British Army Replacement System

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
Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2246
Joined: 16 Aug 2004 01:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Delta Tank » 15 Feb 2019 14:16

Rich,

RichTO90 wrote:
“The strategically meaningless campaign in the Philippines was almost entirely due to MacArthur's Republican constituency. :D And was doubly meaningless given that there was no American colonial empire there, given independence was already de facto under the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934. It was delayed by two years due to Japanese action, not American.”
So, we only captured the Philippine because of MacArthur? Do tell.

I thought that the Philippines were to get independence in 1946, then came the War and they still got Independence in 1946. I don’t ever recall reading that it was delayed to 1946.

Mike

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3218
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Feb 2019 14:34

Delta Tank wrote:
15 Feb 2019 14:16
So, we only captured the Philippine because of MacArthur? Do tell.
MacArthur pushed for the "return to the Philippines", but strategically it was a diversion by 1944-1945 given the impotence of the Japanese fleet.
I thought that the Philippines were to get independence in 1946, then came the War and they still got Independence in 1946. I don’t ever recall reading that it was delayed to 1946.
As I remember it was ten years from the passage of the Act of 1934, so 1944? It actually occurred in 1946. Neither had anything to with MacArthur or the return. It would have occurred in 1946 either way.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2246
Joined: 16 Aug 2004 01:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Delta Tank » 15 Feb 2019 14:41

Rich,

I think the Return to the Philippines has been discussed before on the Forum. The US Navy wanted to go to the mainland of China, but first we would have to capture Taiwan. When the logisticians looked at the plan, it was decided we could not capture Taiwan with the number of service troops available, plus it was decided that we would have to capture Luzon also.

All explained here: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/US ... ec-21.html

it wasn’t politics it was logic.

Mike

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2246
Joined: 16 Aug 2004 01:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Delta Tank » 15 Feb 2019 14:45

To all,

The link I posted appears not to work! Try this one. Mike

https://history.army.mil/books/70-7_21.htm

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by South » 15 Feb 2019 18:44

Good afternoon Delta Tank / Mike,

Rich TO is correct.

It really was politics; not logic.

As important as stepping stone bases were, there were more powerful domestic US interests. Recall that retired General MacArthur worked for the Quezon government as a Field Marshall. Again, politics was heavily involved.

In the late 1920s-1930s US opinion started to accept an independent Philippines. For a reference point / benchmark, look at the near parallel British Act of Westminster, 1931 with its 10 year transition. An independent Philippines was a major matter for the domestic US agricultural bloc and the domestic US labor bloc. How do you say "highly competitive competition into a tariff-free marketplace" auf Tagalog ?

The first severance act was the 1932 Hawer-Cutting Act. This contained the 10 year transition in it. The Philippine political establishment rejected the Act. In 1934 Congress passed the Philippine Independence Act (Tydings McDuffie Act (Think of Cuba and the Platt Amendment).

The Commonwealth of the Philippines was created in 1935. They had financial problems - in Tagalog and other languages.

The Japanese attack was 8 Dec 41 , hours after Pearl Harbor.

The above 2 entries have some missing material I could never learn about. The already in-place Philippine constitution had national elections scheduled for the end of 1945. Of course, other matters took precedence. The war's chaos caused delays.

Independence was proclaimed on 4 July 1946, with the obvious 4th of July symbolism.

There is much intrigue and much just plain military necessity also going on.

US and Phil agreements and the later treaties involved "intrigue". For example, Olongapo was not de jure Philippine territory as per routine governmental operations, It was part of Subic Bay Naval Base (until 1959). It was "governed" by whoever was the USN commander of Subic. There was some strategic planning going on all along because the USN facilities were getting ready to work the Korean War.

