I agree. All warships were although vulnerable without aerial support so it was a rather hastily made desicion to sent battle ships towards Japanese especially when aerial reconnaissance was also ineffective.David C. Clarke wrote:Hi Harri, if I recall correctly, the British had intended to send an aircraft carrier with Force Z, but the carrier ran aground (I think in the West Indies) and wasn't available. Churchill believed that the stationing of two batleships in the Singapore area would make the Japanese cautious. (I don't think he quite caught what they were up against should Japan decide to invade.)
I don't remember the name of the British aircraft carrier. Was it HMS Eagle? (Or was it already sunk?)
I'm not quite sure what fighters British carrier had at that time. Fairey Fulmars? I think they would have been faster than Japanese twin engined torpedo bombers?David C. Clarke wrote:I've read about the final battle of Prince of Wales and Repulse. The ships fought with the customary Brtish naval bravery, but again, they had no idea of the potential of Japanese land-based torpedo planes. The planes used were faster than anything the ships had trained against and their tactics were excellent.
I think British anti-tank capabilities were at least in sufficient level. They for sure had Boys AT rifles and 2 pdr. AT guns. I have no idea how many tanks British had but I have a slight idea that some of them were Matilda IIs. Perhaps someone has more info on both Japanese and British armour?David C. Clarke wrote:But what really intrigues me is the land battles, which appear to have been waged pretty economically by the Japanese. This was one of the few times that Japanese tanks were used in an effective role with adequate tactics against a Western power.
I have a couple articles on Japanese armor use in Malaysia and they are fascinating.