The surprising fall of Singapore

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Post Reply
RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#121

Post by RichTO90 » 16 Sep 2010, 21:47

Tom from Cornwall wrote:I think you'll find that we British do 'thoughtless jingoism' to a much higher standard than you chaps across the Atlantic, although, with practice, and if you follow our advice and let us command you, your young nation may also one day achieve what it has taken us centuries to perfect. :D :D :lol: :lol:
Nonsense young man, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...I mean nobody expects they can out do a Yankee when it comes to jingoism...we invented Jingoism by jingo. It's named after a Pittsburgh merchant named Hiram Jingo who gained fame during the Civil War (ours and the only important one BTW) by deriding the notion that English intervention would affect the conflict in letters to the local newspaper; closing his missives with a flourish "By Jingo"... :wink:
BTW I agree about the Australian OH - have read quite a chunk of it on line, and was impressed. I thought the volumes about the desert war were also good stuff.
Yep, the South African history of Crusader is also very good.
"Singapore: the Battle That Changed the World" - will have to put that on the shelf next to all the other "Battles that changed the World" books, right next to "String Vests: The Underwear that won the British Empire!"
:lol:
"jpegs of the relevent casualty accounting for the Commonwealth forces from Kew" does sound interesting. How reliable do you think they are given the chaos into which the garrison fell?
They are the only extant time series that I know of that allow you to get a sense of the casaulties at different stages of the campaign, but the "final" figures are certainly questionable. Warren in his appendix has a very good precis of the different estimates.

Cheers!
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#122

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 16 Sep 2010, 22:13

By God sir!! :o

Out "Jingoed" by an American, what will they say in the Officer's Mess of the 14th/18th/19th (damn these defence cuts!) battalion of the Foot and Mouth! :x

Are you totally sure that your jingo chap wasn't inspired by Sir Archibald Bluster-Balls who used to sit in the mess knocking back the booze and shouting "bottom's up, that's how to make the gin go" in the small Indian village of Upper Bollox?

By Civil War, I take it you mean the one we let you have on your own? Not that first one that you had, where those damn Redcoats kept getting in the way! :lol: :lol:

Anyway Hiram was clearly no military historian:
by deriding the notion that English intervention would affect the conflict


Of course English intervention would have affected the conflict - the battles would have had to stop at 1600 for tea, the armies would have been incredibly cautious, the "march on Georgia" would have gone up the "soft underbelly" of Italy and over the Alps and Mel Gibson would have been able to make incredibly bad movies about it. :roll:

by Tom :lol:


RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#123

Post by RichTO90 » 16 Sep 2010, 22:25

Tom from Cornwall wrote:Out "Jingoed" by an American, what will they say in the Officer's Mess of the 14th/18th/19th (damn these defence cuts!) battalion of the Foot and Mouth! :x
Pass the port? :P
Are you totally sure that your jingo chap wasn't inspired by Sir Archibald Bluster-Balls who used to sit in the mess knocking back the booze and shouting "bottom's up, that's how to make the gin go" in the small Indian village of Upper Bollox?
No, I believe that was much later in Zululand where a bunch of Welshmen were trying to find Gin-Gin-I-Love-You on a map... :lol:
By Civil War, I take it you mean the one we let you have on your own? Not that first one that you had, where those damn Redcoats kept getting in the way! :lol: :lol:
Bluster away Sir, but dammee if I know what you are talking about. There is one and only one Civil War worthy of the appellation and it's ours I tell you! 8O
Anyway Hiram was clearly no military historian:
Them there's fighten words! Hes a direct ancestor if mine!
Of course English intervention would have affected the conflict - the battles would have had to stop at 1600 for tea, the armies would have been incredibly cautious, the "march on Georgia" would have gone up the "soft underbelly" of Italy and over the Alps and Mel Gibson would have been able to make incredibly bad movies about it. :roll:

by Tom :lol:
Nonsense By Jingo!

