Lets discuss operation Cottage!

This was a battle in the pacific theatre of WW2.

Whats intresting to discuss is rather embarrassing result.




Ok around 100 of those casualties where die to a mine blast which is fair.

But how the hell can you lose the rest taking a deserted Island?


Maybe the Japanese should of packed up and gone home! The allies might have lost if they had done that with those dangrous empty islands

a reply to: InsaneIthorian
A "friendly fire" incident involving two groups of people ("either side"). I think that gives us the scene. "You go to the left, you go to the right", so they both go all round the island and panic when they meet in the middle.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: InsaneIthorian
A "friendly fire" incident involving two groups of people ("either side"). I think that gives us the scene. "You go to the left, you go to the right", so they both go all round the island and panic when they meet in the middle.

Still its on a pretty big scale and it seems there was some hints anyway the Japanese had packed there bags and left, it was just ignored.


Got to suck getting injured or killed in such a pointless manner.


Plus stray mine?

Makes you wonder how many mines went "stray" and are still floating about our oceans today.

You think that's bad, check out this gem

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Two armies never even found each other. 2 injuries, 38 deaths.

Goodness!

Is that for real?
Imagine the families knowing the enemy had no hand in their loss of loved ones.

You do realize that that entire operation was performed by barely trained soldiers with no experience, right? The Operation also took place in some of the most inhospitable places on Earth.

I've been to that particular island, and quite a few of the others in that chain. They're wet. They're miserable. ...and that was without the prospect of getting shot in the bargain.

Now then, you're probably wet, as those landing craft probably aren't the driest mode of transport around... It's probably raining--it's the Aleutians, the chances are good it's raining. So far, you're wet and now muddy, you can't see but a few yards in front of you, and once you're off the beaches, such as they are, well the islands are volcanic--in many places they generally go up, straight up...

You don't know where the enemy is... Is he waiting behind that bit of rock up there, or that grass and shrub covered hillock over there?

So, not enough training, wet and muddy, blinded by rain (maybe), you can't find footing in the muskeg, and you're f'n scared to death. If that isn't a recipe for a not so minor disaster, I can't imagine what is...

Also remember that earlier in the year, in May, the landing on Attu in the Aleutians had not been unopposed. These guys expected the same thing here.

No amphibious landing goes perfectly, especially with green as grass troops, the naval forces weren't a whole lot better--remember the whole concept of amphibious warfare was still rather new and unknown.

It's a sad fact that things can go horribly wrong...it would have been more amazing if something hadn't gone wrong.

originally posted by: lordcomac
You think that's bad, check out this gem

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Two armies never even found each other. 2 injuries, 38 deaths.

Being british our troops where likely piss drunk at the time.......

a reply to: InsaneIthorian

Here's an idea of just how many old mines might be lurking all over the Pacific--and these are just in the water...

25,000 mines...

a reply to: seagull

Seems to me that disaster is on the heads of who commanded the landing.

Using green untrained troops for the intial landing seems like a stupid thing to do.

Plus there was a failure in intelligence as the US had some indication that the Japanese had withdrawn but it never got communicated to the army it seems.


As for accident? Yeah slips, trips are falls are going to be a problem.