Irish troops battle at Jadotville, Congo. Heroes?

Jesus. · 11-08-2014 12:04am

pablomakaveli wrote: »

If they had their water supply cut off it's understandabl why they surrendered. Lugging a load of military kit and weapons around will have you in a sweat. Doing it in combat even more so. I don't think many forces could have operated in the same conditions without water.

Not really. They could have attempted a break out when their water rations were almost out but not completely used up.

I don't think there's any doubt that casualties would have been sustained, especially with that Fouga tearing about the place but I don't agree with the line that it was "impossible" or "suicide". Those desperate scenarios would apply to breaking out with no ammo left or trying to hold their positions indefinitely with ammunition practically gone.

The Indo article above also goes overboard with the one-sided narrative, practically quoting Power line for line while adding in imaginative metaphors to enhance the story. That kind of poetic licence is all well and good in many circumstances but to an historian, amateur or otherwise, it would make for uncomfortable reading. The casualty rate for instance seems very much on the high side considering the only estimates we have are from an Irish civilian engineer called Kearney who counted coffins of white soldiers being carried past and then made a guesstimate as to how many Gends might have been killed in proportion because they apparently didn't warrant a coffin. The figures for the amounts of attacking troops coming in waves also seems extremely excessive for the action that took place.

Seeing as we don't have an account from the other side, the truth is probably some way off from what we're presented with here.

Azwaldo55 · 11-08-2014 10:50am

Jesus. wrote: »

Hopefully so Azwaldo but I'll believe it when I see it. They were supposed to be doing one years ago and Jim Sheridan was giving interviews about having his cast assembled with shooting to begin imminently but it never happened.

It would make a good flick though.

Speaking of films regarding Irish soldiers, did you ever see "One Man's Hero" with Tom Berringer? Its about the San Patricio battalion of Mexico. I've only seen clips and I've been told its rubbish. Can't get it on Youtube.

It is a very well acted low budget production. Tom Berenger was excellent. I saw it a few years ago on TG4.

Jesus. · 11-08-2014 2:02pm

Jesus. · 11-08-2014 2:03pm

I'd like to see it alright Azwaldo. I don't pay much heed to "film critics" tbh!

This video is a bit corny but along with the clips of the film, I think its a catchy little ditty!

nuac · 11-08-2014 2:32pm

Jesus

Regarding your posts about options the Irish soldiers could have taken in Katanga, could you please outline your own combat command experience.

It is easy to be an armchair general. Quinlan and his troops had to deal with the cards they were dealt.

pablomakaveli · 11-08-2014 4:03pm

Jesus. wrote: »

Not really. They could have attempted a break out when their water rations were almost out but not completely used up.

I don't think there's any doubt that casualties would have been sustained, especially with that Fouga tearing about the place but I don't agree with the line that it was "impossible" or "suicide". Those desperate scenarios would apply to breaking out with no ammo left or trying to hold their positions indefinitely with ammunition practically gone.

The Indo article above also goes overboard with the one-sided narrative, practically quoting Power line for line while adding in imaginative metaphors to enhance the story. That kind of poetic licence is all well and good in many circumstances but to an historian, amateur or otherwise, it would make for uncomfortable reading. The casualty rate for instance seems very much on the high side considering the only estimates we have are from an Irish civilian engineer called Kearney who counted coffins of white soldiers being carried past and then made a guesstimate as to how many Gends might have been killed in proportion because they apparently didn't warrant a coffin. The figures for the amounts of attacking troops coming in waves also seems extremely excessive for the action that took place.

Seeing as we don't have an account from the other side, the truth is probably some way off from what we're presented with here.

An attempted breakout could have been an absolute disaster as well. Leaving a fortified position to strike out into enemy territory exposing yourself to attack isn't necessarily good idea.

Jesus. · 11-08-2014 4:10pm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

An attempted breakout could have been an absolute disaster as well.

Possibly

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Leaving a fortified position to strike out into enemy territory exposing yourself to attack isn't necessarily good idea.

