Could Singapore been held?
-
If the the military command in Singapore during WWII had more determination to hold the island and drag the Japanese into house-to-house fighting while waiting for reinforcements, could the island been held?
-
Yes.
The reinforcements from India were on their way, targeted to reach Singapore approx 2 weeks.
Juggling the 22nd Australian Brigade to the North Western Defense line would have been a more sturdier road bump . -
YES!!!
The Allies had more men and the Japs were about to run out of ammo.
sigh..... -
Back when I was in my secondary days, my sch invited a historian to give a talk abt national defence and yada yada in conjunction with total defence day.
He said something about, if you guys remembered, there were two ships on its way to singapore. The Prince Of Wales and Repulse. But end up being brought down by the Japanese along the straits.
What he said was, there is actually another ship which is huge. an aircraft carrier i think with the name Invicible along with POW and Repulse.
The japanese were actually trying to flee singapore when they heard about the ships coming.
But along the way, the Invicible got "stuck" between a tiny island and couldn't move.
So only two ships made it. And when the japanese heard the Invicible wasnt coming, they shot down POW and Repulse.
I search the internet for the third ship. But couldn't find it... anyone knows?? -
with or without, the japanese already held the upperhand with air superiority over the region. and with no protection from the sea, supply will run out eventually. our reservoir and water supply from johore were overran by the japanese which led to a swift surrender.
yes, it can be held and prolonged, but for how long?
with regards to reinforcements, how were they suppose to arrive in singapore? land? air? or sea? either ways will be engaged by the japanese before touching singapore. -
Yes regarding about the aircraft carrier... Its HMS invincible... an HMS Ark Royal Class... Was supposed to be a British Task force group protecting the British empire in the East...
-
Think Britain was busy fighting for their own skin with the German at Europe... of course they could have put up a good fight in Msia instead of retreating all the way to Sg and have their water supply cut off... thought they were planning a counter attack from Sg but was called off
-
I'm taking into context that all supplies in Singapore were secured and moved inland.Originally posted by madcampus:with or without, the japanese already held the upperhand with air superiority over the region. and with no protection from the sea, supply will run out eventually. our reservoir and water supply from johore were overran by the japanese which led to a swift surrender.
yes, it can be held and prolonged, but for how long?
with regards to reinforcements, how were they suppose to arrive in singapore? land? air? or sea? either ways will be engaged by the japanese before touching singapore.
The 25th Army had already moved the majority of their elite troops off to Philippines, and those garrisoned in Mersing/Johor were suffering a problem with their logistical re-supply.
Do remember that the British destroyed their own supply depots because Percival did not want urban warfare, fearing it might lead to more civilian deaths. They had the resources, and Japanese airpower over South East Asia was a misnomer, thought superior because the RAF was nowhere to be found. -
Thot i read somewhere that Yamash|ta took a risk and called bluff when he demanded Pervical's surrender. He was saying that had the British held on, the Japanese might not be able to conquer Singapore so quickly.
However, even if they failed the first round, they probably will come back another time. They had already conquered Malaya, cutting off our supply of water from the north. All they need is to mount more troops and bombard us from airfields in Johor, its only a matter of time before Singapore succumb.
Moreover, the British then are fighting for their lives in Europe and won't care less about this part of the world. Hence, I felt, its only a matter of time. -
It wasnt the HMS invincible... It was the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Indomitable_%28R92%29HMS Indomitable
-
Yes, Yamashlta did admit later that if Percival had decided to fight on, he would have been forced to retreat at least, as his supply lines were being stretched to breaking point. Nevertheless, street fighting would have been massively disastrous for both forces and for the civilians, so I think Percival did the humane thing by surrendering.Originally posted by red_amoeba:Thot i read somewhere that Yamash|ta took a risk and called bluff when he demanded Pervical's surrender. He was saying that had the British held on, the Japanese might not be able to conquer Singapore so quickly.
