Malaya What If

[ArtosStark]

What you have to understand is that in Australia there were essentially two armies between the wars. The Regular army and the Militia army. The first were confined essentially to fortress and staff roles and the second to basically field roles. The army was further divided, we had the AIF and the militia. The AIF was formed in wartime to be able to deploy overseas on "Imperial duties" and the militia for home duties. The AIF was paid slightly better than the Militia. The regular army was looked down upon by the militia, which was made up of "citizen-soldiers" - basically part-timers and who reserved to themselves most of the command roles. In Australia we also had a long history of the "larrikin" - the roustabout civilian who ran around being trouble to his superiors and but essentially did the right thing in the end. Bennett believed he was better than most people, so good that he fled Singapore because he believed he was going to head the AIF (Australian Imperial Force). To Americans this must sound strange and even to the British it is inexplicable but to Australians it is normal. After WWII ended we established our first regular infantry force the Royal Australia Regiment but that wasn't 1945.

The Contempt of citizen-soldiers for Regulars was a strong part of Canadian History too. Especially so up to the First World War but actually maintained by those in charge of our tiny regular force between wars (McNaughton basically only promoted engineers and artillerymen as those were the only troops he thought useful as Reg force).

Even in Canada though, we would consider Bennetts actions heinous were one of ours to do the same.

 

[Rickshaw]

The Contempt of citizen-soldiers for Regulars was a strong part of Canadian History too. Especially so up to the First World War but actually maintained by those in charge of our tiny regular force between wars (McNaughton basically only promoted engineers and artillerymen as those were the only troops he thought useful as Reg force).

Even in Canada though, we would consider Bennetts actions heinous were one of ours to do the same.

I consider his actions reprehensible. He was an ego driven man, without a doubt, but then many leaders in wartime were - Macarthur, Patton, Montgomery, etc. The major difference between Bennett and them though, was that they won the war and Bennett essentially lost it.

 

[Ltlconf]

I consider his actions reprehensible. He was an ego driven man, without a doubt, but then many leaders in wartime were - Macarthur, Patton, Montgomery, etc. The major difference between Bennett and them though, was that they won the war and Bennett essentially lost it.

Well, that and that MacArthur had to ordered directly by the President to leave his men. For all his other faults, that was in fact one thing he didn't intend to do. Now, his actions while doing so? Another story....
As for Patton or Monty? I can actually see both men actually disobeying such an order: For all their faults they did love their soldiers in their own weird ways. They'd never leave their men to just die. If they HAD to, then they'd do EVERYTHING in their power and popularity to utterly destroy the people they'd blame for the fiasco and swear vengeance on the enemy. Yes it'd be part ego, but that ego is also why they feel those men were THEIRS!
I'm sure the enemy commanders would feel the cold breeze blowing up their necks from a thousand miles off...

I can also picture Patton calling his men to parade, throwing the order on the ground, giving a VERY colorful speech about just how he feels about it, then whipping out his "little cannon" and pissing on it. That'd be right up his very colorful style.

 

[Butchpfd]

Thanks for the clarification. If I remember there were 6 inch guns at both Sarawak and Rabaul. My understanding is that GEN Percival sent some form of gun to Kuching for AA purposes. The 6 inch guns at Rabaul were for coastal defense correct? I don't know about the nine inch being coastal and field artillery purposes.

I ran across a Finnish site which had the locations of Coastal guns in Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Baltic countries. These were prewar through post war sites. It was quite interesting. It must have had 80 or more emplacement or location.

IIRC British had both Coastal and Very Heavy siege guns in 9.2 inch guns would only be for Coastal defense or Siege/ field use. The British 4.7" guns could be used for AAA and Anti-Boat. Also as field/ AT similar to the German 88 mm. 6 inch guns were used for coastal defense, and if mounted in a 360 degree mount could be used on shore targets.

 

[HMS St.Lawrence]

These are good updates! I missed the last couple notifications for some reason so had to do some catch-up and I'm really enjoying the discussion on Gordon Bennett! This is stuff like this which make this place great!
I'll have to read more about him but I'm sure his fate will be quite different here.

Also, I must say I liked the format of the Devonshire vs. Atlantis update. It was very appropriate I think for this kind of slow build-up, and I hope to see it again in another description of a naval battle.

 

[Fatboy Coxy]

These are good updates! I missed the last couple notifications for some reason so had to do some catch-up and I'm really enjoying the discussion on Gordon Bennett! This is stuff like this which make this place great!
I'll have to read more about him but I'm sure his fate will be quite different here.

