Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The World at War and Singapore discussion; from BrexitSelf Harm
Topic Started: Apr 24 2017, 07:43 PM (78 Views)
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 07:32 PM
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 02:25 PM
Wrong on every account.





;D

Well you appear to have discovered Google at long last! Now all you need to do is learn a bit of honesty! ;D
No, I'm just well versed in WW2.

It was a common misconception that the main batteries weren't used, just that they stocked AP, mostly useless against troops, many agree it could have turned the battle, as I said poor decisions to not even consider them coming the other way, or at-least to give credence to the idea.

But there was still issues with logistics, the Japanese were far more prepared, but once the British forces regrouped and came to terms with the Jungle, pretty much stopped the Japanese advance and pushed them back.

I don't actually rely on Google much, it's normally books, but this forums never TALKS about history, political theory, engineering, programming, the more academic subjects in any great detail.

Either guessing about the EU(well in your case fawning over, but then Rich fawns over the other way, so balances out I guess) over, or national news, which isn't that interesting either, oh and you being rude to everyone.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 24 2017, 07:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 02:25 PM


Their views of Japanese people were irrelevant, poor decision making and issues with logistics is what cost that battle, also are you really going to feel sorry for the poor Japanese considering their views on people and their actions upon them, they thought British POWs were pure scum, in comparison we treated them far better.





Oh dear! ;D

If you've got a spare 45 minutes pop over to Youtube (like Google but with moving images) and watch Episode 6 of the World at War, the episode is called "Banzai" Go for it you'll learn something!

In this episode you can watch veterans talking about the racial bullshit they were fed regarding the Japanese, for example they could not fly planes properly because they were carried on their mothers backs as babies and had no balance! And of course the place was then run by upper class stuffed shirts, a bit like Parliament today actually.

Remember my earlier analogy now?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 07:45 PM
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 02:25 PM


Their views of Japanese people were irrelevant, poor decision making and issues with logistics is what cost that battle, also are you really going to feel sorry for the poor Japanese considering their views on people and their actions upon them, they thought British POWs were pure scum, in comparison we treated them far better.





Oh dear! ;D

If you've got a spare 45 minutes pop over to Youtube (like Google but with moving images) and watch Episode 6 of the World at War, the episode is called "Banzai" Go for it you'll learn something!

In this episode you can watch veterans talking about the racial bullshit they were fed regarding the Japanese, for example they could not fly planes properly because they were carried on their mothers backs as babies and had no balance! And of course the place was then run by upper class stuffed shirts, a bit like Parliament today actually.

Remember my earlier analogy now?



World of War a rather good documentary that's quite out of date.

But who cares what they said, the Japaneses said equally worst and didn't stop there, torture, executions, death marches, human experiments, I'd rather people be wrong based on misinformation, then doing what the Japanese did.

You might not want to use the Japanese as your example.

Well, we all know I dislike Representative Democracy, also would like regional governments in England to reduce the power of Parliament.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 24 2017, 07:54 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 07:50 PM
World of War a rather good documentary that's quite out of date.

;D

Yeah, it's so 1940's isn't it?

And I've not seen World of War!

Edited by Tigger, Apr 24 2017, 07:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 07:56 PM
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 07:50 PM
World of War a rather good documentary that's quite out of date.

;D

Yeah, it's so 1940's isn't it?

And I've not seen World of War!

Low shot, I was thinking of another thing when I wrote it, as they say Freudian slip, that has the title world of war.

But I like World at War, its just not up to date, though who does not like Laurence Olivier.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 24 2017, 08:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 08:02 PM


But I like World at War, its just not up to date, though who does not like Laurence Olivier.
Facts and first hand eye witness accounts are out of date are they?

Why am I not surprised you said that!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 08:09 PM
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 08:02 PM


But I like World at War, its just not up to date, though who does not like Laurence Olivier.
Facts and first hand eye witness accounts are out of date are they?

Why am I not surprised you said that!
There were numerous inaccuracies, also first hand experience isn't always seen as gospel even in court witness testimonies have to be confirmed, but it's out of date because since it aired more information has surfaced.

