BRITAIN'S OWN PEARL HARBOUR ?




 
--
 
December 11th, 2011  
Del Boy
 

Topic: BRITAIN'S OWN PEARL HARBOUR ?


Is this old forum news or does it bring anything new to the table:-


Britain's own Pearl Harbour.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-men-dead.html
December 11th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
Goes to show how important air cover is.
December 11th, 2011  
Del Boy
 
Absolutely.

The article suggests that this action stymied a successful defence of Singapore, and thereby threatened the defence of Australia et all in the region.

I am not well versed in that area of operations, but others may be in position to comment on this aspect of importance.
--
December 11th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
I was stationed in Singapore and on occasions "Went up country." The Japanese were trained and equipped for jungle warfare, the British weren't. Although issued with a good rifle, the rest of the British equipment was as usual substandard. Leather boots rotted and fell apart, uniforms such as the KD shorts were completely unsuited for the environment.
December 11th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Personally I do not think a successful defence of Singapore was ever a possibility given the lack of vision that went into preparing Singapore's defences and once the water supply had been taken out it really was only a matter of time before it surrendered with or without the Battleships being there.

As for Australia and New Zealand being threatened I really don't think that was ever the case as the Japanese never had the man power to conquer the region and after Midway they never had the naval power to support or supply such large long range actions which is why I suspect there were never any serious plans drawn up to attack Australia.

In my opinion the loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse were nothing more than text book examples of underestimating your enemy and over estimating your own ability something that the Allies seemed determined to do right from the start.
December 11th, 2011  
Del Boy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
In my opinion the loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse were nothing more than text book examples of underestimating your enemy and over estimating your own ability something that the Allies seemed determined to do right from the start.
Thank you guys for the input, I am unfamiliar with this campaign as far as any degree of accuracy is concerned.

Purely out of interest, regarding the above, are you referring to this theatre of war, or to the war generally?
December 11th, 2011  
George
 
The British expected the 2 ships to deter or smash an invasion attempt. Considering they had only 4 Destroyers & how effective the Japanese torpedos were that probably would have ended badly even if the air strike hadn't sunk them. The Japanese Army had bicycles that provided excellent transportation on the roads in Malaya. There were some units (Australian?) with submachine guns that did a good job bushwacking some of the bicycle groups, but too few to make a diffrence. Both the British & US had a definite racist view that the Japs were inferior, they couldn't be good pilots because thay couldn't see out of those little slant eyes, ect. Sounds outragious today, but typical back then.
December 11th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
Thank you guys for the input, I am unfamiliar with this campaign as far as any degree of accuracy is concerned.

Purely out of interest, regarding the above, are you referring to this theatre of war, or to the war generally?
Sorry I am referring to the SE Asian/Pacific theatre, the general allied view of the Japanese solider showed an appalling lack of knowledge and led much of the Japanese success in the early stages of the war.

The reality is that Singapore should have been abandoned once it became clear the Japanese were going to cut it off from the mainland.
December 12th, 2011  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
The reality is that Singapore should have been abandoned once it became clear the Japanese were going to ATTACK it from the mainland.
Slight edit! Someone quiped that the Singapore defences were like building a Battleship w/o a bottom.
December 12th, 2011  
Del Boy
 
Right - my childhood memories click in now at your references to the under-estimation of the Japanese soldier - descriptions of little bandy guys with bad eyes (spectacles) - who in fact turned out to fearsome jungle fighters with fanatical determination and fierce discipline. I imagine now that the truth was probably somewhere in between; however, by the end of the war I came away with a very real understanding of the awful reputation they earned throughout the campaign for what we considered uncivilised behaviour, first- hand directly from victims.
 


Similar Topics
Pearl Harbour - Sleeping after the event?
Pearl Harbour
Pearl Harbour: Conspiracy Theory?
Pearl Harbour one more lie?????
Pearl harbour