Churchill's rage over the loss of Singapore

samneanderthal said:
I know I'm stupid, but I find it very odd that the inventors of Radar and the big gun would be defeated by the Germans who started operating Radar much later and with shorter range cannon, not to mention much shorter range than the Swordfish. The fact is the Germans had many fewer ships but they always were in the right spot, while the very many British battleships, battlecruisers, submarines and even the cruisers and destroyers (Taffy 3's destoyers damaged with their torpedoes a Cruiser in a huge fleet) were always in the most stupid locations.
By the way rate of fire is pretty similar in naval artillery, but of course if you have 1 out of 22 ships and the Germans have 2 out of 6 ships, they will defeat you every time. Only when the Bismarck was inmobilized did they gather a whole fleet to sink it.

Wasn't Prince of Wales quite new? yet it performed dismally. How can a newcomer in ship building design better ships that the brilliant RN?
Click to expand...

No matter how superior the German ships were, in the end the Royal Navy put the big ships of the Kriegsmarine out of action. None of them was able to create a lot of damage to the supply ships comming to England. The U-boats were far better at that , but at a great loss. 75% of the sailors didn't return.
 
42RM said:
@Sam
Here is something to think about.

Operational problems are usually the least interesting part of war. The saying is that amateurs talk about tactics but professionals talk about logistics. Battles, especially naval battles or air attacks, may be over in minutes, while many hours, days, weeks, or months may have passed in preparation. An interest in military history can begin at the opposite ends of tactics and strategy, but then as one moves towards the interface of the two, more and more operational details begin to get filled in. The level of detail in life can be almost infinite. Someone reads a map wrong and gets lost, a signal is misunderstood, etc., and the military advantage changes. Once an actual war starts many of the characteristics that make for success in peace quickly become either irrelevant or disastrous liabilities

To the historic dismay of many generals and admirals, it is not always one's strategy that brings on a battle. One or more side merely blunders into it, just because they happen to be in certain places at certain times. Of course, they are often in those places because they intend to be there for some strategic purpose. Or they may be there because they think they are someplace else, for some strategic purpose, but then happen to be there by accident or because they got lost. Such occasions of absurd mischance have often led to the most weighty and historic consequences. Strategy, therefore, is merely intention. All the strategic insight in the world will accomplish nothing without the operation to put it into effect. The operation, however, then takes on a life of its own. The ability to do all that one intends to do in a military operation is rarely possible, even for the most competent, disciplined, and well supplied armies and navies.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of some kind of a saying. The only thing you are sure about a plan is that it is wrong. An the only thing that you are sure about when you don't have a plan is disaster.
 
Wow, the British navy had lots of either old ships with experienced crews or brand new ships with inexperienced crews that were always in the wrong place. While the Germans had a few, better, modern ships with better radar and experienced young crews and were always in the right place. Is that fate or stupidity.

The Spitfire was available before the war but production was ridiculous. Bad luck.
The British tank and self propelled gun production peaked in 1942 with little over 8,000 tanks, German tank and SPG production peaked in 1944 (lots of bombing and no chromium, manganese, etc,) with over 22,000. Although the British produced far more vehicles, engines, etc, in 1939 than the Germans. Bad luck. etc, etc,
 
Last edited:
If that is the only word you'll post, at least learn to spell it: nonsense

One big difference between American and British officers is that most American officers came from middle class families, while most British geniuses were Sandhurst aristocrats.
 
Last edited:
wrong,as usual,the aristocrats were a minority at Sandhurst .
And,I will wait (till the calfs are dancing on the ice) on the psychiatric report that's proving that Mountbatten was a retard.
 
samneanderthal said:
If that is the only word you'll post, at least learn to spell it: nonsense
Click to expand...


samneanderthal said:
Hi 42RM,
I could go into detail, but watch the discovery channel's episode about the Folklands,
Click to expand...

Before you jump on others you silly little man, you spelled Falklands FOLKLANDS.

samneanderthal said:
The hole situation in the eastern theater was absurd.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean WHOLE? And its spelled THEATRE

samneanderthal said:
One big difference between American and British officers is that most American officers came from middle class families, while most British geniuses were Sandhurst aristocrats.
Click to expand...

You are an even bigger idiot then I thought you were. More bullsh!te without any form of checkable facts.

You've got an IQ of 2. Pity it takes 3 to grunt.
 
Last edited:
Umm so any chance we can stop attacking each other and perhaps try and get things moving again?
 
Then don't argue it really is that simple lets face it what will 1, 2 or 50 more pages of "you are an idiot", "no you are" posts really achieve.

Personally I think the easiest option is to just let the thread go.
 
Personally I want to keep the thread on track and keep the discussion factual.

I get annoyed with people like him because I had family friends who fought in Burma, another a POW in Singapore another as ground crew during the Battle of Britain another at the Battle of the River Plate, family member at Dunkirk and another in the LRDG, therefore I take it as an attack on their memory.
 
Last edited:
If we would believe the claim of Sam about the aristocrats at Sandhurst (but,we don't),we could expect that a majority of the British Field Marshals belonged to the aristocracy.
Wel,from some 49 FM 's appointed in the 20th century(Royal family and foreigners not included),only seven....belonged to the aristocracy:
Paul Methuen :3th baron Methuen
Julian Byng:brother of the earl of Strafford
Rudolph Lambart:10th earl of Cavan
Philip Chetwode:7th Baronet
John Vereker :6th viscount Gort
Harold Alexander :brother of the earl of Caledon
Alan Brooke :son of a baronet
But, I am sure that Sam will give us detailed information ,proving that in the 20th century,a majority of the Sandhurst cadets belonged to the aristocracy,at the same time,he will give us the psychiatric report of Mountbatten.
 
