Jump to content


Photo

9 April 1942 - Bataan Has Fallen


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 14 April 2017 - 2022 PM

I hope so. SALADIN at least is/was aiming for a 2018 visit.

#22 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,028 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 15 April 2017 - 0024 AM

2018 would be my earliest for a WestPac campaign-tour.



#23 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 07 May 2017 - 0037 AM

"There is a limit of human endurance, and that point has been reached."

 

- General Wainright, to Pres. Roosevelt.

 

On 6 May 1942, US and Filipino forces on Corregidor surrendered to the Japanese.



#24 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,689 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 May 2017 - 1315 PM

Then came the harsh occupation, the complete destruction in the battle for Manila, and liberation.

 



#25 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 May 2017 - 2241 PM

1942 not only saw the fall of Bataan to the regulars of the Imperial Japanese Army, it saw the return of Filipino patriots such as Filipino General Artemio Ricarte to Philippine soil, who died defending the Philippines from American colonization in 1945 with the same determination he fought them with in 1900.

 

Liberation meaning the re-imposition of American colonial rule over the Philippines is a somewhat hollow interpretation of the term, especially considering the Filipino Government officially recognizes the legitimacy of the presidency of Jose P. Laurel, whose term of office ran from 14 October 1943 to 17 August 1945.

.



#26 toysoldier

toysoldier

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Miami is a beatiful city
  • Interests:Sci-fi, history, gameplay

Posted 14 May 2017 - 0124 AM

Interesting fellow, this Ricarte guy. Not a quitter, that's for sure.

#27 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 15 May 2017 - 0303 AM

FYI, the Philippines were a good deal autonomous in 1941 and scheduled to get full independence before 1950. So much about reimposing US colonial rule and it explains why Filipinos fought so hard for their alleged colonial masters.

#28 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 May 2017 - 0845 AM

"...it explains why Filipinos fought so hard for their alleged colonial masters."

 

Philippine Army KIA totals in the 5-month Philippines Campaign from December 1941 to May 1942 are listed as follows:

 

11th Infantry Division: 10 KIA

21st Infantry Division: 11 KIA

31st Infantry Division: 12 KIA

41st Infantry Division: 12 KIA

51st Infantry Division: 16 KIA

61st Infantry Division: 11 KIA

71st Infantry Division: 14 KIA

81st Infantry Division: 11 KIA

91st Infantry Division: 14 KIA

101st Infantry Division: 13 KIA

 

These battle casualty totals, combined with the Japanese high command's decision to withdraw the 9 best infantry battalions out of the 18 committed to the initial invasion (the entirety of the crack 48th Motorized Division) 4 weeks into the campaign, should be taken into consideration when the question of how hard the Fighting Filipinos actually resisted in the campaign arises.

 

One reason why the Filipinos may not have resisted as tenaciously as depicted by history-written-by-the-victors might be due to collective memories of the breaking of the Filipino insurgency by American infantry using pacification tactics during the Philippine Insurrection.


Edited by Nobu, 15 May 2017 - 0851 AM.


#29 toysoldier

toysoldier

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Miami is a beatiful city
  • Interests:Sci-fi, history, gameplay

Posted 15 May 2017 - 2013 PM

Oh, I'm sure whatever the Americans did was matched and bested by the Imperial Army...

#30 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 15 May 2017 - 2349 PM

One don't buy the KIA numbers. No more than 16 per division over a course of six months? Sorry but no!

Two, the Philippine Army was supposed to be comprised of light infantry divisions. And they not only lacked much of their heavy and automatic weapons but also most of their training. The soldiers would have been excused if they decided to run but at least 60,000 of them didn't so the Americans must have made up for their sins of the past.

The well known Japanese conduct towards the Chinese might have also been a factor why the Filipinos fought against being liberated by that lot.

Edited by Markus Becker, 15 May 2017 - 2359 PM.


#31 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,689 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2017 - 0053 AM

One don't buy the KIA numbers. No more than 16 per division over a course of six months? Sorry but no!
Two, the Philippine Army was supposed to be comprised of light infantry divisions. And they not only lacked much of their heavy and automatic weapons but also most of their training. The soldiers would have been excused if they decided to run but at least 60,000 of them didn't so the Americans must have made up for their sins of the past.
The well known Japanese conduct towards the Chinese might have also been a factor why the Filipinos fought against being liberated by that lot.


The usual case is the Japanese are portrayed worse than they were and the Americans were portrayed better they are. Not that I'm concluding the Japanese were better masters, American masters were probably the better masters, but it has to be said. The psychological and media war guilt applied by the US is very heavy and still in strong affect today.