Oddly enough an ex house mate of mine was a Rev War re-enactor and was "lucky" enough to be able to appear in Gibson's maxim hopeless "The Patriot" where we were reminded that Perfidious Albion was actually the inspiration for the SS... :roll: I think its what happens when you take the repressed Catholic child out of America, transplant him to Australia, and then let him come back... :roll:
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#124

Post by JonS » 17 Sep 2010, 00:30

RichTO90 wrote:Yep, the South African history of Crusader is also very good.
It is, except in that it is - probably understandably - very light on Pienaar's miserable failure to support 2(NZ)Div at Sidi Rezegh.

Lightbob
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Feb 2010, 16:36

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#125

Post by Lightbob » 17 Sep 2010, 18:14

Hoist Said

Officers were chosen by the Philippine government since they were in charge of the Philippine Army. And since most educated Philippine people came from around Manila and since that was the political base for the government that is who mostly got chosen.
But this only makes my argument. The Philippine Government selected their officers but they over a period of 6 years would have know and avoided any language difficulties. But did the problem arise after mobilisation when the Americans had embodied the PA into the US Army. Other wise MacArthur by his own admission ‘understood the Philippine better than anyone else and Eisenhower etc were both remissive and dishonest in their reports and opinions.
Hoist said

If you mean by “full time reservists

Sorry but your right both divisions (one the PC division) were regular neither of them or the PS in fact seemed to have language problems. I wonder why?

Hoist said
Since neither Japan nor China officially considered themselves at war at that time then how could Japan object to arms being sold since they themselves did not declare war on China
But surely if Japan would been upset by the mobilisation of the PA surely sending aircraft squadrons to China to fight the Japanese would surely upset them. I don’t know whether the Sino /Jap war of 1937 was declared certainly it should have, after all the Japs never bothered at Pearl harbour. Isn't illegal by US Law to fight as mercenaries for another country?


http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/charlie/ ... an1937.htm says

War was launched against China after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident of July 7, 1937, in which an allegedly unplanned clash took place near Beiping (as Beijing was then called) between Chinese and Japanese troops and quickly escalated into full-scale warfare. The Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-45) ensued, and relations with the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union deteriorated.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#126

Post by Delta Tank » 18 Sep 2010, 23:22

Lightbob wrote:Rich you told us that the Enfield was to much of a gun for the Filipinos. What would have been the alternative? The Springfield 03 and Enfield 1917 was both much the same with the Enfield being 2 inches longer, but more accurate and only 8 ozs heavier. In 1890 the Filipino Revolutionary army was armed with the Spanish Mauser Model 93 an excellent rifle copied by the US with its Springfield, but Mauser was longer and heavier than the Enfield and Springfield and the Filipinos coped with it The Filipino was recruited from Farmers, tradesmen and labourers and after seeing Asian men carry over a 100lbs and even the women carry 40 to 50 lbs and a baby I cannot see that approx 9 lbs would have been to much of a burden

If the Filipinos could not cope with the Enfield being too heavy It would have been pointless giving them Browning Auto Rifles (16 Lbs), .30 Cal Machine guns (31lbs) and a light mortar (11lbs). But they were issued to and used by them. The Chinese Divisions in Burma were also armed with Enfield initially. In my experience the Malay (Filipino are mainly ethnic Malays), are a much sturdier race than the Chinese isn’t one a world boxing champion?)

When you said the sights on the Enfield would not move. The leaf back sight was originally designed by Parker Hale and was graduated up to 1500 yds the second site was a battle sight for engaging target up to 400 yds. The Enfield rifle did not have a windage most European Armies don’t have them they rely on the soldiers learning wind and elevation tables that allows them to quickly pick up a target in rapidly changing wind and weather conditions with out their eye moving from the sight.

The rifle like the language were problems exaggerated to excuse the non to enthusiastic performance of the PA and place the blame on them for the defeat

Mike i will get round to replying to your post
Lightbob,

I believe Rich was quoting the official history, cited above. You should read it, it has lots of facts that will educate you.

