|
Post by johnbryan on Feb 17, 2009 12:48:35 GMT -5
Before I forget, excellent overall thread about a battle that I knew little to nothing about. Thanks Vic! Well done!
|
|
|
Post by oklahoma on Feb 17, 2009 14:45:38 GMT -5
john....if that "unexplained activity" wasnt ghosts i betcha it was scrap scavengers or both. maybe i am a bit unbalanced in my golden years, but i gotta believe just a little in battlefield ghosts. call me crazy but there are unexplained things on some major battlefields and as i expressed to vic, why not at the abucay line.
|
|
|
Post by oklahoma on Feb 17, 2009 14:51:41 GMT -5
hey vic...outstanding job, especially for a guy recuperating from the flu bug. methinks there should be some type of visitor center/museum, etc at abucay and who better to run the thing than you when you return to the PI permanently. you might consider this old geezer as an unpaid assistant. that would be one way for me to finally get to visit the islands since my clark field reassignment effort way back in 1953 fell thru. seriously though, you do an extremely good job in keeping the 1942 era in the forefront for us corregidor-bataan "geeks".
|
|
|
Post by johnbryan on Feb 17, 2009 16:55:08 GMT -5
john....if that "unexplained activity" wasnt ghosts i betcha it was scrap scavengers or both. maybe i am a bit unbalanced in my golden years, but i gotta believe just a little in battlefield ghosts. call me crazy but there are unexplained things on some major battlefields and as i expressed to vic, why not at the abucay line. I'm only a few years behind you Oklahoma and I'm a firm believer in things that go bump in the night, ghosts or otherwise. LOL
|
|
|
Post by johnbryan on Feb 17, 2009 17:11:56 GMT -5
RE:. "Efforts to bring tanks into the action failed when Parker's request for tank support was refused on the ground that the terrain was unsuitable for tank operations. Sending armor into such an engagement, wrote Weaver, would be "like sending an elephant to kill flies."51 On the west, the 3d Battalion, 45th Infantry, now attached to the 31st Infantry, was under fire throughout the day from troops of the 141st Infantry who had infiltrated into the American line. Only on the right did the Philippine Division make progress that day. There, elements of the 1st and 2d Battalions, 45th Infantry, were able to reach the Balantay early in the afternoon."
You know, it's a dirty shame that Weaver rejected Parker's request for armored support and did not commit some of his M-3 Stuart's to the battle. Had he married-up his tanks with friendly infantry, he might have changed the entire scope of that battle by winning it, all the while, writing a revolutionary new chapter in armored infantry tactics nearly a year before US armored forces were committed to North Africa.
|
|
|
Post by rickthelibrarian on Feb 17, 2009 18:48:32 GMT -5
Veevee, that was OUTSTANDING!! Wonderful job!!!
|
|
|
Post by johnbryan on Feb 17, 2009 20:49:51 GMT -5
It is of note that USMC Stuart tanks and infantry teams later performed very well against well-entrenched, Japanese troops on Munda and Bougainville and in much more hostile jungle conditions than were to be found in this part of Luzon.
|
|
|
Post by johnbryan on Feb 17, 2009 21:06:16 GMT -5
I know that hindsight is always 20-20, but sometimes, I want to reach back almost 70 years and shake some of the US Commanding Officers for their d**nable complacency and inability to adapt, change and innovate with the constantly changing and fluid battle situation before them.
James RN. Weaver had 108 M-3 Stuart tanks, a large number of attached 75mm gun mounted half tracks, plus a number of confiscated Bren Gun carriers that were originally meant for the Canadian Rifle Regiment at Hong Kong. This was one considerably strongly armed armored force by even European standards. He was missing only the motorized infantry and artillery regiments from his TOE needed to make his force into an armored division.