Agreed

Kevhog1988 · 11-08-2014 4:22pm

Both my grandfather and his brother served in the congo. (36th Battalion)
They were very poorly equipped initially. Grandfather passed away but his brother told me that whilst they were en route they refuelled in a airport which was also used by the British Army. The guys in the British army raided there stores and gave the irish guys as much as they could.

jonniebgood1 · 11-08-2014 9:54pm

nuac wrote: »

Originally Posted by Jesus. View Post

Just after finishing Declan Power's book and he made a great job of it. I got the sense though that he was going out of his way to exonerate A Company rather than looking purely at the facts in a cold, hard, calculated way. Still, it was a great piece of writing and an enjoyable read.

Being honest though, I'm not surprised Jadotville was looked upon as an embarrassment at the time, by both the Government and the Army - whatever about the people. This was the first time the Irish Army went into battle since the creation of the State and ultimately, despite the extenuating circumstances and all the other qualifications given, it was defeated by a bunch of Mercenary-led Africans.

There's no doubting the courage and fighting prowess of the men of A Company, particularly given the fact that most of them were mere lads that'd never heard a shot fired in anger before. But the CO, Cmdt Pat Quinlan, fu*ked up in the end and lost the battle. Anthony Mockler in his book "The new Mercenaries" put it like this:

- On 13 September United Nations Indian troops under Brigadier Raja seized control of key points in Elizabethville and throughout the state. Conor Crusie O'Brien announced unwisely: "Katanga's secession is ended". Next day the Katangese gendarmerie counter-attacked. Heavy fighting followed in Elisabethville and elsewhere. Three days later the Irish garrison at Jadotville surrendered to the Katangese. Admittedly they were surrounded and their water supply had been cut off. But their position, although unpleasant, was not desperate; if their morale had been high they could have fought their way out and inflicted a crushing defeat on the Katangese and the mercenaries. The least that can be said is that this surrender was hardly in the spirit of Irish history. -

I tend to agree with him. If Quinlan had of tried to meet up with Force Kane at Lufira bridge, I think they could have made their way out with the Company mainly intact. Sure it would have been difficult but far from impossible.

Thoughts?

And how many soldiers have you commanded in action yourself?

It would do no harm to address the simple question asked on several questions by nuac. The question is fair IMO. You can feel free to justify your view, whether you have a military background or not does not make your view irrelevant or otherwise. Rather it puts it in context which is relevant here.

Jesus. · 11-08-2014 10:26pm

I disagree Jonnie. I purposely didn't respond to his initial reply because I considered it to be beyond stupid (no offence Nuac). After making an honest construct of some paragraphs and stating the case for my argument, a silly one-liner which states that only those who've led troops into battle (not even the rank and file fighting soldier gets a chance here!) are capable or worthy of having an opinion about an historical event, is just pure idiocy. I'm sorry but I can't put it in milder terms than that.

For one thing it would discount most of the sources we've all gotten our knowledge from about past wars and conflicts, as historians and journalists are more often than not just academics and civilians who've never fired a shot in anger (Declan Power notwithstanding). I would also wonder why he chose me to ask of my military credentials as opposed to anyone else on the thread. You've just asked me too (although in a qualified and dignified manner which is why I've replied) but have you asked anyone else commenting or is it just those who suggest that the CO could possibly have handled things differently toward the end of that engagement? Remember, it was the Irish army itself - not civilians - who were none to happy about Jadotville in the immediate aftermath and subsequent years. Perhaps they were too harsh on their comrades but if Nuac is suggesting military service is a prerequisite for having any knowledge on this subject, then how does he respond to criticism from within the Army itself for saying what I've simply said?

In answer to your question, I've never led troops into battle. Have you? How many people on this thread have? Is their opinion any less because they haven't? Are others perhaps letting emotion get in the way of detached analysis?

I don't know

nuac · 11-08-2014 11:49pm

Sorry to have offended you Jesus, but I wondered how you could be so positive about some of your suggestions here unless you had relevant military experience, especially of command in combat.

I suggest there are no certainties in any conflict, and that no plan of action long survives contact with the enemy ( to quote some authors )

E.g to suggest that a breakout to meet the relieving force would be a viable option?

As far as I recall that Company had only two armoured cars. These had already been carefully sited to protect their perimeter and to fire on the Fouga jet.

The Company had neither heavy artillary nor aircover, and apparently no prospect of same.

I doubt if a breakout would have been the best idea.