Getting back to the initial premise of the thread:

Option a) Send only a handful of SPitfires and 270 of the worst fighter planes to France during the long months of the Sitzkrieg. Lose almost all of them and 100 modern fighters based in Britain evacuating, lose the battle of France and the French pilots and hundreds of mediocre plains, risk the French navy joining the Germans, etc,

Option b) Send radar stations, most of the AA and all the available fighter planes to France during the Sitzkrieg, put the best planes in the hands of the best pilots of any nationality (Frantisek starts flying Spitfires and shooting down German planes before the Germans invade France, instead of flying a Hurricane on August 31). The 1,100 plus mediocre fighters are reinforced by close to 450 modern planes.
Germany loses hundreds of planes before the invasion and 2,000 during the first 2 weeks of the invasion (mostly bombers shot down by the mediocre fighters). Guderian does not receive the massive bombing support, Germany has to withdraw the Hs-123s and Stukas from France. Guderian is stopped and his tin tanks destroyed. Rommel's 88 mm gunners are killed by mediocre allied fighters and his tanks are destroyed in Arras. Hitler is faced with an attrition war that he cannot win, because his production is very low under Göring and French factories are increasing production of tanks, Dewoitine D-520s, etc, and the allies are receiving materiel and suppleis from America.
 
Last edited:
HI BritinAFrica,
far from an attack on their memory my intention is to understand why the people who served under British leaders faced such debacles. I never said anything negative about the people fighting in Singapore, Burma, etc, except that they were left to fight without planes, tanks, ships or field artillery and to suffer years of hell.
 
samneanderthal said:
Getting back to the initial premise of the thread:

Option a) Send only a handful of SPitfires and 270 of the worst fighter planes to France during the long months of the Sitzkrieg. Lose almost all of them and 100 modern fighters based in Britain evacuating, lose the battle of France and the French pilots and hundreds of mediocre plains, risk the French navy joining the Germans, etc,

Option b) Send radar stations, most of the AA and all the available fighter planes to France during the Sitzkrieg, put the best planes in the hands of the best pilots of any nationality (Frantisek starts flying Spitfires and shooting down German planes before the Germans invade France, instead of flying a Hurricane on August 31). The 1,100 plus mediocre fighters are reinforced by close to 450 modern planes.
Germany loses hundreds of planes before the invasion and 2,000 during the first 2 weeks of the invasion (mostly bombers shot down by the mediocre fighters). Guderian does not receive the massive bombing support, Germany has to withdraw the Hs-123s and Stukas from France. Guderian is stopped and his tin tanks destroyed. Rommel's 88 mm gunners are killed by mediocre allied fighters and his tanks are destroyed in Arras. Hitler is faced with an attrition war that he cannot win, because his production is very low under Göring and French factories are increasing production of tanks, Dewoitine D-520s, etc, and the allies are receiving materiel and suppleis from America.
Click to expand...

The initial premise of the thread....Churchills rage over the loss of Singapore...I can't see how relocating massive amounts of men and equipment to France would have any significant impact on the situation in Singapore...?

And please, how on earth could they possibly send radar stations to France???
We're talking about large concrete structures with massive arial towers and antenna masts resembling a mixture of a schooner rig and a high voltage power-line...


Oh, and it's BLITZKRIEG, not SITZKRIEG.
Blitzkrieg tranlates to "lightning-war" while Sitzkrieg would be "sitting-war" and thus a contradiction in terms.
 
samneanderthal said:
HI BritinAFrica,
far from an attack on their memory my intention is to understand why the people who served under British leaders faced such debacles. I never said anything negative about the people fighting in Singapore, Burma, etc, except that they were left to fight without planes, tanks, ships or field artillery and to suffer years of hell.
Click to expand...

Do you want the planes to go to France, Singapore, Egypt or stay in England?
You must make a choice or are you a magician who can double or triple them in an instant? You oversimplify to much and pay no attention at all to logistics.
Ever played the game War in the Pacific? Try it and you'll now how important logistics are and how frustrating production can be.
 
I must admit that I overlooked a piece of information here, the British did actually have portable radar sets!
While I was focusing on the RAF here I completely missed the fact that the army had portable radar sets, and they were in fact shipped to France with the British expetiton corps.
Haven't found reports about any actual deployment of these sets, but all 17 of them were lost at Dunkirk.

But still I fail to se the significance regarding Churchills rage over the loss of Singapore..
 
Sitzkrieg is the German expression for Phoney war or drole de guerre, the time of inactivity in which dowding could have easily sent everything to France.
Besides the portable units, you had months to build Radar stations with equipment sent from Britain.
Sorry about mixing two threads.

The basic Premise of this thread is that Churchill had 3 options.
a) Sending hundreds of Hurricanes, tanks and even some pilots to Stalin in 1941 and lose Burma (an oil producer, the main rice exporter in the world and the only access route to China), Singapore, etc, and lots of ships, obsolete planes and men.
b) Sending the hundreds of planes and tanks to Singapore, Burma, etc, to reinforce the Buffaloes, etc, Buy Wildcats for the carriers, etc,
c) Withdraw the troops from Singapore, Malaya, Burma, etc, and save the men to fight when there are enough planes, etc, and hand the territories to the Japs. Which is what Vichy France did in Indochina.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top