Improve the Singapore Strategy

MatthewB

Banned
Fund German liberal opposition to prop up a UK friendly Germany, so that the "Main Fleet to Singapore" strategy can realised. There is no point in reinforcement the Singaporean garrison if a fleet is not there to take advantage of the Naval Base. One cannot "hold" SLOCs, one need to actively engage the enemy to ensure that own SLOCs are not interfered. For that, the fleet must be sent to Singapore in even of war with Japan.

The problem is that the British Empire was stretched thin.
I never understood why a fleet couldn’t be stationed at Singapore, especially before war started in Europe. A trio of Revenge class, Hermes and Argus, four cruisers and six destroyers, plus a submarine flotilla and smaller patrol craft, plus much of the RAN fleet. This is hardly a dent in the RN’s Sept. 1939 capability. That’s what I’d spend the money on, building a smaller support port at Singapore and spend on sending and keeping ships at Singapore.
 
I never understood why a fleet couldn’t be stationed at Singapore, especially before war started in Europe. A trio of Revenge class, Hermes and Argus, four cruisers and six destroyers, plus a submarine flotilla and smaller patrol craft, plus much of the RAN fleet. This is hardly a dent in the RN’s Sept. 1939 capability. That’s what I’d spend the money on, building a smaller support port at Singapore and spend on sending and keeping ships at Singapore.

While the total no. of RN vessels seemed enough, one need to consider that some of the vessels would be out of range, in transit or in mainteinance.

Moreover, the fleet you propose would be the perfect size to attract the IJN but not sufficient to deter it.
 
I never understood why a fleet couldn’t be stationed at Singapore, especially before war started in Europe.
Why bother moving a fleet?
- Its far cheaper to keep in UK as the crew and suppliers are all at home
- A fleet doesn't take long to move so it not much more of a deterrent than one the other side of the world if Japan thinks the base strategy would work.
I would far rather have better rebuilt ships in England than old ones in Singapore and I think they would deter IJN more.

- The entire problem of the WNT/LNT/AGNT ratios is that RN cant expect to deploy a large force to the east if anything is threatening it in europe.
15/15/9/5/5/5.25
So RN would need to hold back in europe at least 5+1 spare to cover a ship in dock to defend UK, assuming 1 enemy
This only leaves 9 ships but since the enemy will pick the time up to two ships might be in long refit so actually 7 ships to head east.
7 ships to fight 9 IJN looks bad but might be sufficient deterrent, but.......
Not all ships are really created equal and once the new post WNT ships come on line the large RN fleet is almost entirely block obsolescent ie even with the QE rebuilds they cant be expected to fight new large ships well. this means that the equations will collapse as RN cant out build IJN/RM/KM all at the same time......
 
Last edited:

MatthewB

Banned
Moreover, the fleet you propose would be the perfect size to attract the IJN but not sufficient to deter it.
In the Victorian and Edwardian days, a small naval force was deployed to distant shores to remind the locals of the massive power behind it. However by having nothing at Singapore during the 1930s Britain declared she didn't care.
 

MatthewB

Banned
Why bother moving a fleet?
- Its far cheaper to keep in UK as the crew and suppliers are all at home
I do like the idea of forgoing the Singapore base and building more ships.

Let's take the £28 million spent on building the Singapore base and instead build the Singapore class fleet carrier, based on Ark Royal (greater CAG) as opposed to the Illustrious class. Ark Royal cost £3 million, not including aircraft, so four of these will be about £12 million. Start building them right after Ark Royal.
 

nbcman

Donor
In the Victorian and Edwardian days, a small naval force was deployed to distant shores to remind the locals of the massive power behind it. However by having nothing at Singapore during the 1930s Britain declared she didn't care.
There wasn't 'nothing' based in Singapore and in the China Station in Sept 1939. There were 3 RN CAs, 1 CL, 1 CVL, and 13 DDs there. In July 1941, China Force was smaller (3 CLs and 5 DDs) but they were backed up with the East Indies Command (1 CVL, 4 CA, and 6 CL), although some of these ships were in repair or refitting. However, there was nothing there in the late 1930s or early 1940s that could contest the IJN.

EDIT: The above was extracted from this excellent site that has snapshots of the locations of the RN and other navies during WW2 as well as a day to day record of movements for the RN.
http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-3900Intro.htm
 
I do like the idea of forgoing the Singapore base and building more ships.