I think Quinlan did as well as could be expected in the circumstances

Jesus. · 12-08-2014 12:31am

I was no more positive about their ability to make a break out than you are about their inability to have made one. And I presume you haven't led troops into battle either so what makes you so positive that they couldn't?

They're just opinions. We all have 'em

jonniebgood1 · 12-08-2014 8:07am

Jesus. wrote: »

......

They're just opinions.We all have 'em

correct. your rebuttal is fine but better to have made it.

Claw Hammer · 15-08-2014 12:55pm

Jesus. wrote: »

Just after finishing Declan Power's book and he made a great job of it. I got the sense though that he was going out of his way to exonerate A Company rather than looking purely at the facts in a cold, hard, calculated way. Still, it was a great piece of writing and an enjoyable read.

Being honest though, I'm not surprised Jadotville was looked upon as an embarrassment at the time, by both the Government and the Army - whatever about the people. This was the first time the Irish Army went into battle since the creation of the State and ultimately, despite the extenuating circumstances and all the other qualifications given, it was defeated by a bunch of Mercenary-led Africans.

There's no doubting the courage and fighting prowess of the men of A Company, particularly given the fact that most of them were mere lads that'd never heard a shot fired in anger before. But the CO, Cmdt Pat Quinlan, fu*ked up in the end and lost the battle. Anthony Mockler in his book "The new Mercenaries" put it like this:

- On 13 September United Nations Indian troops under Brigadier Raja seized control of key points in Elizabethville and throughout the state. Conor Crusie O'Brien announced unwisely: "Katanga's secession is ended". Next day the Katangese gendarmerie counter-attacked. Heavy fighting followed in Elisabethville and elsewhere. Three days later the Irish garrison at Jadotville surrendered to the Katangese. Admittedly they were surrounded and their water supply had been cut off. But their position, although unpleasant, was not desperate; if their morale had been high they could have fought their way out and inflicted a crushing defeat on the Katangese and the mercenaries. The least that can be said is that this surrender was hardly in the spirit of Irish history. -

I tend to agree with him. If Quinlan had of tried to meet up with Force Kane at Lufira bridge, I think they could have made their way out with the Company mainly intact. Sure it would have been difficult but far from impossible.

Thoughts?

QUinlan should have driven out in a Renault Laguna throwing keyboards at the Katangans.

I don't think Declan Power's book is particularly well written. Far too many abbreviations and acronyms.

Quinlan was no a peace-keeping mission not a suicide mission. His orders were to go to Jadotville and protect Belgians. He had no orders to link up with Force Kane at the Lufira bridge. He had no orders nor was the UN force mandated to take any aggressive action against native Congolese.
None of his officers canvassed an attack. Some men discussed the possibility of slipping away but didn't do it because it would mean leaving the wounded and less fit behind.

Claw Hammer · 15-08-2014 1:04pm

See this letter from Brigadier raja

Jesus. · 15-08-2014 4:02pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

QUinlan should have driven out in a Renault Laguna throwing keyboards at the Katangans.

Now now Hammer, don't be getting smart

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I don't think Declan Power's book is particularly well written. Far too many abbreviations and acronyms.

Fair enough

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Quinlan was no a peace-keeping mission not a suicide mission. His orders were to go to Jadotville and protect Belgians. He had no orders to link up with Force Kane at the Lufira bridge. He had no orders nor was the UN force mandated to take any aggressive action against native Congolese.
None of his officers canvassed an attack. Some men discussed the possibility of slipping away but didn't do it because it would mean leaving the wounded and less fit behind.

I think your post is misleading Hammer:

(1) Nobody said anything about a suicide mission. My whole point being that I thought Mockler's assessment that breaking out wasn't a suicide mission was probably closer to the truth . Yes there more than likely would have been casualties and that's what combat soldiering entails but leaving aside the sentiment for a moment, it was definitely possible to do.
(2) He was requested to link up with Kane if he could when it became apparent they couldn't break through to him.
(3) It wouldn't have been aggressive action. It would have been a defensive one, IE to get away. If the Gends chose to attack them on their withdrawal then that was their prerogative.
(4) I didn't say that, I said precisely what you've just said. Some of them discussed the possibility of breaking out themselves (not an attack) but didn't do it. Whether it was because of leaving wounded behind, disobeying their CO, thinking the risk was too great etc we don't know. In any event they didn't do it and they fell in. I just pointed out that at one point they were seriously discussing it. I don't think they believed it to be an impossibility. To be fair though, I'm sure Quinlan gave it serious consideration also.