Also, I must say I liked the format of the Devonshire vs. Atlantis update. It was very appropriate I think for this kind of slow build-up, and I hope to see it again in another description of a naval battle.

Thank you HMS St.Lawrence, I tried to write it a little differently, being aware all my stories are becoming somewhat formatted, appreciate you commenting on that fact.

Devonshire vs Atlantis?, I've just written about HMS Cornwall vs Pinguin, we are still in May 1941, after all. I can do a Devonshire vs Atlantis in November, as I'm following the historical path outside of the Singapore/Malaya theatre, unless its the effect of a ripple.

For a minute I thought you may have been
describing a theory on the battle between HMAS Sydney, and KMS Kormoran, off Western Australia. Sydney being lost with all hands.

And I'll have to do a story on HMAS Sydney vs KMS Kormoran, which happened a few days earlier!

 

[Fatboy Coxy]

Ok a little tidy up on the artillery being mentioned here, Hong Kong had a number of guns emplaced for coastal defence.

The 9.2-inch coastal gun, two of which I have moved, but historically remained in Hong Kong

Britain 9.2"/47 (23.4 cm) Mark X - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Then there was the 6-inch gun, again three of which I have removed, but remained in Hong Kong historically

Britain 6"/45 (15.2 cm) BL Mark VII, Mark VIII and Mark XXIV - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

And then there was the mobile artillery. Now I must confess I've someone thrown you all a red herring, and I accept that you're going to want to admonish me over the fact that I've used the word Gun instead of the word Howitzer. Hong Kong had twelve 6-inch 26 cwt Howitzers,

BL 6-in Howitzer

Artillery pieces at Waiouru. Part of the artillery history series on guns in NZ.

web.archive.org

organised as three batteries of the Hong Kong and Singapore Regiment, namely 3, 4 and 25
http://www.niehorster.org/017_britain/41-12-08/hong-kong_arty.html

So to all you artillery experts, enthusiasts, and anyone who likes to hear things go bang very loudly, I truly apologise.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Ok a little tidy up on the artillery being mentioned here, Hong Kong had a number of guns emplaced for coastal defence.

The 9.2-inch coastal gun, two of which I have moved, but historically remained in Hong Kong

Britain 9.2"/47 (23.4 cm) Mark X - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Then there was the 6-inch gun, again three of which I have removed, but remained in Hong Kong historically

Britain 6"/45 (15.2 cm) BL Mark VII, Mark VIII and Mark XXIV - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

And then there was the mobile artillery. Now I must confess I've someone thrown you all a red herring, and I accept that you're going to want to admonish me over the fact that I've used the word Gun instead of the word Howitzer. Hong Kong had twelve 6-inch 26 cwt Howitzers,

BL 6-in Howitzer

Artillery pieces at Waiouru. Part of the artillery history series on guns in NZ.

web.archive.org

organised as three batteries of the Hong Kong and Singapore Regiment, namely 3, 4 and 25
http://www.niehorster.org/017_britain/41-12-08/hong-kong_arty.html

So to all you artillery experts, enthusiasts, and anyone who likes to hear things go bang very loudly, I truly apologise.

Well I hope you are very ashamed of yourself!

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Yes, it is what happened. Several groups were planning to make a break after news of the surrender was released, but stopped on being informed of the order.

Unbelievable. Disgraceful.

Just to be clear - how exactly did he do it? Did he tell his troops that everybody, including himself, would stay behind, only for him to flee without their knowledge? Because if he told them "I am leaving; you lot on the other hand are to stay put", I hardly imagine they would have allowed him to get away with such a thing because obedience can only go so far. Or did he falsely claim to his men that he was ordered to leave by his superiors?

 

[HMS St.Lawrence]

Devonshire vs Atlantis?, I've just written about HMS Cornwall vs Pinguin, we are still in May 1941, after all. I can do a Devonshire vs Atlantis in November, as I'm following the historical path outside of the Singapore/Malaya theatre, unless its the effect of a ripple.

Must I've had too much navy rum...

 

[general]

Unbelievable. Disgraceful.

Just to be clear - how exactly did he do it? Did he tell his troops that everybody, including himself, would stay behind, only for him to flee without their knowledge? Because if he told them "I am leaving; you lot on the other hand are to stay put", I hardly imagine they would have allowed him to get away with such a thing because obedience can only go so far. Or did he falsely claim to his men that he was ordered to leave by his superiors?

