Churchill's rage over the loss of Singapore
84RFK
Active member
1: I couldn't possibly know, but I'd guess he's well passed the teens.
2: Another guess, but I'd say mainly Wikipedia and the sources linked from there.
samneanderthal
Active member
I'm 5 and get all my information from watching the Simpsons.
The German Raider Kormoran captured intelligence from the Atomaton revealing how weak the British defences in the Far East was, may or may not have had a big influence on Japanese plans. When the Prince of Wales & Renown went east the Admiral failed to order a Carrier @ Capetown to join the Group. Could have made the diffrence on that little episode. Gotta keep in mind that @ the time Westerners considered the Japanese as a lesser Race, despite their record of sucsess in the Russo-Japanese War.
samneanderthal
Active member
The Japs had a British spy relaying all the information about the ridiculous air force in Malaya-Singapore. And along with the German information received streams of information from Japanese subs.
Had all the British carriers been there with the Repulse and PoW, they would have been promptly sunk, for their few and obsolete planes were a poor match for the hundreds of Japanese planes from aircraft carriers and the tropedo planes and dive bombers flying from Indochina.
Only sending in time the hundreds of Hurricanes and tanks that were sent to the USSR, could have saved the day. However, Chuchill still thought that large numbers of poorly equipped men and two large ships without air cover could have defended Singapore-Malaya.
It is difficult to believe that the US forced Japan out of the middle ages at gun point late in the 19th century, the British trained the Japanese navy and shipyards at the end of the 19th century and soon Japan was defeating Russia and a few decades later had much better carrier planes, submarines and battleships, than those of the mighty British Empire.
You're right, the British were quite racist and considered the Japanese and the Indians inferior, which helps to explain why they were so very few Indian pilots and no Indian Generals (in contrast to many Canadian, Australian, South African and New zealanders).
Had all the British carriers been there with the Repulse and PoW, they would have been promptly sunk, for their few and obsolete planes were a poor match for the hundreds of Japanese planes from aircraft carriers and the tropedo planes and dive bombers flying from Indochina.
Only sending in time the hundreds of Hurricanes and tanks that were sent to the USSR, could have saved the day. However, Chuchill still thought that large numbers of poorly equipped men and two large ships without air cover could have defended Singapore-Malaya.
It is difficult to believe that the US forced Japan out of the middle ages at gun point late in the 19th century, the British trained the Japanese navy and shipyards at the end of the 19th century and soon Japan was defeating Russia and a few decades later had much better carrier planes, submarines and battleships, than those of the mighty British Empire.
You're right, the British were quite racist and considered the Japanese and the Indians inferior, which helps to explain why they were so very few Indian pilots and no Indian Generals (in contrast to many Canadian, Australian, South African and New zealanders).
Last edited:
samneanderthal
Active member
Just like the Brits surrendered the Channel Islands without a fight, because they were indefensible, shouldn't they have withdrawn from Singapore and Burma without a fight, instead of abandoning so many men without planes, ships or heavy field artillery to be certainly defeated and and then get mad about it and leave them in the worst emprisonment terms for years?
Channel Islands were obvious, Singapore was called The Gibralatar of the East & big flaws apparently wern't quite as obvious, not to mention the loss of face if it was abandond.
samneanderthal
Active member
Gibraltar was strong because it had a fleet, Singapore didn't.
No more face can be lost than when 130,000 men are either killed or fall prisoners.
The Japs did in Singapore to the Brits what the Brits had done in Lybia to the Italians, on the latter occassion Atlee said never has so much been surrendered by so many to so few.
It was the first time in WW II that a huge British force was not only defeated but did not have any chance of evacuation, the British specialty.
It was fortunate that Churchill did not manage to send more men in, otherwise 200,000 would have been captured without means of escape.
No more face can be lost than when 130,000 men are either killed or fall prisoners.
The Japs did in Singapore to the Brits what the Brits had done in Lybia to the Italians, on the latter occassion Atlee said never has so much been surrendered by so many to so few.
It was the first time in WW II that a huge British force was not only defeated but did not have any chance of evacuation, the British specialty.
It was fortunate that Churchill did not manage to send more men in, otherwise 200,000 would have been captured without means of escape.
Last edited:
84RFK
Active member
Shouldn't......we put an end to all the speculations here, I don't find it likely that we will change the history anyway...