Mike

Lightbob
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Feb 2010, 16:36

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#127

Post by Lightbob » 23 Sep 2010, 13:47

Mike said;

I believe Rich was quoting the official history, cited above. You should read it, it has lots of facts that will educate you

I'm sorry but I have read itand in regard to language there is mention I think twice about language problems buton each occaisions it mentions the Fillipinos not being able to speak English.

Regarding official histories I have not read one that has not been challenged by subsequent Historians. Not that the original authos did not think they had written a truthful history but as governments realease information the original official history becomes out dated and has to be revised.

Lightbob
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Feb 2010, 16:36

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#128

Post by Lightbob » 06 Oct 2010, 14:34

Rich thank you for reminding me about ‘The History of the Philippines Army’. The examples you gave at the web address. I bow to a master to selective snipping. Bu there is suggestion that the American Officers and some NCO only being able to speak English as being part of the problem. A fact that is supported by Morton and the language problem among the Philippines as being somewhat of an after thought. I Para phrase other entries in the history

But the one I like best is for Page 14. I think you should read this again as it deals with the early history of the Scouts an area that you say is not relevant. However it does seem to prove some of my assertions.

According to Page 14; each of the Early Scout Companies were recruited from a particular district and kept together to ease language problems (a system used by the PA until it broke down on Mobilization) and were not allowed to serve in their own area, language problems?

Question is; Keeping them together eased who’s language problem. I would suggest the Officers.

It goes on to say something like they were valuable because they knew the country and the language. But surely if the Philippines was such a tower of Babel, what language would they have know . Again I would suggest a Malaya dialect. What would you suggest?

On page 102 of Torres; In 1938 20,000 PA troops going on Manoeuvres with the US Army, In two separate areas of the Philippines. Although no specific defence problems were solved Torres Says ‘but the mobilisation of troops was conducted very credibly and Macarthur praised the Manoeuvres’. No language problems are mentioned, could it be that there were non or if there was they were insignificant and put right or were ignored by the US.?

Again on Page 102, it tells of the PA used to put down strikes, language problems?

On Page 148 of Torres: Test mobilisations for the PA were carried out in 1939 and 1941. Another test in 1940 was cancelled for lack of money. No language problems were reported Any problems in 1939 surely would have been sorted out and if urgent the test of 1940 would unquestionably have been carried out what ever the cost.

On Page 203: In 1941 after Mobilisation the PA 51st Division carried out 13 weeks training followed by Battalion level training, To complete this length of time training would it not be reasonable for any language problems arising being mentioned.

Although we have discussed the rifle problems, and according to the official history the rifle and language problem contributed to the fall of the Philippines, perhaps to be thorough we should look further, especially when page 205 complains about the lack of dependable ammunition, it being old and not tested. We see that spare parts for weapons were missing and the Machine guns were incomplete.

This mention of poor ammunition caused me to look closer at the Official History (Morton) and I found these examples:

Page 131 - ’but the .30 cal machine guns dropped out of action because of faulty ammunition’.
Page 118 - ‘the flares may have been caused by American and Filipino troops firing faulty tracer ammunition’.
Page 288 - ‘3inch Stokes mortars with Ammo that contained a high proportion of duds’.
Page 508 - ‘the greatest draw back o training was the shortage of reliable ammunition’.

I suppose we should throw in the faulty torpedoes fired by the US Navy submarines.

I have to add that the only real language problems seemed to be among the American Generals when trying to blame or deny responsibility for any set backs

This awful rifle the Enfield; Page 29 of the official history it says;

‘Every man was equipped with a rifle, the .30-caliber Enfield rifle used by American troops in World War I. The stock was too long for the small Philippine soldier and the weak extractor often broke and could not be replaced.’

I find the stock being to long difficult to fathom I assume he means the butt. The original British P14 had the butt made in three sizes to accommodate small men and Ghurkhas. The Americans standardised the butt like the Springfield 03. To shorten a butt was and is a unit armourers job and could have been carried out by a village carpenter.