The bit about Singapore's guns, the show doesn't tell you they were used, it normally trouts out the same line that they were facing the wrong way.

Or does not mention that a large number of German equipment was stolen from Czechoslovakia, like the ever useful Panzer 38T, which was later turned into the Marder III, also the favoured Bren Gun was made in Czechoslovakia, with changes made by Britain to suit its needs, there's a lot missing.

Does not even tell you about operation Chariot or Unit 731.

There's more, but it's been a while since I watched it, another one is over glorification of Germany Armour and forgetting about the larger variations in tanks, Germany most used and probably most successful was the Sturmgeschütz IV a retrofit of the Panzer 4.

It's a good documentary, but it's very outdated now.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 24 2017, 08:35 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 08:02 PM
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 07:56 PM
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 07:50 PM
World of War a rather good documentary that's quite out of date.

;D

Yeah, it's so 1940's isn't it?

And I've not seen World of War!

Low shot, I was thinking of another thing when I wrote it, as they say Freudian slip, that has the title world of war.

But I like World at War, its just not up to date, though who does not like Laurence Olivier.
Agreed 100% it was a very sobering series to watch, fascinating but at times, I must admit brought tears to my eyes.......never again, I hope and pray.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 08:17 PM
There were numerous inaccuracies, also first hand experience isn't always seen as gospel even in court witness testimonies have to be confirmed, but it's out of date because since it aired more information has surfaced.

So as a bit of a history buff you can point out the inaccurate content in that particular episode, right?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 08:48 PM
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 08:17 PM
There were numerous inaccuracies, also first hand experience isn't always seen as gospel even in court witness testimonies have to be confirmed, but it's out of date because since it aired more information has surfaced.

So as a bit of a history buff you can point out the inaccurate content in that particular episode, right?

Pick one then, as I said it's been a while, but I do remember some, maybe it was lack of information at that time, but it happened.

As I said a very good show, but it's now outdated which in turn means it gets a few things wrong and isn't detailed as it could be.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 24 2017, 08:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 08:17 PM


Or does not mention that a large number of German equipment was stolen from Czechoslovakia, like the ever useful Panzer 38T, which was later turned into the Marder III, also the favoured Bren Gun was made in Czechoslovakia, with changes made by Britain to suit its needs, there's a lot missing.

Does not even tell you about operation Chariot or Unit 731.

There's more, but it's been a while since I watched it, another one is over glorification of Germany Armour and forgetting about the larger variations in tanks, Germany most used and probably most successful was the Sturmgeschütz IV a retrofit of the Panzer 4.

It's a good documentary, but it's very outdated now.
An expected side step with little merit.  ::)

The World at War was about the political and historic events of that period, not the techincal minutiae, it is now a valuable source of information as many of the senior and not so senior figures who were there contributed, which is why I brought it up in the first place.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 08:51 PM


As I said a very good show, but it's now outdated which in turn means it gets a few things wrong and isn't detailed as it could be.
Well tell me what they got wrong then! Specifically.

You've not seen it have you?

:rubchin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 08:59 PM
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 08:51 PM


As I said a very good show, but it's now outdated which in turn means it gets a few things wrong and isn't detailed as it could be.
Well tell me what they got wrong then! Specifically.

You've not seen it have you?

:rubchin:
Of course I have, but do you remember it verbatim? I thought not.

Wow, says I haven't watched it, but I tell him the narrator, also it's on Yesterday, all the time.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 24 2017, 09:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 09:01 PM


Wow, says I haven't watched it, but I tell him the narrator, also it's on Yesterday, all the time.


Well done you know Sir Larry did the talking! ;D

But moving on to events, what did Yamashita say to Percival when they first met? You'll probably have to watch it to find out from the Japanese eyewitness who was there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 09:13 PM
I said it's outdated, and shown you examples,
You've done nothing of the sort!

You waffled on about Bren guns and Czech tanks that were used by the Wehrmacht and then claimed this was not mentioned in the World at War so thus that documentary series must be outdated!

