Museum sheds light on Canada's wartime effort

[freebird]

Originally Posted by parsifal

There was just one Division available for the attack into Hong Kong, the 38th (from memory) and this unit had to spend many months recovering as a result of the malling it suffered from the Canadians. .

How big was a Japanese division? If there were Japanese 52,000 troops there, were the rest independant regiments?

[Glider]

A standard Japanese Type B Infantry Division had 20,000 men.

[freebird]

It seems that parts of the S.E.A.G command also participated

Southern Expeditionary Army Group

Components

[South Seas Western Command]


14th Infantry Division
IJA 49th Independent Mixed Brigade
IJA 53rd Independent Mixed Brigade

The Southern Expeditionary Army (南方軍 , Nanpo gun?) was a army group of the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II. It was responsible for all military operations in South East Asian and South West Pacific campaigns of World War II. [1]

The Southern Expeditionary Army Group was formed on November 6, 1941, under the command of Marshal Hisaichi Terauchi, with orders to attack and occupy Allied territories and colonies in South East Asia and the South Pacific.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, some elements of the 23 Army were also in the Hong Kong attack


China Expeditionary Army
23rd Army

Components

104th Infantry Division

108th Infantry Regiment
137th Infantry Regiment
161st Infantry Regiment
-----------------------------------
129th Infantry Division

91st Infantry Brigade
92nd Infantry Brigade
----------------------------------
130th Infantry Division

93rd Infantry Brigade
94th Infantry Brigade
----------------------------------
23rd Independent Mixed Brigade
8th Independent Infantry Brigade
13th Independent Infantry Brigade

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by Glider

A standard Japanese Type B Infantry Division had 20,000 men.

Thats correct, but if you include the non-divisional support elements (the socalled tail) , it blows out to about 30000 men. A british Division in Burma for example, was about 18000 men, but if you include its supporting 'tail" it is about 55000.

Allied units tended to be short on teeth, and big on tail. This gave them great stying and logistic power, compared to the axis units, but it meant that every casualty sustained had a greater effect on decreasing the units combat capability

[freebird]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Thats correct, but if you include the non-divisional support elements (the socalled tail) , it blows out to about 30000 men. A british Division in Burma for example, was about 18000 men, but if you include its supporting 'tail" it is about 55000.

Allied units tended to be short on teeth, and big on tail. This gave them great stying and logistic power, compared to the axis units, but it meant that every casualty sustained had a greater effect on decreasing the units combat capability

So we might assume that the Axis 52,000 is one division & tail {30,000} + some independant brigades ~15,000 & tail {~22,000 l}?

As for the Allies, there were 2,000 Canadians in two battalions + 2 British + 2 Indian
If they were 900 - 1,000 per battalion then it's 5,500 - 6,000 combat troops.

Infantry

2nd Battalion, The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)
1st Battalion, The Middlesex Regiment (Machine gun battalion)
5th Battalion, 7th Rajput Regiment
2nd Battalion, 14th Punjab Regiment
The Winnipeg Grenadiers {battalion}
The Royal Rifles of Canada {battalion}

Also:
Hong Kong Chinese Regiment
Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps (HKVDC)

So if there were about 2,000 - 3,000 aux. Chinese + HKVDC, then the remaining ~ 5 or 6 thousand out of the 14,000 would be the "tail"?

[Amsel]

An early war Japanese division was roughly twice the size of a standard European division.

[parsifal]

FB

I'll stand corrected on that, thanks for the information

[freebird]

Originally Posted by parsifal

FB

I'll stand corrected on that, thanks for the information

I'm not quite sure of it myself, I'm still trying to figure it out.

[Njaco]

This whole thread seems to be a question of who was more important - the one who made the shell or the one who fired the cannon?

Personally to me it makes no difference, as long as it happens.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by freebird

So we might assume that the Axis 52,000 is one division & tail {30,000} + some independant brigades ~15,000 & tail {~22,000 l}?

As for the Allies, there were 2,000 Canadians in two battalions + 2 British + 2 Indian
If they were 900 - 1,000 per battalion then it's 5,500 - 6,000 combat troops.