I wonder what would have happened had a hard charger like Patton been in charge of the Provisional Tank Group, rather than Weaver? Maybe, if Patton had slapped a hospitalized US soldier during the pre-war Louisianna Military Manuvers, he might have been busted down to Colonel and sent off to the PI instead.
|
|
|
Post by oklahoma on Feb 17, 2009 22:00:19 GMT -5
hey john....while we are into hindsight (aint it fun???) i have long wished that skinny wainwright had extended the right of his I corps further up the mountain and parker had also extended his left further up mt natib. the enemy certainly exploited this shortcoming on our part and turned both flanks, wainwrights without much of a fight. of course in the abucay sector there was hell to pay with both sides having a real knock down, drag 'em out affair. even though he was generally throroughly disliked, genl sutherland strongly recommended that such measures be taken (i am sure you know all this) but unfortunately they were not followed up. why...maybe it would have been stretching our line too thinly in both corps, but i betcha it was because we were selling the japanese short. by this point in the pacific conflict one would think that the allies would be starting to realize that we were facing a very determined enemy. the old "one american is worth ten japs" syndrome should have been down the toilet by then. as i said, aint hind sight great? ? as for our fairly strong armored force it would have been even stronger if several stuarts had not been left beside the highway on our retreat to bataan. cant remember where i read it, but a sizable number were abandoned in running condition on the east side of the calumpit bridges because either the bridges had been blown or they were out of fuel. cant remember what the exact cause was. i seem to remember also that one of the ironies in this case was that there was an alternate crossing close by that went undetected by our tank commanders. cant remember if it was another bridge,etc but certainly not a ford since the pampanga was too deep for armor to ford. you probably are up to snuff on this little fiasco also. the real crime here is that the tanks were not destroyed. one stuart tank was used by the japs in the corregidor landings as i understand it. probably it was one of this marooned group. i repeat, you probably know about this event also. just thought i would throw it into the pot (just in case others might be interested). once again its been nice talking with you.
|
|
|
Post by johnbryan on Feb 17, 2009 23:34:12 GMT -5
Likewise and I agree with you on everything that you just said. The Calumpit bridge was indeed blown and a number of fully functional tanks were abandoned by their crews with the proviso that they would return and reclaim them in the future. One of them did appear on Corregidor in May, 1942, only with a Japanese crew inside of it.
|
|
|
Post by veevee on Feb 18, 2009 8:47:45 GMT -5
Hi Folks, I made a very slight tweak to the video... just made the battle scenes sepia in color.
|
|
|
Post by rickthelibrarian on Feb 18, 2009 10:32:15 GMT -5
No fewer than 31 M3 tanks were captured by the Japanese by February, 1942, well before the surrender. Nearly all of them because of the prematurely-blown bridge. There is an often seen picture of a row of Japanese tanks in Manila. The first few in the row are obviously M3s. The Japanese liked them because they were much more reliable than their own tanks.
It is unfortunate fact of war that most military leaders have to learn their business "on the job" because you can't really duplicate the "fog of war" in training. It is too bad this training usually is done at the expense of the common soldier.
By the way, Patton had no desire to go to the Philippines. In the interwar period, when most Army officers served at least one tour in the Philippines, he pulled every string he could to avoid being sent there. He did spend a tour in Hawaii.
By the way, the loss of those 31 tanks still grated after 50 years...I attended (as a guest) a national convention of ex-POW in 1990 and heard that two former members of the PTG were argung heatedly about whose #$%@& fault it was that the bridge was blown when it was!
|
|
|
Post by johnbryan on Feb 18, 2009 13:31:45 GMT -5
I know that hindsight is always 20-20, but sometimes, I want to reach back almost 70 years and shake some of the US Commanding Officers for their d**nable complacency and inability to adapt, change and innovate with the constantly changing and fluid battle situation before them. James RN. Weaver had 108 M-3 Stuart tanks, a large number of attached 75mm gun mounted half tracks, plus a number of confiscated Bren Gun carriers that were originally meant for the Canadian Rifle Regiment at Hong Kong. This was one considerably strongly armed armored force by even European standards. He was missing only the motorized infantry and artillery regiments from his TOE needed to make his force into an armored division. I wonder what would have happened had a hard charger like Patton been in charge of the Provisional Tank Group, rather than Weaver? Maybe, if Patton had slapped a hospitalized US soldier during the pre-war Louisianna Military Manuvers, he might have been busted down to Colonel and sent off to the PI instead. Sombody should have given Colonel Weaver a copy of Heinz Guderian's Book "Achtung, Panzer" before the war. It might have opened up his eyes as to the truly revolutionary possibilites of armored warfare.
