The surprising fall of Singapore

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#151

Post by Peter H » 11 Feb 2011, 14:19

Steve

Lynette gives no source and names no names.

Australian sources report the first escaped Australian POW as executed by the Japanese as Bdr Kenneth D. McLachlan.This was on the 22nd January 1942 as part of the Sulong Massacre.

Then it jumps to the 22nd March 1942 with the executions of WO2 Leslie G. Davies and Sgt Carlyle B. Jones.

Then Pte Ernest J. Bell on the 1st June 1942,followed by the group of eight executed on the 6th June 1942---WO2 Mathew W. Quittenton,Gnr Thomas S. Cummins,Gnr Alan W. Glover,L Bdr Aubrey A. Emmett,Gnr James A.T. Wilson,Gnr Arthur Reeve,Gnr Arthur H. Jones,Sgt Clifford E. Danaher.

Another 12 Australians suffered the same fate after that ---"lost their lives while attempting to escape"--up to 1945 while in Japanese captivity.

User avatar
Zaf1
Member
Posts: 758
Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 16:01
Location: Kota Bharu, Malaysia

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#152

Post by Zaf1 » 10 Mar 2011, 18:38

Hi,

I have looked up the SUPPLEMENT TO THE LONDON GAZETTE, 26 FEBRUARY, 1948 by Percival on the internet about the number of troops Percival requested to prevent looting after Singapore surrendered. It was not 1000 troops but 100, I copied it here:

(e) In order to prevent looting and other
disorders in Singapore Town during the
temporary withdrawal of all armed forces, a
force of 100 British armed men to be left
temporarily in the Town area until relieved
by the Japanese.

Regards

Zaf


Graham B
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 30 Sep 2010, 10:00

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#153

Post by Graham B » 11 Mar 2011, 07:26

Well done Zaf. Your research is excellent - Woodburn Kirby was wrong, and several have quoted him. But 1000 does sound an extraordinary number for the victors to agree.
You may be able to help me. I noticed the Japanese casualty figures you quote in the Takumi Detachment thread, in 2009, at the Kelantan landings.
I've recently read an old and short account of the landing from an air perspective that quotes much higher figures and gives a captured Japanese document as the source, 'Japanese account of the landings in Kota Bahru 8 December 1941 (Japanese records captured 1945)'. I've tried to find that captured document but can't. The figures it quotes seem high.

I'll add a link to the article, written by a friendly kiwi - it's in a 1995 Australian Defence Force Journal
http://www.adfjournal.adc.edu.au/UserFi ... ul_Aug.pdf

it's a .pdf so it may not open immediately, but let me know if there's an issue with the link. Scroll down to page 53 to find the article I'm talking about (it's titled: Battlefield Interdiction and Close Air Support: The RAAF over Kota Bahru December 1941). The casualties are quoted at the bottom of page 53, left hand column with the footnote 4 (on page 57) giving the captured record as his source.
Can you help with either the captured document, or a reference for the casualties you quoted in the Takumi Detachment thread?

Regards,
Graham

User avatar
Zaf1
Member
Posts: 758
Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 16:01
Location: Kota Bharu, Malaysia

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#154

Post by Zaf1 » 16 Mar 2011, 15:43

Dear Graham,

Thank you. I have that Japanese document as the source for the Takumi Detachment casualty figure. It is in Appendix No.2 of a Japanese document, translated it is called 'Confidential: Malay Operation. Outline of the battle during the Kota Bharu landing, from December 8 to 11th 1941'. It is dated June 28th 1942, 25th Army Headquarters. This is in Japanese language. I have a translation made of it.

The Appendix No.2 is called table of dead and wounded of the Takumi Detachment force. It is a detailed record of casualties of officers, NCOs soldiers and even Japanese civilians employed by the Japanese army during the landing. It is for each units such as the infantry, artillery engineers unit etc. It is too detailed to give each unit's exact casualties figure. I think the horizontal top table shows the units, while the column on the right is about sho-ko or officers, then NCOs, soldiers while the right column shows the number of participants, dead and wounded. From this table it shows that the number of participants was 5318 men, 320 killed and 538 wounded. For greater accuracy I suggest that you translate this from a person who can read Japanese characters.

Regards

Zaf
Attachments
SAM_3789.JPG
the numbers of participants, dead and wounded
SAM_3788.JPG
table of units, and number of officers, NCOs. soldiers
SAM_3788.JPG (60.16 KiB) Viewed 1594 times
SAM_3786.JPG
Appendix No.2 table of dead and wounded of Takumi Detachment force
SAM_3786.JPG (77.82 KiB) Viewed 1594 times

aghart
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Jun 2011, 20:39
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#155

Post by aghart » 30 Aug 2015, 11:39

The Japanese clearly were suprised to finish things off in 70 days rather than 100 as planned. Equally they would have been suprised that they did not need to call on 56th Division being held in reserve in Japan. General Woodburn Kirby who wrote the official history of the campaign also wrote a book "Singapore, the chain of disaster". In it he states that the two main failures that caused the "early" end to the campaign were 1. The failure to concentrate forces on the west side of the peninsular where the obvious main enemy thrust was to be, and 2. The failure to prepare fixed obsticles and defences at bottle necks and choke points on the mainland and in Johore in particular.