Infantry

2nd Battalion, The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)
1st Battalion, The Middlesex Regiment (Machine gun battalion)
5th Battalion, 7th Rajput Regiment
2nd Battalion, 14th Punjab Regiment
The Winnipeg Grenadiers {battalion}
The Royal Rifles of Canada {battalion}

Also:
Hong Kong Chinese Regiment
Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps (HKVDC)

So if there were about 2,000 - 3,000 aux. Chinese + HKVDC, then the remaining ~ 5 or 6 thousand out of the 14,000 would be the "tail"?

I have been trying to find the size of a IJA Independent mixed Brigade. It turns out that these varied considerably depending on the task that they were to undertake.

The best that I can up with are the following
Independent Mixed Brigade, 5 infantry Battalions, an Artillery Battalion, an engineer company and a signal company strength 6-10,000 men

Independent Brigade, 5 Infantry Battalions with no supporting arms

Hope this is of interest

[carbonlifeform]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Rabid, I suggest you go read up on the political realities in the US during the 1930's.

We did more, as a matter of fact. And we did it because we had a larger industrial base and more population.

And quote me were I said we did it alone. I'm just pointing out a historical fact, that after the fighting in Normandy ended, it was the US that began to carry the burden of the ground war in the ETO. The UK and the Commonwealth hit their maximums while the US was still committing new divisions every couple of weeks till the very end of the war.

Ok this whole thing got out of hand for me right here lol. If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong) but the US was still selling resources to Germany during the opening phases of the war. At some point I believe these sales AND the Lend-Lease agreement with Britain overlapped briefly.
The Canadians were instrumental in winning the Battle of the Atlantic, she had the 4th largest navy afloat, albeit with very few capital ships. Canadians were given one of the toughest nuts to crack on Sicily. And while Monte Cassino was nasty, the Battle for Ortona was as ugly as any battle during the Ardennes offensive. They also played a vital role in breaking through the Gothic line. At Normandy they took the toughest beach after Omaha and at the end of the day, had pushed farther inland than any other army. And don't forget, the Canadians opponents were the 1st SS, 12th SS and the Panzer Lehr Div during the 1st month of the campaign.
It was Canadians that pretty much liberated Holland.
One of Canada's largest contributions was the British Commonwealth Air Training Program. Still the largest air force training program in history, 167,000 air service personnel went through it including more than 50,000 pilots, approx half of which were Canadian.
5000 Canadian soldiers attacked Dieppe in what turned out to be a lesson in how NOT to attack a fortified position from the sea. A lesson that cost 900 lives and 2000 held as POWs. Lessons that were put to good use and possibly saved countless live 2 years later on D-Day.
Despite British claims, radar was born in Canada, which proved essential to winning the war.
Canadian industry produced more than 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 43,000 heavy guns, 40,000 field, naval and AA guns and 1.7 million small arms. When it came to the military transports, Canada kept 168,000 for it's own use, giving a ratio of 1 vehicle for every 3 front line combat soldiers, making it the most mechanized field army of the war.
Canadian shipyards built over 4000 naval vessels.
Not to mention the various technological innovations as well as providing 50% of the total aluminum and 90% of the total nickel used in the war effort.
While the war certainly could not have been won without the US, Canada's contributions were no less valuable to the effort. Well, it could have been won without the US but then Russia would have had ALL of Europe instead of just half of it.

[michaelmaltby]

Well said, Carbon!

MM

[Amsel]

I agree with everything you said up until the part of Russia winning the war. They could not have invaded Germany successfully without the US being involved in destroying the Germans logistical abilities, leveling fuel production facilities, lend lease to the allies, invading France,invading N.Africa and Italy, and destroying the u-boat fleet. The Axis countries perhaps would not be able to invade the USSR successfully, but the USSR would not have been able to defeat the Axis powers in Europe either. England would have been in a world of hurt. I am not saying this to provoke any resentment toward the USA, only I disagree about the ability of the allies to defeat the axis with no US involvement.

[parsifal]

The defeat of Germany was an ALLIED victory. Every country played a part. Its impossible to say who was expendable, and who was not. The US certaihnly could not have done it on their own. With only 70 Divs in the field of which no more than 20 were abale to be classified as "veteran", they simply lacked the strength to overpower the 400 German Divs they would have faced on their own, all of them "veteran"

[Amsel]

The US would not have attempted to do it on their own. Only a team effort could defeat the axis, and that is my point made two posts above. No single nation could have defeated the axis powers. I sure hope my words do not become twisted here. Make it clear; team effort!