Possible End of the ww2

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with you on that. Anything other then small islands and mainland asia (only because of its proximity) had nothing to worry about.
 
Australia is hardly worth taking anyway. North Australia, yes but not all of it. There's too much resource required for the job. Much more than Japan had on offer while fighting with the British forces in India and Burma.
 
They had my Grandad there. :twisted:

Although that was a joke, my Grandad was in the Chindits and a 'Blitzer' at that. The Japanese hated them, they were the targets to aim for when in combat.
 
The Chindits were dropped or march behind enemy lines. They set up fire-bases to disrupt enemy supply lines and reserve movement. It was guerilla warfare and the Japanese had no effective way of stopping it.
Not only was it an effective military operation but a great moral booster because the Chindits were just drawn from the normal Army ranks. The normal Army would think "If they could do it, we can"

The Japanese to this day say that it was the Chindits that won the war for the Allies in the CBI.

A "Blitzer" was a Bren-Gunner. They would fire from the hip and would be sent in first, or against snipers with their gun blazing to strike fear into the enemy. Then they would lay down accurate fire support while the attack was going on. The Japanese hated Bren-Gunners because of how accurate and deadly they were.
 
The Chindits could only be supplied from the air and the injured were either left behind or evacuated by air. Lysanders came in handy for that, with their short take off and landing.
 
That is a big difference between the US and British military systems. The US has always been more humanitarian to it's troops. Not one man gets left behind.
In the British view injuring a man is better than killing them because by injuring a man you take up more of the resources of the enemy. When fighting an enemy like America, Britain would be aiming to injuring more than killing. By injuring a man it would take several other guns from the battlefield, those guns who are trying to help the injured man.

In the Chindit operations the men could not take them, just like they could not take prisoners. They were behind enemy lines, any injured man would hinder the progress and all the men knew that an injury far from any kind of make-shift landing strip would mean they would be left behind.
Men from the theatre all knew that they would be propped up against a tree, a canteen, 3-5 days rations and a pistol given to them and left. Even their rifle was often taken away with it's ammo.
 
It actually comes from the guardians of a temple near the Chindwin river.
 
plan_D said:
That is a big difference between the US and British military systems. The US has always been more humanitarian to it's troops. Not one man gets left behind.
In the British view injuring a man is better than killing them because by injuring a man you take up more of the resources of the enemy. When fighting an enemy like America, Britain would be aiming to injuring more than killing. By injuring a man it would take several other guns from the battlefield, those guns who are trying to help the injured man.

That doctrine is actually widly used. You wound a soldier and then you can pic off the other soldiers trying to help him.
 
Yes but what I'm saying is, the British don't try and help him. Even less so for the Chindits.
 
America cares more for it's troops than Britain. In some circumstances it costs more lives than if they had left that one behind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back