getting the better of an overwhelming aggressor, that story has repeated itself since David took a Gat to Goliaths forhead.

RIP to those who lost there lives & the Veterans gone to there grave without their day in the sun.

concussion wrote: »

CIMIC House in Al-Amarah. Details contained in two books, "Sniper One" and "Dusty Warriors". I believe they held out a small compound in the centre of town for over 3 weeks, repelling well over 50 ground assaults supported by hundreds of mortars and rockets. Sure, they had some fire support from Warriors, Challengers and aircraft but most of the figting was up close and personal. I think they had less than 10 injuries and one non-battle fatality.

Thats the one.

A young lad died when a traffic barrier pole fell on him.

ChunkyLover_53 wrote: »

Is that the same SAS that planned and carried out the Bravo Two Zero patrol?

Everyone has a bad day be it Baluba Tribesmen backed by mercenaries or SAS troopers in the Gulf.

With over 150 witnesses (A lot of them still proping up bar stools in the West of Ireland) the best part of 300 casualties and a couple of shed loads of ordnance expended in the Katanga province. The evidence tends to back up the story.

It would be the greatest hoodwink in Military History if none of it took place.

An outstanding example of textbook company in defence. Of which I'm sure many a lesson could be learned.
I'd be inclined to give credit were credit is due. Especially to survive as POWs for a few months after.

For a comparitable battle in recent times, didn't a British unit defend a CIMIC house in Iraq with minimal casualties?

A small determined force getting the better of an overwhelming aggressor, that story has repeated itself since David took a Gat to Goliaths forhead.

RIP to those who lost there lives & the Veterans gone to there grave without their day in the sun.

quote......For a comparitable battle in recent times, didn't a British unit defend a CIMIC house in Iraq with minimal casualties?

Hardly a comparitable battle. The Irish only had trenches as a defence and bolt action rifles and ww1 machine guns, not a refinforced compound with armour and air support.


quoteThe evidence tends to back up the story.

........The hard evidence of only 5 lightly wounded makes it look incredibly far fetched.