BTW, can you give me the gist of Raja's letter because I can't download that for some reason? Computer's playing up.

All I know of Raja's opinion on Jadotville is from Power's book where he criticised Quinlan for choosing the defensive position he took.

Claw Hammer · 15-08-2014 5:59pm

Jesus. wrote: »

Now now Hammer, don't be getting smart

Fair enough

I think your post is misleading Hammer:

(1) Nobody said anything about a suicide mission. My whole point being that I thought Mockler's assessment that breaking out wasn't a suicide mission was probably closer to the truth . Yes there more than likely would have been casualties and that's what combat soldiering entails but leaving aside the sentiment for a moment, it was definitely possible to do.

Bull****. Quinlan was not on a combat mission to start with. He had 2 "armoured cars" which were converted trucks with boiler plate armour and with a capacity for 4 men each. He handn't enough soft skinned transport for the rest of the company. He had no water and very litte food or ammunition.
The company only survived because of being dug in. In a breakout attempt they would have had no cover and being outnumbered by 20 to 1 and outgunned they would not have made it half a mile. Many commentators are biased.

Jesus. wrote: »

(2) He was requested to link up with Kane if he could when it became apparent they couldn't break through to him.

Quinlan was never requested to link up with Kane. He was told to wait and promised relief (Kane) and air support. He got neither. If he was to link up with Kane, why did Kane withdraw? Twice?

Jesus. wrote: »

(3) It wouldn't have been aggressive action. It would have been a defensive one, IE to get away. If the Gends chose to attack them on their withdrawal then that was their prerogative.

He never had clear orders to that effect. His orders were to use minimim force. In Operation RUmpunch it was decided that the UN could not attack but could oust mercenaries, which is what Quinlan did before going to Jadotville.

Jesus. wrote: »

(4) I didn't say that, I said precisely what you've just said. Some of them discussed the possibility of breaking out themselves (not an attack) but didn't do it. Whether it was because of leaving wounded behind, disobeying their CO, thinking the risk was too great etc we don't know. In any event they didn't do it and they fell in. I just pointed out that at one point they were seriously discussing it. I don't think they believed it to be an impossibility. To be fair though, I'm sure Quinlan gave it serious consideration also.

The men were interviewed later and stated why they didn't slip away, so we do know why they didn't.

Jesus. wrote: »

BTW, can you give me the gist of Raja's letter because I can't download that for some reason? Computer's playing up.

It is on page 59 of this book.
http://source.southdublinlibraries.ie/bitstream/10599/4927/2/The%20battle%20of%20Jadotville.pdf

Jesus. wrote: »

All I know of Raja's opinion on Jadotville is from Power's book where he criticised Quinlan for choosing the defensive position he took.

Then you don't know a whole lot. Why not do some proper research before insulting Comdt Quinlan and his men?

Jesus. · 15-08-2014 6:34pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Then you don't know a whole lot. Why not do some proper research before insulting Comdt Quinlan and his men?

There's no need for that. I addressed you respectfully. No need to get touchy.

I never insulted the men of A Company. In fact I did just the opposite if you'd bothered to read through the thread. I also said Quinlan performed admirably up until the end where I think he made a mistake. Don't be disingenuous.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Bull****. Quinlan was not on a combat mission to start with. He had 2 "armoured cars" which were converted trucks with boiler plate armour and with a capacity for 4 men each. He handn't enough soft skinned transport for the rest of the company. He had no water and very litte food or ammunition. The company only survived because of being dug in. In a breakout attempt they would have had no cover and being outnumbered by 20 to 1 and outgunned they would not have made it half a mile. Many commentators are biased.

I agree many commentators are biased. That's what I said about Power.

But to say he wouldn't have gotten half a mile is way OTT. At the end of the day the Gends were simply African militia, albeit led by European soldiers. I would've had every confidence in A Co's ability against them, even breaking out. They hammered them in the fight at Jadotville and there's every chance they could have outfought them with a good rearguard action in making for the bridge. The no food & ammo thing is a moot point because the decision to break out would've been taken when some supplies remained.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Quinlan was never requested to link up with Kane. He was told to wait and promised relief (Kane) and air support. He got neither. If he was to link up with Kane, why did Kane withdraw? Twice?