The former AIUI. He gave the impression that he was also staying, while quietly arranging his escape.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

The former AIUI. He gave the impression that he was also staying, while quietly arranging his escape.

How this did not result in him being court martialed beggars belief. From what I can gather, he appears to have gotten off extremely lightly, both from his superiors and the subordinates he abandoned.

 

[Driftless]

How this did not result in him being court martialed beggars belief. From what I can gather, he appears to have gotten off extremely lightly, both from his superiors and the subordinates he abandoned.

I'm assuming virtually all of his subordinates were captured, so.....

 

[Sekhmet_D]

I'm assuming virtually all of his subordinates were captured, so.....

After the war is what I meant. How there was no mass outcry from the survivors of Changi calling for his head.

 

[general]

After the war is what I meant. How there was no mass outcry from the survivors of Changi calling for his head.

Well, the story had been buried for morale reasons, so, post-war... too embarassing - again AIUI

 

[general]

Re, the whole "two armies" point mentioned earlier - it made perfect sense politically immediately after Federation. The Founding Fathers were simultaneously very proudly Australian and British., witness the whole kerfuffle over our naming ourselves "the Commonwealth of Australia". Given that the name recalled Cromwell, Victoria loathed it and the whole political class of the UK tried to get us to change the name - and got nowhere.
What the early leadership was worried about was that if we had a "Royal Australian Regiment", that Westminster might decide that they needed a battalion in India or somewhere and try to order it there. By having no permanent field forces, we avoided a potential shitfight over who controlled our forces.
After all, there were a couple of stoushes between Whitehall and our own people as to whether the Governor-General was some form of imperial Viceroy or not - we won.

 

[Draconis]

Was GEN Bennett aligned with PM Menzies? Those damned Hudson's seem to play an integral role in effecting the Australian/NEI war effort.

I don't understand the meaning of this sentence. In regard to the Lockheed Hudsons I thought they were largely beneficial.

 

[general]

Nah, Menzies and blamey were quite friendly. Blamey and the Labor leadership ... not so much.

 

[general]

Menzies and Blamey knew each other from when Menzies was a Cabinet minister - Attorney General, I think, in the Victorian state government and Blamey was Police Commissioner. In 1939, it was Menzies who pushed for Blamey to get command of the 2nd AIF.
Bennett was from West Australia; I doubt he and Menzies had ever met pre-1939.

 

[Fatboy Coxy]

Would you know if the 6 inch 26 cwt will have mustard gas projectiles in reserve? fas.org suggests that the British and Australian's had a significant number
of shells as a deterrent to the Japanese use of chemical weapons. I know that it's ghoulish, but then again so is war. PM Churchill and CIGS Dill seemed open to
consideration, if I read it correctly.

Oooooh good question Nevarinemex!

Yes stocks of chemical weapons were held in reserve as a deterrent by all sides, I believe, although no one wanted to use shells as a form of delivery, in part because of the problems with wind, while for the Allies there was a general abhorrence of their use, a bit similar to nuclear weapons now, which precluded first use. I believe the Japanese was using chemical weapons in a limited way in China, perhaps others could enlighten us on that a little more?

Colin Smith writes in his book, Singapore Burning, of a stock of 12,000 mustard gas shells being held in Singapore. These would have been WW1 stock, so could have been the right calibre for the 6 inch 26 cwt, and /or the 18 pounder or 4.5-inch Howitzer. I'm unaware of there being any to be used by the 25 pounder, which is a post WW1 gun. In addition, I understand the Vickers Vildebeest aircraft, two squadrons, RAF 36 and 100, being present in Singapore, were capable, with easy modification, of spraying gas from canisters. This had been of great interest to the Japanese intelligence, pre war. I am unable to furnish any source matter for this info though.

See https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/docume...s/Journal_45_Seminar_conventional_weapons.pdf
from page 162 for the development of RAF systems, although there is no mention of the Vildebeest.

Concern that the Japanese might be using gas was expressed, both in the Japanese landings at Kota Bharu, where the acrid smoke of constant gunfire and shell explosions was choking the Indian defenders in their pillboxes, and the bombing of Singapore,

see https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/maltribune19411211-1.2.36
Mustard Gas report unconfirmed, Malaya Tribune, 11 Dec 1941

But didn't prove to be the case.