Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
aghart
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Jun 2011, 20:39
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

#16

Post by aghart » 28 Jul 2011, 22:02

I agree that even a small number of defending fighters could have made all the difference. I think that figures of 12, 18 or more bombers shot down is pushing it a bit though. My main point is that Force Z was lost when POW sustained that one single devestating torpedo hit that crippled her. In that attack, POW was completely suprised by the speed, and height of the Japanese bombers. Despite this, one bomber was shot down and two more slightly damaged (out of nine) by the less than impressive AA defence.

This single attacking force would have attracted the undivided attention of any standing patrol of defending fighters, with the real possibility that chased, harried, and attacked by fighters the attack could well have failed to score "that critical" or any other hit on the flagship, leaving POW at full efficency to face the next waves of attackers.

Given the opportunity of a second chance, and the instant experience just received of Japanese capabilities, I cannot believe that POW would not be better prepared for the next batch of torpedo aircraft, with her AA defence providing a more effective shield. Yes, both ships could still have been sunk, anything is possible but with the Japanese having to attack two fast ships instead of one fast ship and one hulk, a small number of defending fighters causing aggravation,a different outcome is still possible. Remember, most of the bombers had only just arrived in Indo China, and (according to Patrick Mahony & Martin Middlebrook's acclaimed book, Battleship) there were "no" spare torpedoes, for a second series of attacks.

As to my previous statement about shooting down the Japanese recce plane and preventing the battle in the first place, The Japanese shot down a single Catalina flying boat before hostilities commenced, causing the british to be blind. If Lt Hoshai was shot down by a standing patrol of Buffalo's before he spotted or could transmit the location of Force Z, then this battle would not have been fought, it really is as simple as that, and Admiral Phillips must be held responsible for that. Even if he did not call for fighters, he should have told Singapore where he was and what was happening, his failure at this point to tell Singapore that he was off Kuantan and could find no evidence of a Japanese landing ( oh and by the way I'm being observed by an enemy recce aircraft) is a staggering failing.

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

Re: Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

#17

Post by aghart » 16 Jan 2014, 09:01

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/inte ... onokaw.htm

The above link takes you the interrogation in 1945 of one of the Japanese pilots involved in the attack on Force Z. In it he states that Japanese fighters arrived "too late" to be involved in the action. As no Japanese fighters actually turned up I think it is safe to assume that they were recalled before reaching the scene because the ships had been sunk and the action over. Further evidence that had force Z had fighter cover either RAF or a carrier, the defending fighters would not have had to deal with any Zero's during the historical timeline of the attacks. The Zero's stayed on the ground and were scrambled only when Force Z was spotted, by then it was too late for the Zero's to reach the battle scene during the action.

When the Zero's do arrive any defending fighters are going to be in trouble, but the vast majority of bombers would be on their way home by that point with no spare torpedoes waiting for them in Indo China. So could the Hurricane and Fulmar fighters free from interference from enemy fighters have saved Force Z? My view is yes, the carrier would be the prime target and would likely be sunk but POW and Repulse I'm sure would get back to Singapore.
Last edited by aghart on 16 Jan 2014, 19:21, edited 1 time in total.


Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

#18

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 16 Jan 2014, 14:14

The closest example I can think of would be the attack of the Japanese 'Betty' bombers on the USS Lexington in February 1942. Between the AAA fires and seven fighters (one with jammed guns) the entire bomber group of seventeen Bettys was massacred. None released bombs within the danger zone to the USN ships, only four of the 17 left the battle scene and none of those four were flight worthy afterwards.

With a similar or larger size AAA battery, & a similar number or more interceptors present for the Brits a unescorted Japanese bomber attack would have been in trouble.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

#19

Post by glenn239 » 24 Jan 2014, 19:28

Lundstrom's First Team has a detailed account on the attack on Lexington. IIRC, both groups of G4M bombers made aimed drops on the Lexington. IIRC, the first group was already heavily attrited and may have bombed poorly. The second group was relatively more intact and made a deliberate, aimed drop by 4 or 5 aircraft.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

#20

Post by Takao » 25 Jan 2014, 00:15

Bruce Gamble also covers the Lexington action in the 2nd book of his Rabaul trilogy, "Fortress Rabau: The Battle for the Southwest Pacific, January 1941 - April 1943". Both Rikko formations had been pretty thoroughly chewed up before reaching their release point, the 2nd Chutai attacked first and had only 4 bombers reach their release point, and then the 1st Chutai had only 3 bombers drop on Lexington(with a 4th bomber dropping on the heavy cruiser Minneapolis).