He withdrew twice because he couldn't get through. Quinlan was indeed asked from E'ville if he could make it to the bridge and meet Kane there the second time. I could use your line "do some proper research" but it would be petulant. Its in Power's book. Check it out.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

He never had clear orders to that effect. His orders were to use minimim force. In Operation RUmpunch it was decided that the UN could not attack but could oust mercenaries, which is what Quinlan did before going to Jadotville.

He never had clear orders to do what? Breaking out was well within his remit. As I said above, he was asked if he could break out and meet Kane. His superiors would have been delighted if he had made it back over the bridge instead of surrendering and losing all the men to captivity to be used as a bargaining tool by the Katangans. Even better if he had defeated them along the way. Now that may have been incredibly difficult but you seem to be saying he surrendered because he wasn't given orders not to!

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The men were interviewed later and stated why they didn't slip away, so we do know why they didn't.

You didn't put up their answers. What were they?

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is on page 59 of this book.
http://source.southdublinlibraries.ie/bitstream/10599/4927/2/The%20battle%20of%20Jadotville.pdf

I appreciate the link. It appears Raja was very happy with the Battalions overall conduct after they departed. It doesn't alter the fact though that, rightly or wrongly, in the book he wrote he was critical of Quinlan's deployment.

Look, you're not going to pigeonhole me into rubbishing Cmdt Quinlan because that's not what I think. Rather I think I've a slightly more balanced view than you. He did sterling work at Jadotville, there's absolutely no doubt about it. The leadership he showed and the way he had his troops licked into shape was top class. They won the actual fight hands down. All I'm doing is questioning whether or not there could have been a more favorable outcome to the engagement. Was Mockler being overly harsh? Is Power's analysis a bit biased toward the Irish unit?

I could be totally wrong of course and there mightn't have been anything he could have done. I'm just trying to be objective having read up on the siege, that's all.

Claw Hammer · 15-08-2014 7:10pm

Jesus. wrote: »

There's no need for that. I addressed you respectfully. No need to get touchy.

You are either extremely ill-informed or trolling. You are inventing facts and denying others.

Jesus. wrote: »

I never insulted the men of A Company. In fact I did just the opposite if you'd bothered to read through the thread. I also said Quinlan performed admirably up until the end where I think he made a mistake. Don't be disingenuous.

You most certainly did by suggesting that their lives were dispensable on some wild goose chase to the Lufira bridge.

Jesus. wrote: »

But to say he wouldn't have gotten half a mile is way OTT. At the end of the day the Gends were simply African militia, albeit led by European soldiers. I would've had every confidence in A Co's ability against them, even breaking out. They hammered them in the fight at Jadotville and there's every chance they could have outfought them with a good rearguard action in making for the bridge. The no food & ammo thing is a moot point because the decision to break out would've been taken when some supplies remained.

You are now contradicting yourself. You are claiming that Quinlan made a mistake at the end but are now saying that he should have taken a decision to break out when some supplies remained. Which is it? He was initially told by Headquarters to stay put. By the time the Lufira bridge episode was over the supplies were gone. A company hammered them because they were dug in and an attacker alwyas takes more risks and will suffer more casualties. How do you kove past a number 20 times your own who have superior weapons without transport. Quinlan could not have carried his mortars. The Vickers machine guns would have been useless on the move. He would have had to try and walk out with rifles and submachine guns. The opposition were led by experienced mercenaries who would have had them in bits in no time. The same week mercenaries captured Irish troops in the Radio College in Elisabethville in a very skilfully organised ambush.
[/QUOTE]

Jesus. wrote: »

He withdrew twice because he couldn't get through. Quinlan was indeed asked from E'ville if he could make it to the bridge and meet Kane there the second time. I could use your line "do some proper research" but it would be petulant. Its in Power's book. Check it out.

Saying he had orders to do something and being asked if it was feasible are two very different things.