The extractor is a more complicated issue .When the rifle was converted to take the .03-06 Ammunition, the substitute extractor was of an inferior metal to the Enfield 1917 bolt which was of nickel steel. The American replacement extractor when put under extra tension by a ‘hard extraction’ could break, to prevent this the ‘Dough boys’ pushed a bit of rubber under the bolt above the extractor. The British had designed the rifle to be extremely tough on the battle field. Experts on both sides of the Atlantic rate the Enfield’s as probably the most robust rifle ever produced. And the cock on closing device prevented any extra strain being put on the extractor when withdrawing the expended cartridge from the rifle, especially if the cartridge was dirty or damaged before firing in a hot breech. Between the wars the Remington Armoury changed the rifle to ‘cock on opening’. This was to make the action ‘slicker’ I find this strange that the US Army standard for rapid fire was 5 to 10 aimed shots a minute the British standard was 15 to 20 aimed shots with many professional soldier achieving 30.

Rich your website on the demise of the Enfield rifle is to say the least very inaccurate. I find it odd to find that the decision deciding the fate of the USA’s battle rifle was decided on a target range and not from experience on the battle fields of France. The Enfield P14 had been in service with the BA since 1914 as a sniper rifle and continued as such until 1943. Of coarse the Springfield original sights were changed in 1919 to the one similar to the Enfield and moved to above the magazine charger guide, to the rear of the breech like the Enfield. The small of the Butt of the Springfield was also changed to the more ergonomic ‘British Pistol Grip Butt’ of the Enfield ( allows better trigger manipulation and therefore accuracy). The heavier barrel of the Enfield was more accurate over longer ranges than the Springfield.. The change of the Enfield to cock on opening in the 20s and 30s made the rifle more acceptable on the range but disastrous on the battlefield, especially when the official history (above) points out the problems with inferior ammunition


http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/dbrifle.htm I cannot see any problems with the Enfield, do you see that there is a comparison between the PA and the Dough boys regarding training


http://www.odcmp.org/503/rifle.pdf - The shooting competition referred to in this article took place approximately 4 months before the end of the war and before the US Army had been in a major battle, apart from those serving with the British and French

In conclusion , it would seem obvious to any but the most casual observer That if the US had have taken its responsibilities to the Philippines more seriously and treated them the same as the National Guard on the mainland the PA would have been better armed and equipped The reorganisation by Macarthur created problem. The surplus of men were formed into new units. If the original Regiments, Battalions, Companies and Platoons were recruited along ethnic lines, surely disbanding sub units of any size and distributing the men among units of a different ethnic background would have created language problems especially when the language problems seem to have arisen after the mobilisation of 1941. But really are the rifle and language problems perhaps a myth to cover the overall poor management of the PA. Perhaps a PA of fewer divisions rather than spreading the better trained men thinner. Incorporating the PS into the PA would have ensured that the PA had a backbone of skilled experienced soldiers in every unit. What ever arguments against the amalgamation of the PA, PC and PS, the outcome in 1941 could not have been any worse for the PA.

During the whole period of the development of the PA Macarthur, Eisenhower and Orr until his death, in their reports never reported anything that would indicate that the PA would not be able to able to defend itself and the Philippines in fact it seems that there were no reports that were anything but complimentry about the fledgling Army.
Last edited by Lightbob on 07 Oct 2010, 01:03, edited 1 time in total.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#129

Post by Delta Tank » 06 Oct 2010, 14:48

Lightbob wrote:Mike said;
I believe Rich was quoting the official history, cited above. You should read it, it has lots of facts that will educate you
Lightbob wrote;
Regarding official histories I have not read one that has not been challenged by subsequent Historians. Not that the original authos did not think they had written a truthful history but as governments realease information the original official history becomes out dated and has to be revised.
Source please!! You owe me a couple other sources from your previous posts.