However, even if they failed the first round, they probably will come back another time. They had already conquered Malaya, cutting off our supply of water from the north. All they need is to mount more troops and bombard us from airfields in Johor, its only a matter of time before Singapore succumb.
Moreover, the British then are fighting for their lives in Europe and won't care less about this part of the world. Hence, I felt, its only a matter of time. -
Dude, I'm confused with your first line. Inland as in regards to the habour city downtown area? or generally, from Malaya to Singapore.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I'm taking into context that all supplies in Singapore were secured and moved inland.
The 25th Army had already moved the majority of their elite troops off to Philippines, and those garrisoned in Mersing/Johor were suffering a problem with their logistical re-supply.
Do remember that the British destroyed their own supply depots because Percival did not want urban warfare, fearing it might lead to more civilian deaths. They had the resources, and Japanese airpower over South East Asia was a misnomer, thought superior because the RAF was nowhere to be found.
I think it's impt to take the entire campaign in its context. Both sides viewed it as 1 singular campaign, Malaya and Singapore.
Both also realised, evident from campaign behaviour, that Singapore's backdoor, through Malaya, was the most visible route of advance.
Japanese airpower in SE Asia is a misnomer? I pretty much would argue that the RAF being nowhere to be found is effectively ceding to the superiority of Japanese airpower.
I'm halfway into Singapore Burning by Colin Smith. Fascinating it is, give me 2 more weeks and I may have more material. Can? -
How quickly you forgive and forget what happened after the surrender.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:Yes, Yamashlta did admit later that if Percival had decided to fight on, he would have been forced to retreat at least, as his supply lines were being stretched to breaking point. Nevertheless, street fighting would have been massively disastrous for both forces and for the civilians, so I think Percival did the humane thing by surrendering.
As if everyone lived happily ever after.
No, he did the cowardly thing by surrendering.
He did not understand the nature of the enemy. He thought it was the "humane" thing to do.
This act of weakness condemned thousands of his surrendered troops to a slow, cruel death.
This cowardly act also sent thousands of ethnic Chinese to their death when Japs massacred Chinese men in their Sook Ching operations. For the next 3 years, people lived in fear and terror.
If he had no men or ammunition then I can understand surrender. But in both he had plenty and was not in shortage except for arty and anti-tank. But the Japs used their tanks poorly. So you can't even attribute their success completely to tanks. And what little anti-tank guns the Allies had they used to good effect as the Japs stupidly sent their tanks forward to fight alone without infantry support. And the tanks kept mostly to the roads as the jungle was impenetrable even to their light tanks. One gun alone knocked out something like 6 tanks as they came round a bend one by one.
And during the fight down the peninsula, it was mostly a jungle war, so Jap air superiority is great but shouldn't affect the outcome so much.
It was the Jap infantry that sent the Allies packing.
It was also a sheer lack of wills, plus a complete misunderstanding of what "surrendering" means. The Allies thought at worst they'll be sun burnt playing cricket and drinking tea behind barbed wire guarded by quaint yellow soldiers.
If they had understood that surrendering to the Japs just meant you die slower (e.g. the "Death Railway" ) they'd probably fight instead of surrender. At least death is quick and you get to take some of them with you. -
The key behind Japan's success was Intelligence, Espionage.
Japanese intelligence & espionage activities were traced as far back as the 1930s. Malaya was well infiltrated, providing the Japs with vital information.
Ibrahim bin Haji Ya'acob a journalist for Warta Malaya, cum recruiter for KMM, passed important information regarding suitable landing places in Kota bahru, British troop dispositions as well as locations of fortifications along the Perak River to the japanese.
Colonel Kadomatsu Tsungunori, worked undercover at the Officer's Club in Singapore's Naval base, and was speculated to have discovered the arrival of Prince of Wales, a month before the Japanese attack came!
Besides gathering of information, the Japanese were able to manipulate the Indian Independence league to carry out subversive actions that weakened the force defending singapore signficantly. Indian troops comprised of 49% of the combined Brit, Oz, Nz, commonwealth troops defending Singapore.