He says that the first failure resulted in the Slim River disaster which caused the loss of central Malaya much earlier then planned.
Of the troops at Slim, he says,[ they were almost asleep on their feet, and both officers and men, were incapable of seeing what ought to be done or realizing what had been left undone. What was needed at Slim River was a fresh formation, but owing to Pecival's insistance on keeping 9th Indian Division on the east side of the main range, none was available.]

The failure to construct defences has been debated often, but Brigadier Ivan Simson, Chief Engineer, Malaya Command, in his book, "Singapore. too little too late" gives a possible reason why both Percival and General Simmons (Singapore Fortress Commander) opposed defences as being "bad for morale". During WW1 it was realised that quite often troops behind formidable defences were happy to stay there and were reluctant to leave the safety of their base and advance to take on the enemy. As the only way to fully defeat the enemy is to attack and destroy him it was felt in some senior circles that defences hindered the offensive spirit! At last a possible explanation for this crazy refusal to prepare defences.

An extra 30 days, would it have mattered in the end? we will never know, but it would have allowed the whole of 18th Division to deploy on the mainland and 7th Armoured brigade with it's two Regiments of M3 tanks (with battle hardened crews) would have arrived as well.

Fatboy Coxy
Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 17:14
Location: Essex, UK

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#156

Post by Fatboy Coxy » 31 Aug 2015, 12:17

aghart wrote: An extra 30 days, would it have mattered in the end? we will never know, but it would have allowed the whole of 18th Division to deploy on the mainland and 7th Armoured brigade with it's two Regiments of M3 tanks (with battle hardened crews) would have arrived as well.
I believe the 7th Armoured was equipped with American Stuart tanks, not M3's at that time, around 120 in total for both regiments. In Burma, in head to head tank encounters, the British came off decidedly better, in part due to experienced crews, and in part due to the Stuart.

It's often mentioned that a couple of tank regiments would have been a deciding factor in Malaya, but I tend to disagree. No doubt the Japanese full on charge down the main roads would have been slowed after a couple of decisive tank encounters, but the Japanese tactic of encirclement through the jungle, creating road blocks behind, would have lead to British retreats, abet many roadblocks would have been broken by the tanks. I would expect a slower Japanese advance, along with a steady British tank attrition. Although Burma did provide more lines of advance than Malaya, the point I would make is tanks alone couldn't stop the Japanese advance.
Regards
Fatboy Coxy

Currently writing https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/ ... if.521982/

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#157

Post by Kingfish » 31 Aug 2015, 14:32

Fatboy Coxy wrote:I believe the 7th Armoured was equipped with American Stuart tanks, not M3's at that time
The Stuart was also known as the M3

Image
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

aghart
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Jun 2011, 20:39
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#158

Post by aghart » 31 Aug 2015, 15:21

I meant the Stuart. The other M3 I tend to call by it's British name, Grant/Lee

Fatboy Coxy
Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 17:14
Location: Essex, UK

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#159

Post by Fatboy Coxy » 31 Aug 2015, 17:42

aghart wrote:I meant the Stuart. The other M3 I tend to call by it's British name, Grant/Lee
My apologies aghart :oops:

I was thinking of the Grant/Lee, but I should have guessed you wouldn't make a silly error, and double checked first.

Other than the light Vickers tank, its hard to think of a tank that wouldn't have done well against the Japanese
Regards
Fatboy Coxy

Currently writing https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/ ... if.521982/

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#160

Post by Kingfish » 31 Aug 2015, 18:24

Fatboy Coxy wrote: Other than the light Vickers tank, its hard to think of a tank that wouldn't have done well against the Japanese
Image
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#161

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 01 Sep 2015, 02:04

Hey don't knock "Home-made Tanks" , some do quite well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

As to either M3, both did well against the Japanese given their multiple MG's and a 37mm cannon that fired cannister. I have read of no accounts that denigrate either of these tanks' performance against the Japanese Army.
Attachments
Killdozer.jpg
Killdozer.jpg (23.78 KiB) Viewed 1322 times

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#162

Post by steverodgers801 » 01 Sep 2015, 19:54

The problem with defense on the land side is the British were outflanked when the Japanese took Indochina and though Percival could have done some defense building I don't know that he could have done much considering his lack of air and sea assets.

hafidzi
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 16 Oct 2015, 03:57
Location: south east asia

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#163

Post by hafidzi » 16 Oct 2015, 04:09

I found these in Malacca. They looked like anti tank concrete obstacles to impede Japanese advance in Malaya. Can anyone verify. Thank you in advance
Attachments
IMG-20151015-WA0048.jpg
Concrete anti tank obstacle?

aghart
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Jun 2011, 20:39
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#164

Post by aghart » 16 Oct 2015, 21:11

Yes they are, Brigadier Ivan Simson, the senior Royal Engineer in Malaya had them made when the "men in charge" would not consider building defences. They were linked by metal chains. Simson had them made and dumped in the right places for the troops on the ground to put in place. Too little too late! which happend to be the title of the book he wrote, in which he describes the creation and deployment of these concrete obstacle's.

aghart
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Jun 2011, 20:39
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#165

Post by aghart » 03 Feb 2016, 00:58

steverodgers801 wrote:The problem with defense on the land side is the British were outflanked when the Japanese took Indochina and though Percival could have done some defense building I don't know that he could have done much considering his lack of air and sea assets.
Even with the Japanese thrusting south towards Singapore, the planned installation of scaffolding on the south shore of Singapore Island (To hinder approaching Landing Craft ) went ahead. A proposal by Briadier Ivan Simson to use this asset on the North Shore of Singapore instead was refused!

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”