A Conclusion; Domestic US political interests controlled much of the Phil's history. Can't do the typing to discuss the trade preferences and the
fighting on and around Capitol Hill, D.C.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA


cc: Jeepney Drivers Association, Ramon Magsaysay Drive

Foot Note: I am now in the mood for a San Miguel.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2246
Joined: 16 Aug 2004 01:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Delta Tank » 15 Feb 2019 19:18

South,

My Logic comment was in reference on why we returned to the Philippines militarily. Admiral King wanted to use mainland China as the logistical base(?) for our assault on Japan. The only person in the Navy that thought going to China was a good idea was Admiral King.

The book Command Decisions, chapter entitled Luzon vs Formosa explains it all in about 12 pages. I posted the link above. Returning to the Philippines and liberating them from Japanese control was based on logic not politics.

Mike

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by South » 15 Feb 2019 19:26

Good afternoon Delta Tank / Mike,

Well received.

Understand.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3218
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Richard Anderson » 16 Feb 2019 00:57

Delta Tank wrote:
15 Feb 2019 14:41
I think the Return to the Philippines has been discussed before on the Forum. The US Navy wanted to go to the mainland of China, but first we would have to capture Taiwan. When the logisticians looked at the plan, it was decided we could not capture Taiwan with the number of service troops available, plus it was decided that we would have to capture Luzon also.

All explained here: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/US ... ec-21.html

it wasn’t politics it was logic.
Logic? How dare you bring logic into an internet discussion? Seriously, I had actually forgotten about the quixotic Navy plan for the invasion of Taiwan. I suppose too I got inoculated against MacArthur worship after being subjected to his hagiography by Trevor for eight years. :lol: Of course, on Trevor's side, he had a reason to make Big Mac look good, Trevor may have actually been the staff officer assigned to write the Japanese Constitution for them. :lol:

Anyway, MacArthur's desire to return remained a paramount factor helping to override good strategic sense, given there was no real logical reason to invade the Philippines by mid 1944.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 957
Joined: 16 Jun 2004 16:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Eugen Pinak » 19 Feb 2019 19:49

Richard Anderson wrote:
14 Feb 2019 17:39
Eugen Pinak wrote:
14 Feb 2019 10:54
Richard Anderson wrote:
11 Feb 2019 20:04
The strategically meaningless campaign in the Philippines was almost entirely due to MacArthur's Republican constituency. :D
Nice story, but it has nothing to do with the reality.
No, sadly that was part of it. Another part, was MacArthur's former position and authority in the U.S. Army. His political clout prevented what probably should have been his justifiable relief for his actions in the Philippines. Marshall could not relief MacArthur as Short was relieved.
Richard Anderson wrote:
11 Feb 2019 20:04
Philippines were declared independent on October 14, 1943. Of course, they were declared independent with the help of Japan - which was inconceivable for the USA.
Right... :roll: :lol: Nice story, but it has nothing to do with the reality.
Well, even Wikipedia has the correct answers. But if you insist on your fantasies - who am I to argue?

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 957
Joined: 16 Jun 2004 16:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Eugen Pinak » 19 Feb 2019 19:58

Sheldrake wrote:
15 Feb 2019 01:07
Eugen Pinak wrote:
14 Feb 2019 10:54
Thank you for pointing out, that two divisions were only stated for Pacific deployment and not actually deployed. Nice comparison with Sheldrake's attempts in splitting the hairs to find "some" troops on British side.
I am not trying to split hairs. ...
That exactly what are you trying to do.
USA, doubling their strength in India in 1944, for you - "Europe first" and worthy of praise. While British keeping their strength in India are foolish imperialists.
US divisions, sitting idle while waiting for some Pacific deployment, is not a problem for you, while British must know about their actual losses in Europe beforehand and prepare for it.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2606
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Sheldrake » 20 Feb 2019 01:56

