The force in Malaya was neglected because the British government did not think war with Japan likely and therefore used lower quality and under trained troops there. The 9th and 11th Indian divisions were under equipped and poorly trained due the haste with which the Indian army was expanded. Check this in The War Against Japan by Kirby 0.99p on Kindle. The wikipedia entry on the 8th Australian Division, formed July 1940 and split into seperate brigades as " ill-prepared, poorly equipped and hastily deployed, they would ultimately be destroyed."daveshoup2MD wrote: ↑19 Apr 2021 05:46Did the 9th and 11th Indian divisions do significantly "worse" against the IJA in Malaya and Singapore than the British 18th and Australian 8th divisions did in the same campaign, however? Or are you counting the Australians and British as "under trained, under equipped and under led colonial forces," as well?
Or, for that matter, did the two Indian battalions in Hong Kong do significantly "worse" against the IJA than the two British and two Canadian battalions did?
Did the Indian and Burmese battalions in Burma in 1942 do "significantly" worse than the British?
As far as "Indianisation" goes, the British had done that in WW I, when (I think) four BEF divisions were built on the Indian establishments of three Indian and one British battalion per brigade; I believe they were the 10th, 53rd, 60th, and 75th divisions. Given that experience, presumably the decision was made not to follow the precedent in WW II.
The 18th British Division was diverted at the last minute to Singapore. It was a well trained and equipped British Division.
I am not aware of any Indianisation of British Divisions in the First World War. https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/or ... divisions/ 18 Indian divisions were formed with a mix of British and Indian troops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ar ... orld_War_I