Operational deception or British folly? Operation Matador was a plan to strike into Thailand to secure Singora and Patani on the East Coast of thailand, where the Brits believed the Japanese will land. British intelligence efforts was centred around Matador, and troops spent most of their time preparing for it. Unfortunately, the Japs landed on Kota Bahru as well. Perhaps due to lack of preparations, the Brits were unable to react and switch to a defensive posture which pretty much spelt the collapse of the British front in Northern Malaya.
By the time the Japanese reached Singapore, desertion rate was very high. Indian army troops were subverted over to the Indian National Army. An example being the 12th Indian Brigade, within a span of 3 days, it was reduced to just 70 men. High rate of desertion, lack of air support, poor leadership, inappropriate training, poor quality of some reinforcements, 2 mths of retreat, absence of tanks... all contributed to the low troop morale of island defenders.
IMO, replicating the same conditions, Singapore could not have been held. Even if Percival had not surrendered totally and officially, there would have been little fighting instead, individual units surrendering on their own accord.
Acknowledgements: Far Eastern File by Peter Elphick where most of the information was researched from. -
I feel Percival (the Rabbit) did a cowardly thing and not humane thing by surrendering. Maybe he thinks he and the rest of the ang mo soldiers will be deported back & enjoy easy life behind the prison camps. Maybe he feel gutted by the lack of support from his UK towkays.
Whatever it is, the fiercest battles in Singaproe was fought by the locals -at Bt Timah, at Pasir Panjang, etc. And all these were with weapons so much inferior to what the British have. I din recall reading any fierce battle fought by the British in Singapore - the closest was the Australians at Slim River (in Malaya).
Well, at it is, some of the ang mo were sent to build the Death Railways and the locals (who were left behind, who couldn't actively particpate in the defense of their nation) had to suffer the brunt of the occoupation.
I think the name Rabbit did suit him, he froze in front of Yamash|ta's face and signed Singapore in for 3 yr plus of sh|t. -
I would say yes.
If Percival had shown far more resolve and had more intelligence on Japanese plans, manpower and supply situation I would say that Singapore might have been held.
Yamashita himself had been highly hesistant about invading the Singapore city itself. In his own words, he feared that it would go down to a deadly war of attrition in the streets, which the British might well win since they had superiority in numbers (the Brits had 84,000 troops, while the Jap forces were 30,000 strong). In addition, as someone pointed out, Yamashita's own supply lines were severely strained and couldn't last long.
Percival himself made a lot of dubious decisions in the fighting. For example, when the Japs were fighting down the Malay peninsula, he didn't even order the digging of trenches and fortifications on Singapore's northern coast - ostensibly because it was bad for morale.
But of course, we must consider the other side of the coin - if Percival were to convert Singapore into another Stalingrad, it sure as heck would have caused the escalation of civillian casualties. -
I don't think trying to prevent civilian casualties was really his agenda when he surrendered. It was just plain ineptitude as a commander on his part.Originally posted by fudgester:I would say yes.
But of course, we must consider the other side of the coin - if Percival were to convert Singapore into another Stalingrad, it sure as heck would have caused the escalation of civillian casualties.
I hope we didn't name any roads or buildings after him.
In some armies, commanders who make blunders of this magnitude are court martialled and shot by firing squad. Even senior generals.
The fact that he was let off so lightly showed that there was complicity right up to the very top. Allied intel wasn't so bad and they knew all about the Jap's intention to invade all along. And they knew about the Japanese spies and the Thai's willingness to collaborate with the Japs.
But the inaction and reluctance to reinforce or aid Singapore apparently came from Churchill himself - one book alleged.
History books had been very kind to Percival, I have yet to read one that condemns him, but instead all try to mention a variety of reasons and skipped the issue of accountability for such cowardice and subsequent great loss of lives.
No one - not even those civvies whom were caught in the crossfire at Stalingrad - ever said out loud that they wished the Russians had simply surrendered. Not one.
In fact, the whole population got together to fight the Germans. Kids were toting PPsh SMGs.