One ought to ask why the Filipino forces were so lightly armed and poorly trained. If they were, they probably couldn't be controlled.

I think it is at least questionable as to how hard the Filipinos fought. Seeing by the numbers killed compared to the number of participates, they didn't seem to exactly have been fighting like in the Alamo like the US forces were.

Also I hate to base arguments on wiki but the US seem to have done brutal concentration camp style on the Filipinos that resisted were many died. The effects of death by disease might have been linked.

Edited by JasonJ, 16 May 2017 - 0054 AM.


#32 FlyingCanOpener

FlyingCanOpener

    Kakistocrat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Iberia, LA USA
  • Interests:Geomatics // Naval History // Soccer // Teaching

Posted 16 May 2017 - 0630 AM

Generally native-based units in a colony were light infantry because it met the military needs of the colony in terms of manpower while allowing the colonial power to focus its garrison on heavier weapons to bolster them as needed. It is a deterrence against rebellion--of course--but the upswing is that it's cheaper to maintain a credible force in the colony. In the case of the Philippines, any situation where large numbers of heavy infantry weapons would be needed the garrison units would be called in anyway. Why duplicate capabilities if you're policing a colony on the cheap?



#33 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,689 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2017 - 0736 AM

Generally native-based units in a colony were light infantry because it met the military needs of the colony in terms of manpower while allowing the colonial power to focus its garrison on heavier weapons to bolster them as needed. It is a deterrence against rebellion--of course--but the upswing is that it's cheaper to maintain a credible force in the colony. In the case of the Philippines, any situation where large numbers of heavy infantry weapons would be needed the garrison units would be called in anyway. Why duplicate capabilities if you're policing a colony on the cheap?


I of course do not have in depth knowledge on the circumstances of the Philiippine forces so I don't mean to conclude that they did not do their fair share of defense at a respectable manner. I certainly do not want to say something that is contrary to how they responded to the invasion.

With that said, what exactly were the light forces armed with? It would be difficult to expect them to put up a strong effort in defense if hand guns were the best they had. Maybe shotguns? Bolt action rifles would certainly be a sufficient weapon to fight back with, regardless if they are termed as "light forces". But maybe ammunition supply was short or maybe rifles were sparsely equipped. I often hear that the Americans themselves were not prepared for a proper defense but still did what they could and put up a tough fight. I'm sure some Filipinos fought as hard. But for the many that apparently surrendered, were they all greatly under armed? Well it's a lot of detail questions that I rather not push people into answering because I think only the specific and detail understanding can answer the question.

Edited by JasonJ, 16 May 2017 - 0737 AM.


#34 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2017 - 0857 AM

I'd be mildly surprised if the bulk of the Philippine Army was issued shoes, never mind bolt action rifles.

 

As for Philippine Army casualty totals, if they are incorrect, I am open to more accurate data. It would not shock me if they were wrong, as there is the possibility that those doing the counting (according to Wiki, the American Battlefield Memorials Commission of the U.S. Federal Government) simply didn't give a shit.

 

If they are correct, they certainly paint a picture. One of Fighting Filipino disintegration on first contact with the regulars of the Imperial Japanese Army.



#35 Richard Lindquist

Richard Lindquist

    Purveyor of flints to General Washington

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lighthouse Point, FL, USA
  • Interests:military hardware, military history

Posted 16 May 2017 - 0923 AM

I'd be mildly surprised if the bulk of the Philippine Army was issued shoes, never mind bolt action rifles.

 

As for Philippine Army casualty totals, if they are incorrect, I am open to more accurate data. It would not shock me if they were wrong, as there is the possibility that those doing the counting (according to Wiki, the American Battlefield Memorials Commission of the U.S. Federal Government) simply didn't give a shit.

 

If they are correct, they certainly paint a picture. One of Fighting Filipino disintegration on first contact with the regulars of the Imperial Japanese Army.

Three of the divisions were in the central and southern Philippines and were surrendered without being engaged.  The Philippine Army divisions were issued US blue fatigue uniforms and canvas shoes (which quickly wore out).  Every soldier was issued a M1917 Enfield bolt action rifle (with notoriously weak extractors) but many had never fired a shot and even the most fortunate had only fired 50 or so rounds on a range.  Most divisions had only eight 75mm guns in their artillery and infantry crew served weapons were limited and obsolecscent.  Transport was virtually non existent.



