Effectiveness of West African units in Burma

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
daveh
Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: 11 Feb 2003, 19:14
Location: uk

Effectiveness of West African units in Burma

#1

Post by daveh » 25 Jan 2004, 16:04

The 81 st and 82 nd West African divisions served in Burma including in the Arakan as part of the XV Indian Corps and had one brigade as part of Wingate's Chindit operations.

However I have found little detail on their operations , L Allen's Burma: The Longest War for example barely mentions the West African units.
During my reading I have come across markedly different views of their effectiveness. In the Battle of the Box by P Turnbull it is said that the "Africans were allergic to jungle warfare".
However there are references to members of the Japanese 28th Army stating that the West Africans were the allies' best jungle fighters.

Which of these views is correct?

I gather that the West African units relied to a much greater extent than other allied units on porters. Was this an advantage in dense jungles? All forms of support transport, men, mules or motor vehicles would be vulnerable to ambush in jungle conditions but would porters be faster to respond? and was it an advantage as if an infantry man could pass through and area, a porter could while a vehicle may well not and a mule might.
The use of ait dropped supplies would off set the smaller carry capacity of porters.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#2

Post by Andy H » 25 Jan 2004, 21:05

Hi DaveH

I agree on your prognosis regarding the West African divisions, but let's not forget the equally baffling attributes of the 11th East African division that also served in Burma

Andy H


User avatar
adrian
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 11 May 2002, 04:46
Location: Boree Creek, Australia

#3

Post by adrian » 26 Jan 2004, 12:38

I've just had a look at Field Marshall Slim's definitive account of the Burma war, 'Defeat into Victory' and the 81st West African was praised quite highly by Slim. I quote :
"Their discipline and smartness was impressive, and they were obviously more at home in the jungle than any other troops I had yet seen.They had neither animals nor vehicles with their fighting units,but were organized on a man pack basis."

It goes on to say that he was struck by two things. The first the large amount of unarmed porters and secondly the large amount of British NCO's and officers in the divisions units. The West Africans often had 50 or even 60 British in an infantry battalion as opposed to the 8 or 9 in an Indian unit.

Of the 82nd, not much at all! There is a few mentions of their operations in the 3rd Arakan but nothing referring to the quality or nature of the unit in the script.

Of the 11th East African, Slim was very favourable towards. It might be worth noting that 5 East African Brigades served in Burma at various times. 21 EA Bde,25 EA Bde and 26 EA Bde made up 11th East African Division at the time of the Kohima/Imphal ops of 1944. The 22nd and 28 East African Brigades also served in the theatre - the 28th with notable distinction during the Gangaw and Irrawaddy crossings in 1944.

The efforts of the East & West African soldiers in the Burma campaign should not be disparaged at all I feel. Slim was not a man who tolerated incompetent units or commanders, there is no doubt he would have ordered any unit that was not up to scratch to return to India for training or indeed any commander would have soon found himslef incurring his displeasure.

It should alos be noted that the 36th British Division also recieves very few accolades in that long brutal campaign.

adrian

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 03 Aug 2002, 02:58
Location: United Kingdom

#4

Post by Steve » 29 Jan 2004, 23:01

Talked to a Burma veteren once and he claimed that the West Africans always retreated fast if they heard there were Japanese behind them.

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”