Battle of Singapore: Could the British have won or held out
- Thread starter 21Z5M
- Start date
Vinnie
See Dummies in the index
They could have done so for a time but ultimately, Singapore would have fallen. With not enough naval support to break the blockade, the defenders were doomed. It is a call as to how long you hold on causing and suffering casualties against the usefulness of the resistance.
macrobo
King of Boxcars
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,266
- Reaction score
- 623
- Location
- Geelong Melbourne
- First name
- Rob
- Country
-
Hi
my 2 cents worth since I have done study around this area
Singapore was one of the unfortunate episodes in Aussie military history, where frustrated and disillusioned soldiers, with an overwhelming feeling of betrayal, behaved to say the least in a poor manner - I wont expand on that as the literature is readily available
Three things from my reading were overwhelming issues
(a) tactics- The IJA were really dominant at that stage in what they did and how they did it (despite the fact they ran out of ammo at the end and were lucky a surrender happened!) A fortress Singapore was not - the IJA came through a route that really needed proper defense and that's what frustrated the average digger!
(b) Morale - the troops were not holding it together on the allied side for a variety of reasons not just British leadership.
(c) There appears to be many semi-confirmed accounts that the IJA intelligence had at least one agent (a British officer I believe but I could not swear by that!) on the island so that put things very one sided! - the air support annihilation in particular was what was supposedly the result of IJA intelligence
So the odds were stacked against them to say the least - it would have been a very good leader indeed to overcome those type of issues!
Rob :clown:
my 2 cents worth since I have done study around this area
Singapore was one of the unfortunate episodes in Aussie military history, where frustrated and disillusioned soldiers, with an overwhelming feeling of betrayal, behaved to say the least in a poor manner - I wont expand on that as the literature is readily available
Three things from my reading were overwhelming issues
(a) tactics- The IJA were really dominant at that stage in what they did and how they did it (despite the fact they ran out of ammo at the end and were lucky a surrender happened!) A fortress Singapore was not - the IJA came through a route that really needed proper defense and that's what frustrated the average digger!
(b) Morale - the troops were not holding it together on the allied side for a variety of reasons not just British leadership.
(c) There appears to be many semi-confirmed accounts that the IJA intelligence had at least one agent (a British officer I believe but I could not swear by that!) on the island so that put things very one sided! - the air support annihilation in particular was what was supposedly the result of IJA intelligence
So the odds were stacked against them to say the least - it would have been a very good leader indeed to overcome those type of issues!
Rob :clown:
Last edited:
One of the issues I found difficult to understand was the 8th Australian Division not pushing back the IJA during the landing on the island. The performance of the Australian soldier during WW2 was exemplary. They did more on the Kokoda with less. The Japanese commander thought he was going to be pushed to surrender when he met with Percival. Not to be too harsh but do you think the "British" soldiers would have fought on if they knew what was coming to them with surrendering to the Japanese?
Dave68124
Elder Member
My guess is yes. My grandfather was on Corregidor and he always told me that if he ever had to do it again, he would have escaped to the jungle and fought with the guerillas.
Some of the reading I have done shows the Japanese had a very short supply of food and equipment in reserve. I read somewhere General Yamashita walked into the meeting not knowing if the British were asking for his surrender due to his supply situation.
Lt Gen Simon Bolivar buckner was the highest ranking US Army officer to die in a combat role in WW2. Was Marshal Vatutin the highest ranking Soviet Army commander to die in a combat role? Who was the highest ranking Briton do die in a combat role? The highest ranking Chinese officer? I began doing some research. Vatutin's death was very similar to Buckner's. Inspecting front line difficulties brought about the death of an army commander in the field.
___________
ahaneeay
___________
ahaneeay
antiochuss
Member
If they had not spread their forces so thin defending airbases in Malaya for which they had no modern aircraft and a naval base which was used by only two battle ships which were later sunk anyway ,yes they could. Percival had no choice as he was ordered to pursue this policy by Churchill.Yet again another case of politicians screwing things up from Hitler to Johnstone.
sarfs
Senior Member
Didn't their guns point in the wrong direction? At that point of the war, the Japanese were unstoppable.
antiochuss
Member
There was a lot involved. The guns were pointed out to sea but that didn't much as Johur Baru on the mainland was less than a mile away .They could have stopped the Japanese in the jungle. Trouble was that the campaign was like WWI in the jungle, the British were just not trained for jungle warfare. Japanese troops were very well trained and subject to harsh discipline where beating was a common punishment.Japan too was desperate needing the Dutch East Indies oil as the US had placed an embargo on oil to Japan following the rape of Nanking ,it being the worlds supplier at the time.