#36 EvanDP

EvanDP

    Deus Ex Nukina

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,350 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Interests:SciFi, firearms, Military history, computers, redheads

Posted 16 May 2017 - 1054 AM

I've heard that "Lend-Lease" was also a factor. Was equipment and ammo diverted from the Phillippines to Lend-Lease?

#37 Richard Lindquist

Richard Lindquist

    Purveyor of flints to General Washington

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lighthouse Point, FL, USA
  • Interests:military hardware, military history

Posted 16 May 2017 - 1133 AM

I've heard that "Lend-Lease" was also a factor. Was equipment and ammo diverted from the Phillippines to Lend-Lease?

Not really.  A convoy with a lot of US equipment and personnel was diverted to  Australia when it was obvious it could not get into the Philippines without being destroyed.  The assets of this convoy were the nucleus of the US base in Australia.



#38 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 16 May 2017 - 1143 AM

Generally native-based units in a colony were light infantry because it met the military needs of the colony in terms of manpower while allowing the colonial power to focus its garrison on heavier weapons to bolster them as needed. It is a deterrence against rebellion--of course--but the upswing is that it's cheaper to maintain a credible force in the colony. In the case of the Philippines, any situation where large numbers of heavy infantry weapons would be needed the garrison units would be called in anyway. Why duplicate capabilities if you're policing a colony on the cheap?


The PI Army was supposed to be the national defence force of a soon to be independent nation. But a poor one, hence the large number of lightly armed infantry. The Commenwealth of the Philippines had to pay for the PI Army prior to 1941 and discount M1917 was the best they could do.

The US Army Historical Center has a paper called "Defence of the Philippines" that goes into detail and there is a book called "Racing the Sunrise" on the last minute efforts of the USA to get more heavy and automatic weapons to the PI.

#39 Richard Lindquist

Richard Lindquist

    Purveyor of flints to General Washington

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lighthouse Point, FL, USA
  • Interests:military hardware, military history

Posted 16 May 2017 - 1653 PM

I'd be mildly surprised if the bulk of the Philippine Army was issued shoes, never mind bolt action rifles.

 

As for Philippine Army casualty totals, if they are incorrect, I am open to more accurate data. It would not shock me if they were wrong, as there is the possibility that those doing the counting (according to Wiki, the American Battlefield Memorials Commission of the U.S. Federal Government) simply didn't give a shit.

 

If they are correct, they certainly paint a picture. One of Fighting Filipino disintegration on first contact with the regulars of the Imperial Japanese Army.

Japanese troops confronting the 11th and 12th PA divisions suffered significant casualties while the 11th and 12th were holding open the line of retreat to Bataan.  It is hard to believe that the two PA divisions did not also suffer similar casualties.  Your list also leaves out the 1st PA Div which was better trained and was their "regular" division and remained effective pretty much to the end.  Nor does your list include the 2nd PA Div which was formed from the Philippine Constabulary Regiments and which also played a large part on Bataan.  There were also about 12,000 "Philippine Scouts" which comprised 80% of the US Philippine Division plus the independent 43rd Inf Regt and 26th Cavalry Regt (Horse) and one-third of the Coastal Artillery units.



#40 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,689 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2017 - 1719 PM

I'd be mildly surprised if the bulk of the Philippine Army was issued shoes, never mind bolt action rifles.
 
As for Philippine Army casualty totals, if they are incorrect, I am open to more accurate data. It would not shock me if they were wrong, as there is the possibility that those doing the counting (according to Wiki, the American Battlefield Memorials Commission of the U.S. Federal Government) simply didn't give a shit.
 
If they are correct, they certainly paint a picture. One of Fighting Filipino disintegration on first contact with the regulars of the Imperial Japanese Army.

Japanese troops confronting the 11th and 12th PA divisions suffered significant casualties while the 11th and 12th were holding open the line of retreat to Bataan.  It is hard to believe that the two PA divisions did not also suffer similar casualties.  Your list also leaves out the 1st PA Div which was better trained and was their "regular" division and remained effective pretty much to the end.  Nor does your list include the 2nd PA Div which was formed from the Philippine Constabulary Regiments and which also played a large part on Bataan.  There were also about 12,000 "Philippine Scouts" which comprised 80% of the US Philippine Division plus the independent 43rd Inf Regt and 26th Cavalry Regt (Horse) and one-third of the Coastal Artillery units.

His list might be consisting of all the divisions that were under the command of only the Philippine Army. While all the other noteworthy PA divisions and Philippine Scouts seem to the units that were more or less under the command of the US. This separation is made in the wiki on the campaign, down in the section called "USAFFE order of battle, December 3rd; causality report".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_Campaign_(1941–42)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users