Let's take the £28 million spent on building the Singapore base and instead build the Singapore class fleet carrier, based on Ark Royal (greater CAG) as opposed to the Illustrious class. Ark Royal cost £3 million, not including aircraft, so four of these will be about £12 million. Start building them right after Ark Royal.
I think you would need to build some merchants (due to political anti warship climate and to act as the base) but don't worry they are even cheaper, from national archives.
the building of 37 vessels aggregating approximately 141,000 tons gross, at an estimated cost of £2,757,000, of which £2,518,000 will be lent to applicants. Eighteen of the proposed new vessels are motor tramp vessels and include 5 small tramps for near Continental trade. The remaining 19 vessels, which include 5 cargo liners,
1935 http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-24-257-cp-35-214.pdf
 
An unrebuilt Revenge is also not much of a deterrent to the IJN by 1941. While she still has teeth in the form of her excellent 15" guns, she's slower than anything the IJN has, the R-class' bulges are too small to be an effective torpredo defence, and they didn't have the benefit of the full reconstructions that the Fuso and Ise classes got.

What the R class ships are good at, however, are keeping PBs and the Ugly Twins away from convoys by providing distant cover.
 
What about building floating docks, tenders & repair ships and subsidising fast civilian tankers rather than a single base create a fleet train that could be moved to any anchorage?
This will of course be used in the west come 39 but might sufficiently help GB that come 41 more stuff is available to hold the east and at least it will not all fall into IJN hands?

My understanding is that its a question of scale. I am trying to remember just how big the force was planned to be in the 30s, but we are talking a force big enough to match the Japanese. No one had that sort of supply capacity anywhere. The USN equivalent fleet train in 1945 was simply bonkers, which only a wartime US could contemplate.


Didn't see this one.
I do like the idea of forgoing the Singapore base and building more ships.

Let's take the £28 million spent on building the Singapore base and instead build the Singapore class fleet carrier, based on Ark Royal (greater CAG) as opposed to the Illustrious class. Ark Royal cost £3 million, not including aircraft, so four of these will be about £12 million. Start building them right after Ark Royal.

The threat in 1937 is Italy. Ie, the Med. Ie, facing hordes of land based aircraft with inferior carrier based fighters* and no radar. There are reasons the RN gave up on Pacific carriers after Ark Royal. The RN planners had serious challenges picking the right threat leading up to 1939.

And then how are you going to operate the extra ships without oil? In 1920 there were no oil tanks east of Aden. A fleet base had to be built somewhere if the RN wanted to operate there. And that fleet base needed to be defended until the Home Fleet could come to the rescue.



*Engine tech means carrier fighters can't match land fighters till the mid 40s.
 
Last edited:
My point of view.


In order for to understand the Singapore Strategy, we must look what is the strategy about. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_strategy, we find many answer but since this is a What If question, I came to believe if Australia had the resources to build up its military strength like aircraft, tanks, and army well maybe Singapore could have been better protected. Also if the other dominions would have participated like New Zealand, Canada, and Hong Kong, than Singapore would have been better protected.

There are two points which I would discuss in order for Singapore to be a successful fortress.

1) The air force: If Australia would have had early aircraft like bombers and fighters, then it would have been a good advantage for Singapore. Australia should have started to look up for its protection from the air against Japan and not wait for UK to send help. Now where would the planes be? Easy looking up many fighters that weren’t tested right, I found a good fighter that could have been useful for that roll. The Gloster F.5/34 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.5/34) was a good fighter that was similar to the Japanese Zero. Imagine if Singapore had 4 squadron of this fighter plus other fighters squadron from the UK or the Dominions, then a squadron of 8 to 10 fighters would have held the Japanese. I would say 16 fighters per squadron plus 16 more in reserves. That would be a total of 80 fighters of Gloster F.5/34. The name of this plane has been listed as Griffon, Gallant, Gauntlet, Guardian, Grendal, Gannet, Generic, and Gawain.

2) Tanks: I won’t say Australia would not be able to construct tanks by early 1939 but one country would have been able to do it. Canada had a couple of facilities to build the Valentine tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_tank) by early 1940. The only thing was that to construct a tank, it took months to build. But if the government would have put a leader to get the tanks by early 1941, well by November I would say a very good brigade would have been station in Singapore.
 