And among all the if's, but's, and should....what if the gentlemen of the admittance commitee all had a good nights sleep, got laid in the morning, had a good breakfast, and been in a generally positive spirit before they went out to examine the works of the hopefull lot that was applying to study at the Academy of Fine Arts in Wienna.
What if they had recognized enough talent to accept Adolf Hitler into the Academy, instead of brushing him off as "unfit for painting" in 1907, or at least in 1908.
He was more fit for painting than leading an army...
What if....
And among all the if's, but's, and should....what if the gentlemen of the admittance commitee all had a good nights sleep, got laid in the morning, had a good breakfast, and been in a generally positive spirit before they went out to examine the works of the hopefull lot that was applying to study at the Academy of Fine Arts in Wienna.
What if they had recognized enough talent to accept Adolf Hitler into the Academy, instead of brushing him off as "unfit for painting" in 1907, or at least in 1908.
He was more fit for painting than leading an army...
What if....
senojekips
Active member
It would appear that the forum has acquired an "expert" whose vision only works in hind sight, and even then, only very poorly.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
You act like your five years old, and from the crap you spew, it probably is from the Simpsons
It wouldn't be so bad if he talked with some small degree of sense.
Last edited:
If the British had know how small the Japanese force was or what they do to their captives, they would not have surrendered.
samneanderthal
Active member
Hi VDKMS,
They had no choice but to surrender, when you don't have water and have dozens of Japanese ships with artillery that included 18" guns (heavier than the British Coastal cannon) and hundreds of planes and tanks facing you, you surrender or die. Several thousand brave men survived years of hell. The same situation as the Philippines, Burma, etc,
By the way the correct expression is if they had known, in contrast to did you ever think. If they had uses the past participle and did uses the unconjugated verb. I don't mean to humiliate you, but only to help you improve your English which I also had to learn making mistakes (and still make plenty).
They had no choice but to surrender, when you don't have water and have dozens of Japanese ships with artillery that included 18" guns (heavier than the British Coastal cannon) and hundreds of planes and tanks facing you, you surrender or die. Several thousand brave men survived years of hell. The same situation as the Philippines, Burma, etc,
By the way the correct expression is if they had known, in contrast to did you ever think. If they had uses the past participle and did uses the unconjugated verb. I don't mean to humiliate you, but only to help you improve your English which I also had to learn making mistakes (and still make plenty).
Last edited:
samneanderthal
Active member
The deaf can well lead the blind
84RFK
Active member
Well Sam, it may be unjustified to call you both deaf and blind, but it still apears to me that you failed to recognize the point I made regarding the battle Scharnhorst and Gneisenau fought against HMS Renown and HMS Glorious.
While you correctly pointed out that the HMS Renown carried a main battery of far lager calibre than it's German counterparts, you failed to see the importance of the two main factors of naval gunnery.
1. To actually hit the target, a task the Germans managed to perform assisted by radar.
2. To keep a higher rate of fire than your counterpart in order to score more hits than him.
And that's where Gneisenau and Scharnhorst had their biggest advantage, their state of art and inovative ordnance transport link system enabled the crew of the main battery turrets to reload each of the three barells regardless of the position of the turret itself.
That means, in a 10 minutes span the Gneisenau was able to deliver 35 shells from each of her 9 main battery guns, a total of 315 shells raining down on and around the enemy in a 10 minutes span, given perfect conditions.
While the HMS Renown was able to cough up about 2 shells pr. minute from each of her 6 main battery guns, that would be 120 shells total in 10 minutes.
Another fact you may have overlooked is that both HMS Renown and HMS Glorious was launched in 1916, while their German counterparts was launched in 1936 and essentially new by the time.
In fact, the entire Kriegsmarine consisted of ships launched from 1931 and onwards, making it a top modern navy at he time, while a great part of the Royal Navy consisted of relics from the WW I.
Modified and refitted several times off course, but even the "mighty Hood" was launched in 1918.
Wether you like it or not, age makes a certain difference here.
And as you started speculating about my idea about the average Kriegsmarine sailor as some kind of "superhuman" in another thread, I can only point out the fact that the Kriegsmarine was exceptionally well trained and dicsiplined, and highly motivated.
And unlike the Royal Navy, the Kriegsmarine didn't suffer a full scale mutiny in the pre-war period either.
