Officers..The Bridge at Remagen

"Jim Doyle"
Hang on Ed, surly you can't pin Dieppe on British ineptitude - being an
Allied venture, it needed Allied ratification. If anything it was a
Canadian
effort (something like 5,000 Canadian troops), the only British employed
were a number of commandos, IIRC about the same number of US Rangers were
also used. Plus what on earth did the Brits do to Hong Kong except turn it
into the prosperous place of commerce and business it is now?!
Can't argue with your stating that often British officers were born to

I'm not necessarily blaming the Brits for Dieppe except for Montbatten's
involvement. Canadian officers were just itching to get into action. The
whole plan was just stupid. Promised support did not materialize and the
numbers were not near enough for an effective assault. That's why Ike
didn't listen to the Russian's demand for a second front until the allies
were ready. As for Hong Kong, I'm talking about the stupid Canadian
decision to send a poorly equipped and poorly trained battalion into a place
they had no chance of winning. I don't think they even delayed the Japanese
victory at Hong Kong. It was a lost cause from the start. This was probably
much a political decision but the Generals must have agreed to it. People
killed and maimed for nothing with no hope of success. Just a plain stupid
loss of life. This was a decision by politicians and high ranking officers
not the grunts who suffered and died!
Ed

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:qOw%b.625931$ts4.78485@pd7tw3no...

"Jim Doyle"
Hang on Ed, surly you can't pin Dieppe on British ineptitude - being an
Allied venture, it needed Allied ratification. If anything it was a
Canadian
effort (something like 5,000 Canadian troops), the only British employed
were a number of commandos, IIRC about the same number of US Rangers
were
also used. Plus what on earth did the Brits do to Hong Kong except turn
it
into the prosperous place of commerce and business it is now?!
Can't argue with your stating that often British officers were born to

I'm not necessarily blaming the Brits for Dieppe except for
Montbatten's
involvement. Canadian officers were just itching to get into action. The
whole plan was just stupid. Promised support did not materialize and the
numbers were not near enough for an effective assault. That's why Ike
didn't listen to the Russian's demand for a second front until the allies
were ready. As for Hong Kong, I'm talking about the stupid Canadian
decision to send a poorly equipped and poorly trained battalion into a
place
they had no chance of winning. I don't think they even delayed the
Japanese
victory at Hong Kong. It was a lost cause from the start.

Rather like the Phillipines, Guam or Wake in fact

Keith

Plus what on earth did the Brits do to Hong Kong except turn it
into the prosperous place of commerce and business it is now?

I suspect the poster was referring to its loss to the Japanese about
Christmas 1941.

Deep down, however, I suspect he was actually thinking of the loss of
Singapore in February 1942. Unlike the situation in indefensible Hong
Kong, the early surrender of Singapore was a rather shameful moment in
British arms.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Plus what on earth did the Brits do to Hong Kong except turn it
into the prosperous place of commerce and business it is now?

I suspect the poster was referring to its loss to the Japanese about
Christmas 1941.

Deep down, however, I suspect he was actually thinking of the loss of
Singapore in February 1942. Unlike the situation in indefensible Hong
Kong, the early surrender of Singapore was a rather shameful moment in
British arms.


The surrender occurred only after the Japanese captured the reservoirs
and cut off water to the city. 2 million people without water dont survive
for very long in a tropical climate. Without air cover Singapore was
simply not defensible but as with the Phillipines it wasnt politically
possible to abandon it.

Keith

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:32:08 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


Deep down, however, I suspect he was actually thinking of the loss of
Singapore in February 1942. Unlike the situation in indefensible Hong
Kong, the early surrender of Singapore was a rather shameful moment in
British arms.

The surrender occurred only after the Japanese captured the reservoirs
and cut off water to the city. 2 million people without water dont survive
for very long in a tropical climate. Without air cover Singapore was
simply not defensible but as with the Phillipines it wasnt politically
possible to abandon it.

Nevertheless, while I'm usually the first to point out that the fall
of Singapore was fundamentally due to external factors (chiefly the
war cabinet decision to prioritise everything else, including supply
to Russia, above providing the recognised minimum in the way of
resources to defend the place effectively), the fact remains that the
forces which were there did not operate effectively enough even when
the external constraints were taken into consideration. Having said
that, at least Percival had the strength of character to surrender at
the end of practicable resistance rather than make grandiose postures
at the expense of the lives of everybody else - the sort of thing that
a lot of Wehrmacht commanders failed to manage.

Gavin Bailey

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Plus what on earth did the Brits do to Hong Kong except turn it
into the prosperous place of commerce and business it is now?

I suspect the poster was referring to its loss to the Japanese about
Christmas 1941.

Deep down, however, I suspect he was actually thinking of the loss of
Singapore in February 1942. Unlike the situation in indefensible Hong
Kong, the early surrender of Singapore was a rather shameful moment in
British arms.