Jesus. wrote: »

He never had clear orders to do what? Breaking out was well within his remit. As I said above, he was asked if he could break out and meet Kane. His superiors would have been delighted if he had made it back over the bridge instead of surrendering and losing all the men to captivity to be used as a bargaining tool by the Katangans. Even better if he had defeated them along the way. Now that may have been incredibly difficult but you seem to be saying he surrendered because he wasn't given orders not to!

He had no orders. He was told that there would be no further attempt to relieve him after Kane failed to get through.

Kane had fresh troops and supplies and could not get through yet you think Quinlan could have done what Kane couldn't. Of cours his superiors would have been delighted if he died. The fact of his survival and that of his men embarrassed them.
If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. If he could have done something that was absolutely impossible then well and good.

Jesus. wrote: »

You didn't put up their answers. What were they?

I gave you the answeres. They were recorded in the BOok "Heroes of Jadotville". A much better book than Powers.

Jesus. wrote: »

I appreciate the link. It appears Raja was very happy with the Battalions overall conduct after they departed. It doesn't alter the fact though that, rightly or wrongly, in the book he wrote he was critical of Quinlan's deployment.

HE singled out Quinlan for paraise and said he was an example and also is quoted as saying that in the Indian Army he would have been highly hounoured. He didn't write a book criticising Quinlan.

Jesus. wrote: »

Look, you're not going to pigeonhole me into rubbishing Cmdt Quinlan because that's not what I think. Rather I think I've a slightly more balanced view than you. He did sterling work at Jadotville, there's absolutely no doubt about it. The leadership he showed and the way he had his troops licked into shape was top class. They won the actual fight hands down. All I'm doing is questioning whether or not there could have been a more favorable outcome to the engagement. Was Mockler being overly harsh? Is Power's analysis a bit biased toward the Irish unit?

They didn't win the fight. They lost having inflicted heavy casualties. What happened afterwards is that the UN and the Irish Army decided to deride Quinlan to cover up for theie own incompetence. Power is attempting to allow the truth to emerge. It wasn't until more than a year later that Katanga came into UN hands. Expecting one company of Irishmen with poor equipment to have solved the whole problem is ridiculous. You might as well say that Ireland could take on and beat the US in a war.

Jesus. wrote: »

I could be totally wrong of course and there mightn't have been anything he could have done. I'm just trying to be objective having read up on the siege, that's all.

Objective or objectionable? I know many of the men who were in Jadotville. Comng up with drivel with the weak "I could be totally wrong of course" is despicable. The only reason I am feeding your trolling is because some of the men who were there and have died since were my friends.

Jesus. · 15-08-2014 7:49pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I know many of the men who were in Jadotville. Comng up with drivel with the weak "I could be totally wrong of course" is despicable. The only reason I am feeding your trolling is because some of the men who were there and have died since were my friends.

I actually had written at the top of my last post if you were related to any of the men and was that why you were not able to debate rationally but I deleted it before I posted because I thought it was OTT. It was however quite obvious the moment you began ranting on here. You have zero objectivity and are clouded by sentiment and personal bias hence there's no point in continuing this further.

Just to add, this is the history section, not a counselling support group. Its a place where objective analysis and debate takes place. It is not the domain of people who are unable to debate something without losing their heads because they have a personal stake in the topic. By all means engage if you think you can handle it but if you know you'd be unable to keep your emotion in check, then its not the place for you.

You can have the last word because I know you're going to anyway.

nuac · 16-08-2014 10:44am

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You are either extremely ill-informed or trolling. You are inventing facts and denying others.

You most certainly did by suggesting that their lives were dispensable on some wild goose chase to the Lufira bridge.

You are now contradicting yourself. You are claiming that Quinlan made a mistake at the end but are now saying that he should have taken a decision to break out when some supplies remained. Which is it? He was initially told by Headquarters to stay put. By the time the Lufira bridge episode was over the supplies were gone. A company hammered them because they were dug in and an attacker alwyas takes more risks and will suffer more casualties. How do you kove past a number 20 times your own who have superior weapons without transport. Quinlan could not have carried his mortars. The Vickers machine guns would have been useless on the move. He would have had to try and walk out with rifles and submachine guns. The opposition were led by experienced mercenaries who would have had them in bits in no time. The same week mercenaries captured Irish troops in the Radio College in Elisabethville in a very skilfully organised ambush.