My point of view.


In order for to understand the Singapore Strategy, we must look what is the strategy about. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_strategy, we find many answer but since this is a What If question, I came to believe if Australia had the resources to build up its military strength like aircraft, tanks, and army well maybe Singapore could have been better protected. Also if the other dominions would have participated like New Zealand, Canada, and Hong Kong, than Singapore would have been better protected.

There are two points which I would discuss in order for Singapore to be a successful fortress.

1) The air force: If Australia would have had early aircraft like bombers and fighters, then it would have been a good advantage for Singapore. Australia should have started to look up for its protection from the air against Japan and not wait for UK to send help. Now where would the planes be? Easy looking up many fighters that weren’t tested right, I found a good fighter that could have been useful for that roll. The Gloster F.5/34 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.5/34) was a good fighter that was similar to the Japanese Zero. Imagine if Singapore had 4 squadron of this fighter plus other fighters squadron from the UK or the Dominions, then a squadron of 8 to 10 fighters would have held the Japanese. I would say 16 fighters per squadron plus 16 more in reserves. That would be a total of 80 fighters of Gloster F.5/34. The name of this plane has been listed as Griffon, Gallant, Gauntlet, Guardian, Grendal, Gannet, Generic, and Gawain.

2) Tanks: I won’t say Australia would not be able to construct tanks by early 1939 but one country would have been able to do it. Canada had a couple of facilities to build the Valentine tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_tank) by early 1940. The only thing was that to construct a tank, it took months to build. But if the government would have put a leader to get the tanks by early 1941, well by November I would say a very good brigade would have been station in Singapore.

Australian forces (with the Exclusion of 8th Division which was in Malaya with 2 of its Brigades and the other split up between Rabaul, Ambon, and Timor) were based/fighting in the Middle east and North Africa as were the New Zealand forces

Canada had 2 Divisions+ in the UK but Government policy forbid them from being used elsewhere - eventually 5 Divisions would be used in the Liberation of Europe

The Canadian Government did send C-Force a 2 Battalion Brigade to help the Garrison at Hong kong - meaning said Garrison was only outnumbered 10 to one instead of 15 to one

Hong Kong cannot be held and has little to no strategic importance to the wider war effort - the best thing to have done is to expand the Hong Kong Regiment and Hong Kong Artillery to be powerful enough to force the Japanese to take the place by force and to be able to hold it long enough to destroy vital facilities and spike guns etc

The rest of the Garrison plus C force (in all about 2 Brigades worth) and the Naval assets (3 light DDs, 6 MTBs and 2 Insect Class Gun Boats) - go to Malaya

As for tanks

The only real way that Australia could provide any sort of AFV I think is if the Valentine tank enters production in the UK earlier than it did (the design was presented to the war office as early as 10th Feb 1938 so an opportunity to stand up production in 'non AFV' producing firms such as railway companies to act as the template!) and then enters production in Canada earlier than it did and then for the design to be picked up by Australia, initially built in low numbers in mid 1941 - and therefore completely butterflying the failed Sentinel tank project and its somewhat Phallic bow machine gun

So C Force arrives in Malaya with a 3rd Battalion with tanks plus sends 150 or so to Australia for the 1st Australian Armoured Division to train with and this formation joins 8th Division in Malaya with Australia's own limited production able to drip feed replacements to the forces in Malaya giving the forces in the region 4 Tank Battalions to add to the 'equation'.

The other issue is aircraft - more fighters and more pilots

I cannot help thinking that there was a greater demand for fighters and pilots elsewhere not to mention any extra planes would likely end up being shipped to the Russians (and tanks for that matter) so all other things being equal extra planes and pilots had they been available are unlikely to have been used to reinforce Malaya

So again I have to fall back on a Political reason to reinforce Malaya and for we need the Australian and New Zealand government's ITTL demanding more action post the Japanese invasion of FIC and this results in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force and the 2nd New Zealand Division being withdrawn back to Malaya and Australia and forming the core of the Imperial defence in the region as well as being provided with more squadrons etc.

This likely results from 2 things

Several British Divisions in the UK are sent to the Middle east/North Africa to replace the Australian And New Zealand forces (and who knows maybe this pressure allows for a Canadian Division to serve 'overseas' at this time).