They even had makeshift factories inside the bombed out city where they produced rough copies of a Finnsh SMG called the Suomi: http://www.saunalahti.fi/~ejuhola/7.62/suomi.html
During the seige of another equally important city Leningrad, they even invented a SMG during the siege so more people can fight the Germans. It's the PPS 43.
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/pps43.htm
The British were also known to be stubborn people who held out against all odds. During the Boxer Rebellion in China, the foreigners in the British Legation in Beijing with some troops, held out for MONTHS facing day and night attacks non stop from Boxers and Manchu troops with rifles and canons.
The beseiged civvies were eventually reduced to eating horses and drinking rainwater. Some went mad from the shooting. But all the civilians tried to help, and those who could fight, fought. And dainty English ladies were sewing sandbags from curtains and nursing the injured.
But Percival was such a disgrace - a wimp - compared to even these weak English ladies of the British Legation in China. -
Percival was a scholar-officer sent from UK. Compared to his peers in the SEA Campaign, he possessed far less combat experience than the rest.Originally posted by red_amoeba:I feel Percival (the Rabbit) did a cowardly thing and not humane thing by surrendering. Maybe he thinks he and the rest of the ang mo soldiers will be deported back & enjoy easy life behind the prison camps. Maybe he feel gutted by the lack of support from his UK towkays.
Whatever it is, the fiercest battles in Singaproe was fought by the locals -at Bt Timah, at Pasir Panjang, etc. And all these were with weapons so much inferior to what the British have. I din recall reading any fierce battle fought by the British in Singapore - the closest was the Australians at Slim River (in Malaya).
Well, at it is, some of the ang mo were sent to build the Death Railways and the locals (who were left behind, who couldn't actively particpate in the defense of their nation) had to suffer the brunt of the occoupation.
I think the name Rabbit did suit him, he froze in front of Yamash|ta's face and signed Singapore in for 3 yr plus of sh|t.
Till today, I still possess great respect for these Singaporean troops (yes I call them that) who fought to the death. For a Company to fight an entire IJA Division and hold them for week and a half, is something heroic.
The British can fight to the death, and the Australian troops who wanted to continue the battle, were halted by Percival's general staff who supported him. One of the Artillery commanders who opposed his plan, had earlier been removed.
The Australian troops were not cowards like many had thought, that cowardice is what their senior commanders did, by bowing to Percival's surrender. -
Originally posted by fudgester:
Percival could have had all the intelligence he needed if they had people actually SPOKE Japanese on staff. Ref: British 18th Division, Intelligence section.
I would say yes.
If Percival had shown far more resolve and had more intelligence on Japanese plans, manpower and supply situation I would say that Singapore might have been held.
Yamas[b]hita himself had been highly hesistant about invading the Singapore city itself. In his own words, he feared that it would go down to a deadly war of attrition in the streets, which the British might well win since they had superiority in numbers (the Brits had 84,000 troops, while the Jap forces were 30,000 strong). In addition, as someone pointed out, Yamashita's own supply lines were severely strained and couldn't last long.
Percival himself made a lot of dubious decisions in the fighting. For example, when the Japs were fighting down the Malay peninsula, he didn't even order the digging of trenches and fortifications on Singapore's northern coast - ostensibly because it was bad for morale.
But of course, we must consider the other side of the coin - if Percival were to convert Singapore into another Stalingrad, it sure as heck would have caused the escalation of civillian casualties.[/b]
Yamash|ta was right to fear urban combat, knowing that he had lesser lives to throw into such a grinder. Unfortunately, Percival didn't know that. 55 days of fighting Malaya, only a dozen prisoners were taken back for interrogation? Could interrogation of MORE prisoners have yielded important information regarding the strength of Japanese forces in Malaya? It showed that the British forces didn't quite care to interrogate prisoners and shot them to avoid the trouble, OR they did not engage in patrols to capture prisoners in the first place.