While you correctly pointed out that the HMS Renown carried a main battery of far lager calibre than it's German counterparts, you failed to see the importance of the two main factors of naval gunnery.
1. To actually hit the target, a task the Germans managed to perform assisted by radar.
2. To keep a higher rate of fire than your counterpart in order to score more hits than him.
And that's where Gneisenau and Scharnhorst had their biggest advantage, their state of art and inovative ordnance transport link system enabled the crew of the main battery turrets to reload each of the three barells regardless of the position of the turret itself.
That means, in a 10 minutes span the Gneisenau was able to deliver 35 shells from each of her 9 main battery guns, a total of 315 shells raining down on and around the enemy in a 10 minutes span, given perfect conditions.
While the HMS Renown was able to cough up about 2 shells pr. minute from each of her 6 main battery guns, that would be 120 shells total in 10 minutes.
Another fact you may have overlooked is that both HMS Renown and HMS Glorious was launched in 1916, while their German counterparts was launched in 1936 and essentially new by the time.
In fact, the entire Kriegsmarine consisted of ships launched from 1931 and onwards, making it a top modern navy at he time, while a great part of the Royal Navy consisted of relics from the WW I.
Modified and refitted several times off course, but even the "mighty Hood" was launched in 1918.
Wether you like it or not, age makes a certain difference here.
And as you started speculating about my idea about the average Kriegsmarine sailor as some kind of "superhuman" in another thread, I can only point out the fact that the Kriegsmarine was exceptionally well trained and dicsiplined, and highly motivated.
And unlike the Royal Navy, the Kriegsmarine didn't suffer a full scale mutiny in the pre-war period either.
samneanderthal
Active member
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?
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?
Last edited:
84RFK
Active member
The British may very well have had superior range in their early warning radar system, but at the outbreak of WW II the Kriegsmarine had a fully functional and accurate gun-laying radar (Seetakt) installed on all their major ships.
The size of a gun (calibre) doesn't count that much if you are not able to deliver the ordnance at the exact rigth spot (on target) at a steady rate, and since the German vessels did'nt have to turn their turrets back to midships position in order to resupply ammunition, they had a major advantage.
They were able to keep their turrets traversed in the right position, and only had to elevate the barrells after reloading.
One shell every 17 seconds directed by a reasonably accurate gun-laying radar will beat 2 shells pr. minute from a gun that has to be redirected on the target between each load.
Almost like comparing a single shot muzzle loading rifle to a magazine fed repeating rifle.
As for radar, allthough the Germans were among the first to recognize the prinsiple, the British was among the first to emply a radar warning chain in order to detect incoming enemy aircraft on a long distance.
Still the Allies and the Axis powers were on pair with the technological achievements in the early stages of the war, it wasn't until later that the Allies really made a leap in their advances and developed far better systems than the Germans.
The size of a gun (calibre) doesn't count that much if you are not able to deliver the ordnance at the exact rigth spot (on target) at a steady rate, and since the German vessels did'nt have to turn their turrets back to midships position in order to resupply ammunition, they had a major advantage.
They were able to keep their turrets traversed in the right position, and only had to elevate the barrells after reloading.
One shell every 17 seconds directed by a reasonably accurate gun-laying radar will beat 2 shells pr. minute from a gun that has to be redirected on the target between each load.
Almost like comparing a single shot muzzle loading rifle to a magazine fed repeating rifle.
As for radar, allthough the Germans were among the first to recognize the prinsiple, the British was among the first to emply a radar warning chain in order to detect incoming enemy aircraft on a long distance.
Still the Allies and the Axis powers were on pair with the technological achievements in the early stages of the war, it wasn't until later that the Allies really made a leap in their advances and developed far better systems than the Germans.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
The Prince of Wales was a new ship with a new and inexperienced crew. Just because a man has completed his training, doesn't mean he is a super soldier, sailor or airman overnight, he needs to gain experience with his crew.
A Captain may be the most experienced man in the world, but he also has to learn the strengths and weakness's of his ship and the officers under his command, while the officers must learn the strength and weakness's of the men under their command. It takes time for a crew to jell together, they all need to learn the ropes together. If you had ANY military knowledge worth knowing, you would have understood that.
Last edited:
42RM
Banned
@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.
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.