This provides the region with 4 Tier one Infantry divisions (3 Oz and 1 NZ) not all of it in Malaya - we might see a Brigade level force at the following strategic locations - Rabaul, Ambon, and Timor rather than the ad hoc weak forces OTL

In addition several wings of Spitfires are freed up from Fighter command to reinforce Malta and North Africa at the same time (instead of making fruitless 'stupidly named' fighter sweeps across France and losing 400 planes and most of the pilots in the process) - this frees up several Wings of Hurricanes and P40s for service elsewhere and some of this say 2 fighter wings 1 each of Hurricanes and P40s ends up in Malaya - marginally improving things on the air front in Malaya.

This would all force the IJA to send several more Divisions to attack both Malaya and the Philippines

We are almost certainly going to see Op Matador with feckin bells on likely at Division strength rush the Kra Isthmus and the Landing Zones and additional forces available at Kota Bharu likely defeating the landing attempt being made there
 
I think as usual with Singapore many people are getting way too hung up on the details and losing sight of the big picture.
  1. After WW1 it was pretty obvious that Japan was the major rival and potential threat to the Burma/Malaya/Australia/New Zealand part of the empire
  2. If the empire wasn’t going to protect those countries then what’s the point of the empire? Leaving it to AU/NZ to defend themselves inevitably results in them telling london to forget any about any antipodean contribution to UK defence planning and a likely switch of alliances to the US
  3. Given the need to defend against Japan, no position in the empire makes more sense than Singapore. Closer to India means abandoning defence of AU/NZ, basing off AU puts you too far away from India and exposes the sea lanes too much
  4. Given the geography, a base at Singapore requires an extended glacis. It’s pointless planning for a siege because the purpose of the base is naval and a siege will successfully have neutralised its naval value even if the enemy soldiers can be kept outside the gates of the naval yard.
  5. No sensible defence in depth of the base can be maintained without modern forces from outside Singapore. If those forces are not available then Singapore (and by extension AU/NZ) are very vulnerable indeed.
  6. Even with outside forces available they either need a long lead time to set up infrastructure or else extensive infrastructure needs to be preprepared for them, or an effective defence cannot be mounted.
When Churchill was bossing navy/defence in the twenties he had a big dossier spelling all this out and spent some time telling the treasury etc how critical all this was to the safety of the empire. Then he got moved to Be Chancellor and spent many years repeatedly receiving versions of that exact same report and sending it back with “LOL no, too expensive, ten year rule”. Then it was all too late.

OTL as has been pointed out when rearmament came there weren’t even enough resources available to deter Germany properly and Singapore was skimped.


Spend less than OTL on Singapore and AU/NZ take their ball and go home, unless you somehow lock the diverted money into their defence. The obvious way is by giving them the diverted money for the RAN/RNZN but then you have the catch-22 that this won’t help them defend against Japan without a secure well defended base somewhere around the area of Singapore.

No matter what you do it always comes back to the hard choice of weakening the European or Med theatre to strengthen the Far East, or vice versa. So long as policy is run from london you are never going to get a solid Singapore without dramatically more resources or weaker threats in Europe.
 

Riain

Banned
Australia can't send any land forces to Singapore because Australia didn't have a regular army init intil 1939 when it formed the 200 man darwin mobile force. The role of the regular army was to train and provide specific force for the militia, which could not serve outside Australia.
 
Australia can't send any land forces to Singapore because Australia didn't have a regular army init intil 1939 when it formed the 200 man darwin mobile force. The role of the regular army was to train and provide specific force for the militia, which could not serve outside Australia.

No but it can make plans to raise a force to send - after all it did raise the 2nd AIF which by 1941 was 4 very powerful Infantry Divisions and a forming Armored Division - plus it sent individual Battalions and Companies formed from the Militia to serve overseas despite the ruling barring Militia from overseas service!

If the Australian Government and the NZ Government push harder earlier for a more robust defense of the region then I can easily see the Core of any Malayan Defense Strategy being based around the 2nd AIF and NZ forces with those units based in the Middle east and North Africa being replaced by British and Possibly Canadian Divisions (of which there was 29 formed and training in the UK in 1941)

An attitude that the Defense of Australia (and the entire region for that matter) starts at the Kra Isthmus would have to prevail or this to become a reality.