Was out there with my father decades after the war.Those gunforts were like WWI pictures the only difference they were covered in green slime and the jungle was just beginning to break them up.
Was out there with my father decades after the war.Those gunforts were like WWI pictures the only difference they were covered in green slime and the jungle was just beginning to break them up.
Proff3RTR
Elder Member
As a 'Britsih' soldier I know they would of fought on if they knew what was ahead of them, Both Us Brits and the Diggers are bloody stubborn buggers when we are inclined, and I think that would of been one of those situations.I think the only thing that would of stopped it is if the Japs had then said surrender or no quater (singapore had a load of civillians there) so they may of had thier hand forced in that case.
Percival was a weak commander at best (typical of a vast majority of our early war leaders), he outnumbered the Japs man for man, and you would of thought that at least he would of given the Japs a good kicking before chucking in the towel, but as said that may of made the japs commit alot of atrocities (well, more than they did).
Just my two pence worth.
Reading accounts of the Malaysian campaign (and later the defense of Burma) sound remarkably similar to accounts of the French collapse in 1940. The Allied command failed to keep up with events. They continually reacted to enemy operations too late to affect enemy plans. They were behind the decision curve, and were too inflexible to get ahead of events.
That being said, as others have pointed out, there was no way to break a siege, so an ultimately surrender seems inevitable. Maybe. The Japanese were pretty poor themselves when plan A failed.
That being said, as others have pointed out, there was no way to break a siege, so an ultimately surrender seems inevitable. Maybe. The Japanese were pretty poor themselves when plan A failed.
Dave68124
Elder Member
Heard something on a AHC show the other day that was really interesting related to Singapore. A German commerce raiding ship, name is escaping me, captured a British Chief of Staff report written in early-mid 1941 regarding the British defense of Singapore and the sad state of affairs. This report was turned over to the Japanese and led them to include Singapore in their initial invasion plans for late 1941 / early 1942.
There were only 3 Germans that the Emperor of Japan gave a Samurai Sword to during the war, Goring, Rommel and the captain of the commerce raiding ship. Clearly the Japanese thought the value of the captured documents was pretty important too.
There were only 3 Germans that the Emperor of Japan gave a Samurai Sword to during the war, Goring, Rommel and the captain of the commerce raiding ship. Clearly the Japanese thought the value of the captured documents was pretty important too.
The said guns can be turned towards the north. It is the lack of appropriate ammo (specifically HE instead of AP) that result in ineffective guns.
jrv
Forum Guru
Some of the guns had concrete covers that prevented them from being fired in particular directions, but the British also partially demolished some of those covers.
JR
http://www.fortsiloso.com/history/1919/1919.htm.
JR
Proff3RTR
Elder Member
100% yes, both the ozzies and us brits are stubborn bastards, and if they knew what awaited them in a POW cage the nips would of had a hard time on their hands and IMHO would of been stopped.
witchbottles
Forum Guru
interesting discussion - more interesting still that not one word yet about the IJA capturing all the fresh water supplies on Singapore Island in the end, effectively ending the capability of resistance for Percival and his command. The Dry season in the area begins in January, by a full month into it, supplies of water were already rationed on the island. It is nigh impossible to fault a military commander for surrendering once the means of an effective resistance has been eliminated. To continue to do so is only foolhardy and worthless sacrifice of brave soldiers and innocent bystander civilians.
It was over when Percival's command lost the water. Humans can survive for 3-5 minutes without air, 3-5 hours without warmth of shelter from harsh elements, 3-5 days without water, and 3-5 months without food. Pretty easy to see the breaking point that ended the siege.
It was over when Percival's command lost the water. Humans can survive for 3-5 minutes without air, 3-5 hours without warmth of shelter from harsh elements, 3-5 days without water, and 3-5 months without food. Pretty easy to see the breaking point that ended the siege.
Srynerson
Senior Member
Yes, I was absolutely amazed reading through this that no one had mentioned the water situation yet, which is what I've understood for years to have been the biggest single factor in forcing the British to surrender -- continuing to try to hold out for more than a handful of additional days would have led to thousands or even tens of thousands of civilian deaths (and quite likely riots by the local citizenry) and all with no clear prospect for relief even if the garrison did manage to hang on.
The water supply became an issue so late in the campaign that it doesn't really make much impact on the discussion. In other words, a successful defense of Singapore/Malaysia would have stopped the Japanese before they were able to take the City's reservoirs.
Bob Walters
Senior Member
Part of the problem the allies had in the Pacific, especially early in the war, was the refusal to believe that the Japanese were equal to the Caucasian west. One tends to underestimate those they feel are inferior.