Eugen Pinak wrote:
19 Feb 2019 19:58
Sheldrake wrote:
15 Feb 2019 01:07
Eugen Pinak wrote:
14 Feb 2019 10:54
Thank you for pointing out, that two divisions were only stated for Pacific deployment and not actually deployed. Nice comparison with Sheldrake's attempts in splitting the hairs to find "some" troops on British side.
I am not trying to split hairs. ...
That exactly what are you trying to do.
USA, doubling their strength in India in 1944, for you - "Europe first" and worthy of praise. While British keeping their strength in India are foolish imperialists.
US divisions, sitting idle while waiting for some Pacific deployment, is not a problem for you, while British must know about their actual losses in Europe beforehand and prepare for it.
Sorry old chap, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. My comments were purely to challenge the statement that often made that Britain had run out of manpower in 1944.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7685
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Sid Guttridge » 20 Feb 2019 14:32

Hi Sheldrake,

Is it really a true "that (a statement is) often made that Britain had run out of manpower in 1944."? Have you some examples?

Casualties had not been prohibitively heavy (certainly less than WWI), but responsibilities and burdens of empire had spread British metropolitan human resources thinly.

I have seen the argument put that there was a shortage of infantry replacements very quickly after D-Day, but not that Britain had run out of manpower altogether.

I think your earlier point about bad planning and mis-allocation of such manpowewr as was available has validity, particularly in relation to a shortage of infantry replacements in the second half of 1944.

Cheers,

Sid.

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 957
Joined: 16 Jun 2004 16:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Eugen Pinak » 20 Feb 2019 20:26

Sheldrake wrote:
20 Feb 2019 01:56
Eugen Pinak wrote:
19 Feb 2019 19:58
Sheldrake wrote:
15 Feb 2019 01:07
Eugen Pinak wrote:
14 Feb 2019 10:54
Thank you for pointing out, that two divisions were only stated for Pacific deployment and not actually deployed. Nice comparison with Sheldrake's attempts in splitting the hairs to find "some" troops on British side.
I am not trying to split hairs. ...
That exactly what are you trying to do.
USA, doubling their strength in India in 1944, for you - "Europe first" and worthy of praise. While British keeping their strength in India are foolish imperialists.
US divisions, sitting idle while waiting for some Pacific deployment, is not a problem for you, while British must know about their actual losses in Europe beforehand and prepare for it.
Sorry old chap, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. My comments were purely to challenge the statement that often made that Britain had run out of manpower in 1944.
Care to tell me, where I can find the "challenge to the statement that often made that Britain had run out of manpower in 1944" in the words below? I can't find anything of that sort in your statement below ;)
Sheldrake wrote:
11 Feb 2019 10:42
Churchill was never much interested in logistics. His mercurial interests in the Balkans, the middle and far east tended to leave Britain overstretched. The Americans were rightly suspicious that while they had signed up to "Germany First" the British were not playing the same game.

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 957
Joined: 16 Jun 2004 16:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Eugen Pinak » 20 Feb 2019 20:33

Sid Guttridge wrote:
20 Feb 2019 14:32
I think your earlier point about bad planning and mis-allocation of such manpowewr as was available has validity, particularly in relation to a shortage of infantry replacements in the second half of 1944.
You see, Sheldrake's "point" is a classical hindsight, which is, as you know, always 20/20. We are all very smart afterwards. But in 1944 British high command had no crystal ball to see the future.
Unless, of course, Sheldrake can show us _contemporary_ sources, that British expected heavy infantry losses, but haven't bothered to do anything to solve this problem.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7685
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: British Army Replacement System

Post by Sid Guttridge » 21 Feb 2019 09:32

Hi #44,

History is always about hindsight. "History" is also what the "H" in AHF stands for.

I would suggest that lack of foresight then by the British in the matter of infantry replacements is the problem here, not 20/20 hindsight by posters now.

The fact of the matter is that not only were some 20 German divisions taken out of the German order of battle in Normandy due to losses, but two British ones as well. This occurred not because the British suffered any catastrophic defeat but because they hadn't accurately anticipated the likely cost of victory even after five years of war.

Cheers,

Sid8

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