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

#21

Post by glenn239 » 25 Jan 2014, 17:28

Takao wrote:Bruce Gamble also covers the Lexington action in the 2nd book of his Rabaul trilogy, "Fortress Rabau: The Battle for the Southwest Pacific, January 1941 - April 1943". Both Rikko formations had been pretty thoroughly chewed up before reaching their release point, the 2nd Chutai attacked first and had only 4 bombers reach their release point, and then the 1st Chutai had only 3 bombers drop on Lexington(with a 4th bomber dropping on the heavy cruiser Minneapolis).
That looks about right, but there was also the kamikaze attack where the lead bomber just missed Lexington. At any rate,

None released bombs within the danger zone to the USN ships

Is not correct.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

#22

Post by Takao » 26 Jan 2014, 00:53

There were two taiatari attacks, the first was made by Lt. Masayoshi Nakagawa managed to get his crippled bomber within a few dozen yards of the Lexington before crashing into the sea. The second was by the Hikotaicho of the group, Lt. Commander Takuzo Ito, but his Rikko was to severely damaged, it was reported to be completely missing an engine, to track the Lexington, and his stern attack missed with the aircraft crashing about a mile off the port bow.

As to the bombs not being released in the "danger zone", one of the 1st Chutai's bombs did land close enough to shower the Lexington with shrapnel.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

#23

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 27 Jan 2014, 03:20

My apologies guys. The idea of "Danger Zone" I was using was a lot narrower than what appears to be that used here.

Golden Diamonds
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 06:03

Re: Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

#24

Post by Golden Diamonds » 14 Feb 2014, 06:52

What bothers me is how the British did not shoot down more Japanese planes considering the fact that they had combat experience against German and Italian aircraft plus the Japanese planes were more prone to be destroy since they had little or no armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks.

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

Re: Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

#25

Post by aghart » 24 Jul 2014, 14:32

The British AA defence was based on the brand new 5.25 DP guns aboard POW, which although excellent against high level bombers, were shown to be poor at dealing with low, fast moving targets. The smaller 40mm "pom pom" guns suffered from a batch of defective ammo which limited their effectiveness and there was only 1x 40mm Bofors gun on POW and none on Repulse. The smaller 20mm and .50 guns were simply no use at the ranges the Japanese dropped their torpedoes. In Dec 1941 it was still not understood that large calibre guns were not the best form of shipborne AA defence. Only with the experience of Force Z and other ships did "the penny drop" and large numbers of quick firing 40mm guns were then put on major warships.

It must also be noted that on 10th December 1941 Force Z faced the best trained, best equipped, most professional Torpedo Bomber force on the planet at that time. The Germans and Italians were "second rate" when it came to Torpedo bombing, the trouble is no one realised that until 10th December 1941.

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

Re: Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

#26

Post by steverodgers801 » 24 Jul 2014, 20:10

The POW also suffered a hit early that rendered its AA useless.

General91
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 21 Jun 2016, 23:23
Location: America

Re: Loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse

#27

Post by General91 » 14 Jul 2016, 06:56

aghart wrote:The British AA defence was based on the brand new 5.25 DP guns aboard POW, which although excellent against high level bombers, were shown to be poor at dealing with low, fast moving targets. The smaller 40mm "pom pom" guns suffered from a batch of defective ammo which limited their effectiveness and there was only 1x 40mm Bofors gun on POW and none on Repulse. The smaller 20mm and .50 guns were simply no use at the ranges the Japanese dropped their torpedoes. In Dec 1941 it was still not understood that large calibre guns were not the best form of shipborne AA defence. Only with the experience of Force Z and other ships did "the penny drop" and large numbers of quick firing 40mm guns were then put on major warships.

It must also be noted that on 10th December 1941 Force Z faced the best trained, best equipped, most professional Torpedo Bomber force on the planet at that time. The Germans and Italians were "second rate" when it came to Torpedo bombing, the trouble is no one realized that until 10th December 1941.
Very good points.
aghart wrote:I agree that even a small number of defending fighters could have made all the difference. I think that figures of 12, 18 or more bombers shot down is pushing it a bit though. My main point is that Force Z was lost when POW sustained that one single devestating torpedo hit that crippled her. In that attack, POW was completely suprised by the speed, and height of the Japanese bombers. Despite this, one bomber was shot down and two more slightly damaged (out of nine) by the less than impressive AA defence.

This single attacking force would have attracted the undivided attention of any standing patrol of defending fighters, with the real possibility that chased, harried, and attacked by fighters the attack could well have failed to score "that critical" or any other hit on the flagship, leaving POW at full efficiency to face the next waves of attackers.

Given the opportunity of a second chance, and the instant experience just received of Japanese capabilities, I cannot believe that POW would not be better prepared for the next batch of torpedo aircraft, with her AA defence providing a more effective shield. Yes, both ships could still have been sunk, anything is possible but with the Japanese having to attack two fast ships instead of one fast ship and one hulk, a small number of defending fighters causing aggravation,a different outcome is still possible. Remember, most of the bombers had only just arrived in Indo China, and (according to Patrick Mahony & Martin Middlebrook's acclaimed book, Battleship) there were "no" spare torpedoes, for a second series of attacks.

