| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Singapore's Naval Guns WW2
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Singapore's Naval Guns WW2

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
carthagemustbedestro View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carthagemustbedestro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Singapore's Naval Guns WW2
    Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 06:00
For many years I have read that one of the reasons the Japs were able to get a swift surrender in Singapore was that the gun batteries could not traverse 360 degs and give the invaders "whatfore".
I have researched this topic & have found that all but one of the 15 inch guns could do 360 deg. The real problem was there was no suitable ammo-they ony had armour piercing rounds for shipping. What do you all think?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 10:02
You may be right, though it depends on the way he guns were mounted rather than the guns themselves. Certainly as mounted on ships they were incapable of covering 360 degrees.
 
The point about the ammunitions sounds valid. The guns were there to defend against warshps, and presumably had conventional large shell designed for that purpose. And what is good for sinking ships is not so good for dealing with mobile infantry.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2012 at 04:38
I agree. Also in adding that nobody in command expected or planned for the Japanese to march through and attack Singapore from the jungle.

Edited by Panther - 17 Mar 2012 at 04:38
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2012 at 06:01
I thought this was another desperate and unfeasible British defence like Battle of Hong Kong (54k Japanese vs 16k British) but instead it wasn't so, wiki says there was 85k Allied troops vs 36k Japanese trops. This should be most humiliating battle ever for British. I mean, how you can allow opponent to outflank you while you are more than twice of enemy. Please, no explanation, I already red wikipedia (Air, air was the decisive factor Tongue )
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2012 at 12:06
I don't think anyone ever considered the fall of Singapore as anything othen than a humiliating defeat for the British.
 
However I'd add that not only was the significance of land forces as against air power diminished, but after the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse, the role of conventional sea power was too.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2012 at 00:04
The Guns are embedded in forts on Sentosa Island (they are still there to see). From Sentosa they have complete command over the Singapore harbour, Singapore Strait, and Straits of Malacca.
 
The Japanese attacked from Johor, on the opposite side of Singapore Island to Sentosa. Even if the guns could swivel 360 degrees it wouldn't matter because they would have to shoot across the whole of Singapore Island.
 
Back to Top
carthagemustbedestro View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carthagemustbedestro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2012 at 05:58
They did actually get some AP rounds away to the airport.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 82
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2017 at 07:30
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:



The Guns are embedded in forts on Sentosa Island (they are still there to see). From Sentosa they have complete command over the Singapore harbour, Singapore Strait, and Straits of Malacca.
 
The Japanese attacked from Johor, on the opposite side of Singapore Island to Sentosa. Even if the guns could swivel 360 degrees it wouldn't matter because they would have to shoot across the whole of Singapore Island.
 


Singapore Is is 14 miles across S to N. 18' naval guns not only could shoot across the island, they could have ranged 6 more miles inland.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.