Again this I think is the only way for this to happen as otherwise the reality is that the Commonwealth forces are already fighting 3 opponents (Germany, Italy and Vichy France) and the need to supply those forces as well as sending what ever they could spare to Russia - was more important than lavishly preparing for a war against the Japanese which might not occur.
 
You might be able to hold Malaya if you sit firmly on the defensive in North Africa and refrain from taking easy victories against Italy. Simply hold Egypt and send everything spare East.

But even then the reality is that supporting the Soviets in autumn 1941 is more important than sending materiel to the strategic backwater of Malaya.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
You might be able to hold Malaya if you sit firmly on the defensive in North Africa and refrain from taking easy victories against Italy. Simply hold Egypt and send everything spare East.

But even then the reality is that supporting the Soviets in autumn 1941 is more important than sending materiel to the strategic backwater of Malaya.
I realise that the early lend lease to Russia was important to the defence of Moscow, but defending London from a position in Moscow is an even greater leap of strategic defence in depth than Singapore. Why not some Hurricanes and Valentine's?

Britain to increase spending on arms | 1930-1939




Monday 4 March 1935
guardian.co.uk



In a major reversal of rearmament policy Britain today announced new expansion plans for its army, navy and air force. The plans, in a defence white paper, are to demonstrate that Britain does not take lightly Germany's continuing rearmament.

The white paper calls for an enlarged fleet, improved defences for warships against air attack, more aircraft for the RAF and new coastal and anti-aircraft defences. The emphasis on air defence follows fears that Britain is an easy target for cross-Channel air raids.

Explaining the government's policy shift Stanley Baldwin said: "Our attempt to lead the world towards disarmament by unilateral example has failed." German rearmament now threatened to put peace at peril. Despite claims by Germany's leaders that they wanted peace, Britain could not ignore the way Germany's forces are constantly being mobilised, he added.

Britain's new stance on the eve of an important Anglo-German meeting in Berlin is a victory for those in the government who believe in the healing effects of the drums of war now beginning to sound more loudly across Europe. At the Berlin meeting they want Hitler left in no doubt about how strongly Britain feels about German rearmament.
Even with this European focus, much was put into air bases and sea fortification in Malaya and Singapore. A lot of the trouble during WW2 was manning and equipment rather than infrastructure. Britain was logistically overstretched. Indian and ANZaC resources kept out of the Med would be far more effective closer to home, as long as support from Blighty around Africa wasn't too great.
 
Last edited:
The problem was the civilian and military leadership of Malaya, despite detail deficiencies with the forces deployed. Governor Shelton needed to facilitate large scale exercises of the troops and Percival needed to conduct them. Percival needed to develop plans for Operation Matador using the forces he had rather than the forces he wanted. Phillips needed to not blunder blindly around the south china sea.

If these things were done the guns of Singapore could have been a great defensive asset.

All the good stuff in the world is useless without the right person in command.

This is one of those cases where a handful of men at the top did make the difference. The Govenor, Percival, and the corps commanders were outclassed in ability by Yamashita & his commanders. The latter saw clearly what he had to attempt, to deal with larger enemy numbers, fire power, general combat power... Percival & company could not cope with the situation they were handed. They presented their weaknesses to the attacker, and failed to take advantage of their strengths vs the enemy weaknesses. Call it bad decisions, willful ignorance, ineptitude, whatever.

Pile on quality in your battalions, send futuristic AT guns, provide the latest electronic gizmos, change grand strategy elsewhere in the Empire. Eventually you can create a Commonwealth force that will win no matter how badly commanded. A super heavyweight boxer can asorb blows and bludgeon a Bantam weight, even if his coach is clueless. But, why not fight smart?
 
Last edited:

MatthewB

Banned
The problem was the civilian and military leadership of Malaya, despite detail deficiencies with the forces deployed. Governor Shelton needed to facilitate large scale exercises of the troops and Percival needed to conduct them. Percival needed to develop plans for Operation Matador using the forces he had rather than the forces he wanted. Phillips needed to not blunder blindly around the south china sea.

If these things were done the guns of Singapore could have been a great defensive asset.
In early 1940, put Monty in charge of Malaya's defence and Sommerville in command of the Far East Fleet. Give Shelton the toss if he won't cooperate.

This of course needs to be understood as a coming battle against huge odds, rather than a colonial backwater where discredited officers are sent, that Monty might perceive it is.
 
Top