As to my previous statement about shooting down the Japanese recce plane and preventing the battle in the first place, The Japanese shot down a single Catalina flying boat before hostilities commenced, causing the british to be blind. If Lt Hoshai was shot down by a standing patrol of Buffalo's before he spotted or could transmit the location of Force Z, then this battle would not have been fought, it really is as simple as that, and Admiral Phillips must be held responsible for that. Even if he did not call for fighters, he should have told Singapore where he was and what was happening, his failure at this point to tell Singapore that he was off Kuantan and could find no evidence of a Japanese landing ( oh and by the way I'm being observed by an enemy recce aircraft) is a staggering failing.
While I agree shooting down the recon plane may have prevented the battle all together, I am not so sure about defending fighters saving Repulse or Prince of Wales. 6-8 downed bombers wont really save the ships. The main thing that killed these BBs was the torpedo bombers. Even if the 6-8 bombers shot down were the ones carrying the torpedoes, how do you know these are the ones that actually hit Repulse and/or POW?

From wikipedia on the sinking of the Repulse and Prince of Wales:
At around 1140, 17 Nell torpedo bombers (two squadrons from the Genzan Air Group) approached the two capital ships. Eight concentrated on Repulse, while nine attacked Prince of Wales, sending eight torpedoes speeding towards the flagship (one plane aborted its run on Prince of Wales and peeled off and attacked Repulse).[36] This first wave of torpedo attackers however managed only one, ultimately catastrophic, torpedo hit on Prince of Wales (and none on Repulse), right where her outer port propeller shaft exited the hull. This single torpedo hit had devastating effects. First, it caused an 11.5-degree list to port,[35] resulting in the starboard 5.25-inch anti-aircraft turrets being unable to depress low enough to engage the attackers. Furthermore, power to Prince of Wales' aft[35] 5.25 inch dual-purpose turrets was cut, leaving her unable to effectively counter further attacks. Power loss to her pumps meant an inability to pump out the in-rushing flood water faster than it was entering the breached hull. The torpedo damage also denied her much of her auxiliary electrical power, vital for internal communications, ventilation, steering gear, and pumps, and for training and elevation of the 5.25-inch and 2-pounder gun mounts. All but S1 and S2 5.25 inch turrets were almost unmanageable, a factor compounded by the list, rendering their crews unable even to drag them round manually using chains. The crews also had difficulty bringing the heavy 2-pounder mountings into manual operation. The extensive internal flooding and shaft damage caused the shutting down of the inboard port propeller shaft, leaving the ship under the power of only the starboard engines and able to make just 15 knots at best. With her electric steering unresponsive, the ship was virtually unmanageable.
(Emphasis added).

Now that was just the first wave. Here's the second:
Another torpedo attack was carried out by Betty bombers of the Kanoya Air Group at approximately 1220,[41] and Prince of Wales was hit by another three torpedoes on her starboard side (some historical accounts[37] state four hits, but an extensive 2007 survey of the hull of the wreck by divers proved there was only three); one at the very bow, one opposite B main gun turret, and one abaft Y turret which not only punctured the hull but bent the outer starboard propeller shaft inboard and over the inner shaft, stopping it instantly.[42] At the same time as this last torpedo attack developed against Prince of Wales, planes from the Kanoya Air Group also attacked Repulse from both starboard and port. Repulse, which had dodged 19 torpedoes so far, was caught in this Japanese pincer attack and was hit on the port side by one torpedo. Within minutes, further attacks resulted in at least three more torpedoes striking Repulse.[43] Repulse did not have the anti-torpedo blisters her sister Renown had received, and also did not have a modern battleship's internal waterproof compartmentalization and subdivision. She had been hit seriously then, and Captain William Tennant soon ordered the crew overboard; Repulse listed heavily to port over a period of about six minutes[44] and finally rolled over, settled by the head, and sank at 1233 with heavy casualties.[45]
(Emphasis added).

And the end result?
The Japanese had achieved eight torpedo hits, four each on Prince of Wales[48] and Repulse,[49][50] out of 49 torpedoes, while losing only three aircraft during the attack itself
- wikipedia (Emphasis added).

So 8 hits out of 49 torpedoes. Unreasonably assuming the fighters completely ignore the high level bombers, which 8 or even 12 torpedo planes are being shot down? You could shoot down 20 torpedo planes, and if they are among the 26 that missed, then POW and Repulse still sink. And there is no reason the fighters would ignore high level bombers and focus exclusively on the torpedo bombers. What is the statistical probability that the fighters correctly shoot down 8 of the right bombers out of the 88 available targets? Even with the limited fighter cover available flying overhead, these battleships were doomed.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”