And yes, maybe digging trenches would have decreased morale. But morale was already pathetically low anyways. Desertion was in the THOUSANDS, and the perimeter line was thin as a thread. My guess is Percival felt that if he ordered the trench digging, his thin line would desert him anyways. -
The issue of the surrender being a humanitarian issue, is too a dubious one. Would one say that Singapore suffered less casualities during that 3 years and the accompanying Sook Ching than if it really came to house-to-house fighting? I'm guessing that urban fighting would definately result in less casualities as presumably the fighting would be concentrated around the developed areas of Singapore,leaving the areas further east like Changi alone.
-
like i said, singapore can definitely be held longer. but not for long. it's a matter of time before singapore fell into japanese hands.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I'm taking into context that all supplies in Singapore were secured and moved inland.
The 25th Army had already moved the majority of their elite troops off to Philippines, and those garrisoned in Mersing/Johor were suffering a problem with their logistical re-supply.
Do remember that the British destroyed their own supply depots because Percival did not want urban warfare, fearing it might lead to more civilian deaths. They had the resources, and Japanese airpower over South East Asia was a misnomer, thought superior because the RAF was nowhere to be found.
1) yamashita's forces were running low, but reinforcements were easily available than the british counterparts who were cut off by land, sea and air.
2) there were constant bombardment of singapore prior to its surrender. air superiority definitely plays a strong role.
3) the invasion of malaya/singapore had no linkage to philippines. 25th army was the charge of the campaign here whereas the 14th army is in philippines. yamashita went over to philippines only after it was captured and resist the americans from recapturing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamashita_Tomoyuk
to note, the main staging area for the japanese invasion of malaya/singapore was in vietnam or french indochina then (french surrendered to germany and granted japan access to their colony) and thailand was another "neutral" country on the side of the japanese. on the other hand, the indonesians are just too happy to see their dutch colonial masters' arse kicked.
hence, there's no other way then to surrender. -
THe Japanese had the upper hand when they conquered Johor. IF the British were to continue to hold on, I don't see why they would not have win the war. There were also many local citizens who would fight the Japanese along with the Allied British, Australian and other forces.
-
----
-
Hmm... there are many 'what ifs'.
But in any case Southeast Asia was given to the Japanese far too easily in WW2. Had the allies put up a stouter fight instead of the routing in the face of the Japanese and dragged the war into one that was more costly... the Japanese would have lost a lot more material and men and made their positions in their empire a lot more fragie.
It could have been a shorter war, and their fight with China then would have been compromised. Not to mention it might divert resources from their Pacific operations. The Japanese were not as good as replacing men and material as the allies were, and hence would have been hit far harder from a lack of victory.
If Singapore became their Burma, one might suspect they might not even try Burma at all, or in any case it would be bad for the Japanese back then.
On the flip side, in the face of such heavy fighting... the Japanese army back that might be inclined to take it out more then they had on the civillians of Singapore after it fell. Who knows, it could have led to a 'Rape of Singapore'. -
Better to die fighting than be executed like flies in Changi.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Hmm... there are many 'what ifs'.
But in any case Southeast Asia was given to the Japanese far too easily in WW2. Had the allies put up a stouter fight instead of the routing in the face of the Japanese and dragged the war into one that was more costly... the Japanese would have lost a lot more material and men and made their positions in their empire a lot more fragie.
It could have been a shorter war, and their fight with China then would have been compromised. Not to mention it might divert resources from their Pacific operations. The Japanese were not as good as replacing men and material as the allies were, and hence would have been hit far harder from a lack of victory.
If Singapore became their Burma, one might suspect they might not even try Burma at all, or in any case it would be bad for the Japanese back then.
On the flip side, in the face of such heavy fighting... the Japanese army back that might be inclined to take it out more then they had on the civillians of Singapore after it fell. Who knows, it could have led to a 'Rape of Singapore'.
I think we would have given them a harder time than the Chinese in Nanking, had the ammo and weaponry be available to us.
I for one, would love to turn Orchard Road into Sniper's Alley like Sarajevo.