|
|
|
Post by VeeVee on Feb 20, 2009 4:06:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by oklahoma on Feb 20, 2009 13:09:13 GMT -5
hey vic...this is absolutely great stuff. betcha the abucay line has never had as thorough a going over as you are giving it since macarthur came over from corregidor to inspect in jan 1942. my neice in law should get some enjoyment in seeing exactly where her grandpappy served with the 31st infantry in those long ago days. dont know why her mom and uncle are not as interested as she, but different strokes for different folks as they say. will be looking for more of your pics and info. some folks would probably think we bataan-corregidor geeks are a few bricks short, but so be it. thanks again. postscript...methinks you are picking up followers. you might be on your way to becoming a sort of messiah or pied piper as far as the 1942 philippine campaign is concerned. keep it comming.
|
|
|
Post by VeeVee on Feb 21, 2009 10:58:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by oklahoma on Feb 22, 2009 11:35:31 GMT -5
hey vic...keep the good stuff coming. i gotta believe you absolutely wont let those artifacts that were thrown in the ravine/creek just lie there without doing a little scavengering (is that a word???) wonder if those grenades or most of them were the defectives that the fil/american troops were blessed (cursed) with????i have read that the grenades that our forces started the luzon campaign with were 50 percent unreliable. that carabao probably doesnt have anything to really fear from grenades if what i say is true. did that woman say that she currently had canteens from the abucay line. if so, you should pay any price for just one for your "museum". just think displaying a canteen from the abucay line. also, why would the fellow throw away that clip of M-1 rifle ammo????man o man, wouldnt you kill to have that for your artifact collection???anyway, i say again...i envy you and also appreciate what you do to let me and others enjoy the "next best thing" to actually prowling those historic grounds.
|
|
|
Post by oklahoma on Feb 23, 2009 13:11:54 GMT -5
hey vic...after taking a second look at your recently posted pics of your abucay trip i noticed the hitachi sign overlooking the toll( ) booths on the luzon highway. who would have thought, way back in 1942, that a japanese electronics firm's promo sign would ever appear in that location. who said "time changes all things" ?well, maybe, but not completely....for some of us anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by oklahoma on Feb 23, 2009 13:21:57 GMT -5
vic...i have seen pics of the layac monument previously on some website and have never figured how the sculptor could make such an error as having those fil/amer troops sporting what obviously are japanese helmets. at first i thought, maybe, that they were poor depictations of the later GI helmet, but that would have been an inexcusable boo boo on the artist's part also. maybe i am a nut on historical accuracy, but those helmets are a little bit much. better no monument at all than one that is grossly in error. whatcha think????as we geek's guru, your opinion is important, methinks.
|
|
|
Post by VeeVee on Feb 23, 2009 15:03:58 GMT -5
Hi Okla, Err... I guess I should admit that the car we drove to Bataan in was a Honda... the other family car is a Mitsubishi. And the camera I used to take those pictures and video was a Canon. Oh and get this... the airsoft Garand that I use in living history reenactments is made in Japan, Marushin brand... haha. The Dinalupihan monument was simply badly researched. The sculptor was probably trying to make them look like the M1 helmet which was wrong... but ended up unwittingly making it look like Japanese helmets. ------- Re: the artifacts... I've determined through the headstamp that the empty casings are not WW2 and are 7.62x51 NATO, the ammunition used for the M60. The headstamp is "RPA" which stands for: Republic of the Philippines Army, Government Arsenal, Department of National Defense, Camp General Antonio Luna, Limay, Bataan, Republic of Philippines So those cartridges were made in Bataan and the Phil. Army may have had some exercises in the Abucay Hacienda area in the 60's. At first I thought they could be Arisaka Type 38 ammunition since the casings are smaller than the 30.06 garand. The RPA stamp gave it away. I have yet to research the slugs and the mortar fuses. They could be WW2. I wish the property owner didn't throw away the clip of garand ammo he found last year. It would be interesting to see what headstamp the rounds would have. But he probably didn't want to keep any ordnance that looked intact, unlike the ones he gave me. Ah next year. Maybe we'll get more. I told the man I'd come back and not to throw away anything until at least I've taken a picture of them
|
|