The surrender occurred only after the Japanese captured the reservoirs
and cut off water to the city. 2 million people without water dont survive
for very long in a tropical climate. Without air cover Singapore was
simply not defensible but as with the Phillipines it wasnt politically
possible to abandon it.

Come on Keith, Singapore *was* an embarrassment for your side. It happens;
our first committed units to Korea, before things tightened up around Pusan,
did not acquit themselves very well either, for a number of reasons. The
leadership in Singapore screwed the pooch in how they laid out their
defenses--just as MacArthur screwed the pooch with his ridiculous "defend
forward" strategy in the PI. What separates the two is that the US and PI
troops fought on to the bitter end, suffering and starving *before* the
survivors went into captivity, while Singapore fell with relatively little
bloodshed (and no delay of the Japanese timetable).

Brooks


Keith

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Plus what on earth did the Brits do to Hong Kong except turn it
into the prosperous place of commerce and business it is now?

I suspect the poster was referring to its loss to the Japanese about
Christmas 1941.

Deep down, however, I suspect he was actually thinking of the loss of
Singapore in February 1942. Unlike the situation in indefensible Hong
Kong, the early surrender of Singapore was a rather shameful moment in
British arms.


The surrender occurred only after the Japanese captured the reservoirs
and cut off water to the city. 2 million people without water dont
survive
for very long in a tropical climate. Without air cover Singapore was
simply not defensible but as with the Phillipines it wasnt politically
possible to abandon it.

Come on Keith, Singapore *was* an embarrassment for your side. It happens;

Of course it was.

our first committed units to Korea, before things tightened up around
Pusan,
did not acquit themselves very well either, for a number of reasons. The
leadership in Singapore screwed the pooch in how they laid out their
defenses--just as MacArthur screwed the pooch with his ridiculous "defend
forward" strategy in the PI. What separates the two is that the US and PI
troops fought on to the bitter end, suffering and starving *before* the
survivors went into captivity, while Singapore fell with relatively little
bloodshed (and no delay of the Japanese timetable).


Thats not entirely true, the fighting for Sarimbun beach was bitter
but the result was inevitable as only 2 Aussie battallions were in position
and the Japanese attacked with 2 divisions. The problem for Percival
was that with the Japanese having total air superiority he couldnt move
troops forward to counterattack.

During the The Battle of Pasir Panjang 2 battallions of the Malay
Regiment fought to the last man and at Bukit Timah local
Chinese militia fought hand to hand with the Japanese in
a very bloody and brutal action but once the Japanese seized
the reservoirs the result was inevitable as the people of Singapore
city had no drinking water. In a crowded city in the tropics
this was no joke.

Singapore is a LOT smaller than the Phillipines and contained
2 million civilians who couldnt be supplied with water let alone
be protected from artillery and bombing. Had Percival attempted
to make a last stand in the city the result would have been
another Nanking

Keith

On 26 Feb 2004 19:26:25 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

When the troops of the 9th armored division reached the bridge at Remaagen on
March 7th they stopped undecided what to do. General William Hoge saw the
bridge standing aand ordered it to be taken with the East end of the bridge
secured. Lt. Karl Timmermann led the charge takig the bridge and setting up a
perimeter line of skernishers on the Eastern side.

When ordered to take the bridge troops obeyed the commands of their officers
instantly and obediently. No debates. No second opinions. Just immediate
action. It is how wars are won.

Actually, according to William Breuer's "Storming Hitler's Rhine",
Timmerman's men hesitated, when Major Deveers tried to cheer them up,
he was cursed back about what he could have done with his damned
bridge. It took some prodding until men finally rose and followed
their lieutnant over the bridge.


Drax

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:32:08 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The surrender occurred only after the Japanese captured the reservoirs
and cut off water to the city. 2 million people without water dont survive
for very long in a tropical climate. Without air cover Singapore was
simply not defensible but as with the Phillipines it wasnt politically
possible to abandon it.

Japanese should never reach Johore in the first place with only three
divisions if British defense was even remotely competant. Throughout
Pacific war, Japanese managed to fight far more stubbornly without air
cover.

In addition, note how British managed to slip entire division into the
port only to surrender it without even used it in combat.

No matter how do you twist it, Singapore was the greatest British
military blunder in WW2.


Drax

"Drazen Kramaric" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:32:08 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The surrender occurred only after the Japanese captured the reservoirs
and cut off water to the city. 2 million people without water dont
survive
for very long in a tropical climate. Without air cover Singapore was
simply not defensible but as with the Phillipines it wasnt politically
possible to abandon it.

Japanese should never reach Johore in the first place with only three
divisions if British defense was even remotely competant.

I quite agree


Throughout
Pacific war, Japanese managed to fight far more stubbornly without air
cover.


Stubbornly yes, intelligently no. By 1944 the weaknesses of the
Japanese fighting methods was well understood and they took
horrible casualties to little effect.

In addition, note how British managed to slip entire division into the
port only to surrender it without even used it in combat.

No matter how do you twist it, Singapore was the greatest British
military blunder in WW2.


Indeed it was.

Keith