Saying he had orders to do something and being asked if it was feasible are two very different things.

He had no orders. He was told that there would be no further attempt to relieve him after Kane failed to get through.

Kane had fresh troops and supplies and could not get through yet you think Quinlan could have done what Kane couldn't. Of cours his superiors would have been delighted if he died. The fact of his survival and that of his men embarrassed them.
If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. If he could have done something that was absolutely impossible then well and good.

I gave you the answeres. They were recorded in the BOok "Heroes of Jadotville". A much better book than Powers.

HE singled out Quinlan for paraise and said he was an example and also is quoted as saying that in the Indian Army he would have been highly hounoured. He didn't write a book criticising Quinlan.

They didn't win the fight. They lost having inflicted heavy casualties. What happened afterwards is that the UN and the Irish Army decided to deride Quinlan to cover up for theie own incompetence. Power is attempting to allow the truth to emerge. It wasn't until more than a year later that Katanga came into UN hands. Expecting one company of Irishmen with poor equipment to have solved the whole problem is ridiculous. You might as well say that Ireland could take on and beat the US in a war.

Objective or objectionable? I know many of the men who were in Jadotville. Comng up with drivel with the weak "I could be totally wrong of course" is despicable. The only reason I am feeding your trolling is because some of the men who were there and have died since were my friends.[/QUOTE]

That is a possibility.

Wasn't Conor Cruise O'Brien the UN representative on the ground?

I met him a number of times. Struck me as a vain, ambitious, headstrong man.

Probably not the best choice for such a mission

Also he may not have been fully concentrating on his task. Wasn't he entertaining Ms McEntee there at the time?

nuac · 16-08-2014 11:02am

Claw Hammer

I presume from your posts that you have been in the Army yourself.

I agree generally with your comments.

I was in the FCA in the fifties in Galway and knew people in the regular army.

Jadotville was big news. There was a lot of discussion and comment about it.

The view was that Quinlan, his officers and men did the best they could in the circumstances and with the resources available.

Jesus. · 16-08-2014 11:48am

nuac wrote: »

Wasn't Conor Cruise O'Brien the UN representative on the ground?I met him a number of times. Struck me as a vain, ambitious, headstrong man.

I think you've hit on a good point there Nuac. I never met the man personally myself but I thought the same way about him. Up his own Aras big time.

In Power's book, it describes how one of the men who was dispatched from J'ville to E'ville to get reinforcements was left waiting in the hallway for a couple of hours while O'Brien had a banquet with UN officers and emissaries. The soldier, who would've been just a lad at the time, was very pissed off with this.

Politicians often make the work of an Army almost impossible to do.

cruasder777 · 23-08-2014 9:11am

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Their very first mortar rounds took out the enemy artillery.
The ex French Foreign Legion Officer who boasted he would have Quinlan's head on a stick ,was captured by an Irish fighting patrol. And lucky that the Sgt Mjr talked Quinlan out of shooting him. From start to finish they mastered the battleground against a force that even the Gurkhas couldn't breakthrough. Seriously - you know the film Zulu? Well think about facing a force that outnumbers you like that film - except they are armed with everything from artillery to airpower. The Irish still inflicted something in the region of 10% enemy K.I.A while managing to bring every single one of their own home. Nothing at all lacking in their training imo.

The accounts don't add up, in a week of "heavy fighting", only 5 Irish soldiers lightly wounded against a force with artillery and airpower.

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

How could that be possible with 81-mm mortars and a French 75-mm field gun against you and an enemy between 500-5,000, who "attacked in waves".

Also if you look at pictures of Irish soldiers taken prisoner, they look clean, fresh etc, not like they have fought all week for their lives.

What most likely happened ?

The enemy besieged the camp, lobbed in mortars and the odd artillery shell with the odd probing attack.

The enemy commander gave an ultimatum and the Irish commander surrendered.

Hence the court marshal, incident being written out of history etc.

There is no way a week long battle was fought, with only 5 Irish troops lightly wounded.