Mike

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

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#130

Post by Fatboy Coxy » 06 Oct 2010, 22:03

Lightbob, could you start a new thread about the Phillipines Army not being up to the job, I might get to see a post here that talks about the surprising fall of Singapore :wink:

Thanks

Steve
Regards
Fatboy Coxy

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

Beatnik
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 16 May 2007, 13:22
Location: Australia

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#131

Post by Beatnik » 05 Dec 2010, 11:24

I urge all forum members when judging the British failings in Malaya to study the activities of the Indian Army battalions there.
There were killings of British officers, large scale surrender to the Japanese, up to entire battalions and general insurrection well before the surrender.
These battalions went over to form the Indian National Army in support of the Japanese who promised riddance of the British colonial masters in India
Orders were issued by command headquarters to summarily shoot any dissidents causing problems in the field of operations.
This whole failure of a very significant proportion of the British Forces in Malaya never seems to be acknowledged as a major contribution to the overall debacle.
Obviously it was politically incorrect at the time to mention this traitorous (to the British) Indian behaviour when there were serious insurrections back in India.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#132

Post by Delta Tank » 05 Dec 2010, 16:22

Beatnik wrote:I urge all forum members when judging the British failings in Malaya to study the activities of the Indian Army battalions there.
There were killings of British officers, large scale surrender to the Japanese, up to entire battalions and general insurrection well before the surrender.
These battalions went over to form the Indian National Army in support of the Japanese who promised riddance of the British colonial masters in India
Orders were issued by command headquarters to summarily shoot any dissidents causing problems in the field of operations.
This whole failure of a very significant proportion of the British Forces in Malaya never seems to be acknowledged as a major contribution to the overall debacle.
Obviously it was politically incorrect at the time to mention this traitorous (to the British) Indian behaviour when there were serious insurrections back in India.
Beatnik,

That is interesting! Do any books recount this insurrection?

Mike

User avatar
Barry Graham
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 25 Nov 2004, 06:59
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#133

Post by Barry Graham » 06 Dec 2010, 01:47

----------------
The Forgotten Army
India's Armed Struggle for Independence
by Peter Ward Fay. Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan Press, 1993. ix, 573 pp.

The book focuses on an important but much neglected subject in modern Indian history, namely the creation, development and armed struggle of the Indian National Army (I.N.A.), which was formed from units of British-Indian troops who surrendered to the Japanese in Malaya and Singapore and Indian civilians living in that region.
---------------
Directly related to this topic:-
The Battle for Singapore
The true story of the greatest catastrophe of World War II
by Peter Thompson, Portrait, 2005. 678 pp.

A full and objective account of the fall of Singapore through the eyes of the civil and military administration, soldiers and the civil population this book uncovers the uncomfortable truths.

----------------
Barry Graham
Melbourne, Australia

User avatar
Markus Becker
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 27 Apr 2005, 18:09
Location: Germany

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#134

Post by Markus Becker » 06 Dec 2010, 02:27

Beatnik wrote:I urge all forum members when judging the British failings in Malaya to study the activities of the Indian Army battalions there.
There were killings of British officers, large scale surrender to the Japanese, up to entire battalions and general insurrection well before the surrender.
These battalions went over to form the Indian National Army in support of the Japanese who promised riddance of the British colonial masters in India
That was the result of sending very poorly trained troops into harms way. On the Burma front Indian troops that were well trained and well supported beat the hell out of the IJA. And I´m also thinking the men who joined the INA mainly did so to get out of the japanese POW camps. In "Defeat to Victory" Bill Slim writes that the soldiers of the INA were more interested in surrendering to his forces than fighting them. :lol:

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

Re: The surprising fall of Singapore

#135

Post by Peter H » 06 Dec 2010, 04:30

1942:

Battle of Christmas Island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Christmas_Island
Indian troops, apparently believing Japanese propaganda concerning the liberation of India from British rule, mutinied and killed their sleeping British superiors on 10 March 1942, then locked up the District Officer and the few other European inhabitants of the island pending an execution that apparently was thwarted by the Japanese occupation.
The Cocos Mutiny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocos_Islands_Mutiny
...the mutiny was defeated after the Ceylonese failed to seize control of the islands. Many mutineers were punished, and the three ringleaders were executed; they were the only British Commonwealth servicemen to be executed for mutiny during the Second World War.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”