Talk:Chindits

1943 chindits after 1943
In the change comments there were some material about the wording of how the 3/2nd gurkhas and kings battalion left the chindits in 1943. I'm not happy with the wording either, but language needs to be provided that clearly says that the 1943 Chindits were sent away by Wingate as whole battalions after operations. This distinction all too often seems to be blurred. - anon (December 2 2005)

Indian Army involvement.
It must be emphasised that because of Wingate's objections to Indian Army formations, the only Indian Army units involved were a Gurkha battalion in the first operation, and four Gurkha battalions (with another added later) in the second operation (plus odds and ends attached to 77th and 111th Brigade HQs).

Gurkhas are loosely Hindu, but unlike other Hindu or Moslem units of the Indian Army, would happily swallow American "K" rations without troubling too much over its origin. The Gurkha element of the force (represented by Lentaigne, Masters, Morris) was always opposed to Wingate's tactical methods, and there was much mutual dislike. HLGallon (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Further to my previous post, I am considering deleting or revising the sentence, "In the event, Wingate's concerns proved groundless as training and diet of the diverse elements of the force were adequately foreseen by their officers as well as headquarters staff, together with an infusion of new rations from U.S. sources." It is not incorrect, and is sourced. However, its slightly loose (almost peacock) wording and its position in the text give a misleading impression that after a certain point, all was hunky-dory in the force, Indian formations were used in the force and Wingate's objections were proved invalid. In fact, large numbers of the Indian Army (especially Moslem soldiers from the Punjab and North West Frontier, who constituted about half the Indian Army's infantry) could not have used American "K" rations which included bacon and many other constituents which included pork fat.


 * To reiterate; the only Indian Army formation in the Chindits was 111 Brigade, and their relations with Wingate were always more prickly that those of the other brigades (77 Brigade, although nominally part of the Indian Army, was actually an all-British HQ under Mike Calvert); and the only Indian Army units in the force were the five comparatively omnivorous Gurkha battalions. The West African contingent should not be confused with the Indian Army. Wingate originally intended them to be used only to garrison "strongholds", rather than operate as raiding columns. HLGallon (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * AFA the Indian Army is concerned the Hindus were unable to eat beef, the Moslems, pork, and so due to the inevitable logistical problems likely - i.e., circumstances due to low supply where pork became the only available food to give to Moslems, beef the only food available to give Hindus, it was no doubt felt inadvisable to use these troops in the very difficult supply situations liable to be encountered. Sooner or later this problem was bound to arise. The men would then literally starve rather than eat the wrong 'forbidden' food. So no, Wingate preferred not to use Indian Army troops. It added further unnecessary complication to an already difficult supply situation. That's why.


 * BTW, in the British and Indian and other related units of the time, in circumstances of low supply remaining individual rations were usually collected from the officers and men and then divided up and shared out equally between all personnel regardless of rank, religion, or race. So the problem above becomes important in cases of low food supply. Everyone might have to eat the same food. In units all of one religion it doesn't matter much as they all have the same food anyway. But in mixed ones it does.


 * ... imagine you and your men not having eaten for a day or two, and an air drop drops you supplies and upon opening the containers you discover that the food inside is nothing but beef or pork and your men are all Hindus or Moslems and cannot eat any of it. Wingate no doubt used Indian Army troops for garrisoning strongholds because their food could be reliably supplied and allocated correctly. In the long-range penetration columns he could not guarantee this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.180 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW, the pre-independence Indian Army was on-a-par with the regular British Army in fighting ability and no British military commander familiar with Indian troops would have excluded them from any operation except for unusual and important extenuating reasons such as outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.41 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Challenge
From the history of the article:
 * Revision as of 08:43, 14 August 2016 HLGallon →‎Change of command: removed sentence tagged for citation required for seven years! Added detail and cite for Symes, and detail for Lentaigne
 * Revision as of 09:36, 14 August 2016 PBS "The The thing to do is remove the sentence as well as the tag not just the tag (CHALLENGE] and BURDEN). It is better to have no no information than wrong information)
 * Latest revision as of 10:07, 14 August 2016 HLGallon Undid revision 734436635 by PBS restored untagged portion of paragraph. Place a fresh tag if necessary

That is not the way that WP:CHALLENGE works. A request for an inline citation is a challenge:

As you say the citation needed tag has been there for seven years. That is more than enough time for someone to provide an inline citation for the text. The thing to do is not add new template but to remove the text. The reason I added "CHALLENGE and BURDEN" to the history of my removal is because as the section in the Verifiabilit policy says (Verifiability):

So HLGallon the burden lies with you to provide an inline citation if you want the information to remain on the page. -- PBS (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The tag was placed in revision [] by User:GraemeLeggett (talk). This contributor is still active. It is worth waiting for this contributor to clarify whether the citation needed tag referred to the final sentence only of the disputed paragraph, or the entire paragraph. (The edit summary made at the time was "tidy up", which is ambiguous.) HLGallon (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * looking at it again, the whole paragraph probably.GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chindits. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503114041/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part16.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part16.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041015212334/http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/CrisisFleeting/frameindex.html to http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/CrisisFleeting/frameindex.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

ANecdotes of atrocities.
I have read that the British officers would shoot their own wounded men under some circumstances. I have no further information.


 * Read . This is not an "atrocity" in that it was not wanton savagery or punitive measures against prisoners of war or civilians. The episode is in the article, under "The Move North".HLGallon (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)