The light damage to buildings in background of this picture and smiling troops, testify to that.

http://www.militaryheritage.ie/images/Jadotville/content/bin/images/large/6_Jadoville%20after%205%20day%20battle.jpg

cruasder777 · 23-08-2014 9:30am

Antbyrn · 11-11-2014 11:38pm

StefMontgomery wrote: »

My father was Corporal Gerard Francis, he was standing beside Lt Riordan when he was shot dead, my father was shot in the ear and awarded the DSM. He had just finished writing his book on his experience in the Conga last January 2011, unfortunately he lost his long and equally barve battle with Cancer.

I was so privilledged to have such a hero for a father and even witnessed for myself his bravery when he rescued three young men from the sea right in front of me.

There is a documentary to be aired on channel 4 in December 14th I think, my father was one of the men interviewed all about the Irish army in the Congo.

I miss him terribly...the bravest man I know

Stephanie Francis

Hi,
When I read your story I felt I had to add something.
My uncle Sargent Gregory Rogers was also in that ambush at the tunnel that day.
He was more like a father to me all my life and my best friend.
Unfortunately he also lost his battle to cancer in September 2012 at 82 years of age.
He said to me "I've had 81 good years,I just wish I could have ten more"......

God I miss you Greg
RIP
Anthony.

Antbyrn · 12-11-2014 12:12am

StefMontgomery wrote: »

My father was Corporal Gerard Francis, he was standing beside Lt Riordan when he was shot dead, my father was shot in the ear and awarded the DSM. He had just finished writing his book on his experience in the Conga last January 2011, unfortunately he lost his long and equally barve battle with Cancer.

I was so privilledged to have such a hero for a father and even witnessed for myself his bravery when he rescued three young men from the sea right in front of me.

There is a documentary to be aired on channel 4 in December 14th I think, my father was one of the men interviewed all about the Irish army in the Congo.

I miss him terribly...the bravest man I know

Stephanie Francis

Sorry I ment,
Quartermaster Sergeant

angieob · 07-01-2015 1:04am

can anybody give me any information about pte peter donnelly served in congo with lieutenant kevin gleeson any info would be gratefull x

dandyelevan · 08-01-2015 8:19pm

I didn't know Peter Donnelly (I served a little later on in the '60s) but if he served with Lt. Gleeson's platoon in the Congo I have a photo of the Platoon taken just before they left Ireland.
Maybe Peter is in it?
PM me with your email address if you wish and I'll fwd picture to you.

Otherwise, direct your enquiry to the Curragh History website.

Maudi · 08-01-2015 9:47pm

Did any of you guys know Patrick 'dutchie' Manley? He served in the Congo early 60s.

Frog Song · 20-02-2015 11:36am

Looks like they'll finally get some recognition. With Jamie Dornan playing Patrick Quinlan this is going to get a lot of attention.

http://deadline.com/2015/02/netflix-jamie-dornan-jadotville-50-shades-of-grey-1201374525/

Jesus. · 14-07-2015 12:17am

Anyone seen the film yet?

Kevhog1988 · 14-07-2015 11:18am

My grandfather robert (bob) heavey and his brother peter (joe) both served in the congo. Interestingly grandfather was getting on the relief plane to go home as his brother was getting off. They had a few words together as they passed.

jonniebgood1 · 20-10-2016 7:38pm

series of posts removed because they were off topic and generally just ridiculous. apologies for not removing them sooner, I hadn't seen them.
moderator

DanMurphy · 07-11-2016 6:19pm

Another Jadotville veteran, old friend and ex-comrade, passed to his eternal reward today.

RIP Bill.

Rest easy old soldier, you did your duty.

KidMeNotA1 · 14-11-2016 11:18am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It was the 50th anniversary recently of a battle involving some of the first forces of Irish peacekeepers serving with the UN. The soldiers were never rewarded for their bravery despite performing against much stronger forces according to this article:
The lack of recognition for these troops would seem to be based on their end loss in the battle and not take consideration of the circumstances and context of the situation.

The Irish of Jadotville (now Likasi) were well remembered 14 years later when I was there. Conor Cruise a lot less so (Africans go by the 'surname, with my giving my name as Brian - they immediately started on about O'Brien - this from people who had never been to school, so he really made an impression, & nearly cost me my head). Balubas are good fighters, as I saw in Kolwesi in '77 & again in '78, where the French Foreign Legion cleared the situation. About 250 Europeans died there, with thousands of Africans.

Irish troops battle at Jadotville, Congo. Heroes?

Comments