Please!!!!!!!!!! ;D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 09:21 PM
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 09:13 PM
I said it's outdated, and shown you examples,
You've done nothing of the sort!

You waffled on about Bren guns and Czech tanks that were used by the Wehrmacht and then claimed this was not mentioned in the World at War so thus that documentary series must be outdated!

Please!!!!!!!!!! ;D
Quote:
 
The bit about Singapore's guns, the show doesn't tell you they were used, it normally trouts out the same line that they were facing the wrong way.


There's one, if you don't like information the show didn't even touch, this one it did and got it wrong.

Another was the Battle of Britain, it claimed if we lost the airbases in the south it would have been over, forgetting the Royal Navy was still thing, also plans by RAF to use northern airfields out of range of German planes.

For more I'd have to watch it again, but I guess I notice more what it doesn't include more now.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 24 2017, 09:27 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 09:26 PM
The bit about Singapore's guns, the show doesn't tell you they were used, it normally trouts out the same line that they were facing the wrong way.


There's one, if you don't like information the show didn't even touch, this one it did and got it wrong.



Well we now have proof you haven't seen it. They went into a lot of detail on this very subject! ;D

For decades the British expected any attack on Singapore to come from the sea, nothing to do with the wrong shells or anything else ammuntion related, the heavy guns therefore pointed out to sea. The wrong direction as it turned out. The Japanese were not expected to attack through the jungle that existed to the North and East of the island, but that is exactly what they did!

On foot and carrying dismountable weapons such as mortars and light field guns, they also famously used thousands of bicycles to take advantage of the road network we'd helpfully driven through parts of the jungle.
Edited by Tigger, Apr 24 2017, 09:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
37:09 - Says no defence on the south, when it fact the guns were shooting at the Japanese advance for most of the battle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng-O_BJpby0
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 09:40 PM
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 09:26 PM
The bit about Singapore's guns, the show doesn't tell you they were used, it normally trouts out the same line that they were facing the wrong way.


There's one, if you don't like information the show didn't even touch, this one it did and got it wrong.



Well we now have proof you haven't seen it. They went into a lot of detail on this very subject! ;D

For decades the British expected any attack on Singapore to come from the sea, nothing to do with the wrong shells or anything else ammuntion related, the heavy guns therefore pointed out to sea. The wrong direction as it turned out. The Japanese were not expected to attack through the jungle that existed to the North and East of the island, but that is exactly what they did!

On foot and carrying dismountable weapons such as mortars and light field guns, they also famously used thousands of bicycles to take advantage of the road network we'd helpfully driven through parts of the jungle.
Quote:
 
It is a commonly repeated misconception that Singapore's famous large-calibre coastal guns were ineffective against the Japanese because they were designed to face south to defend the harbour against naval attack and could not be turned round to face north. In fact, most of the guns could be turned, and were indeed fired at the invaders. However, the guns—which included one battery of three 15 in (380 mm) weapons and one with two 15 in (380 mm) guns—were supplied mostly with armour-piercing (AP) shells and few high explosive (HE) shells. AP shells were designed to penetrate the hulls of heavily armoured warships and were mostly ineffective against infantry targets.


What were you saying the large guns weren't able to fire at the Japanese.

I am more up to date on the subject, then you it seems.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 24 2017, 10:09 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 09:40 PM
37:09 - Says no defence on the south, when it fact the guns were shooting at the Japanese advance for most of the battle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng-O_BJpby0
Inevitably you've resorted to telling lies.  :(

The clip specifically says there were no heavy defences facing NORTH not south as you claimed, additionally guns designed to fire half and quarter to shells at ships twenty miles away would have been little use at such relative short range, and even less use in the congested streets of Singapore.

Has it occured to you yet that I might actually know something about this subject?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 10:11 PM
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 09:40 PM
37:09 - Says no defence on the south, when it fact the guns were shooting at the Japanese advance for most of the battle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng-O_BJpby0
Inevitably you've resorted to telling lies.  :(

The clip specifically says there were no heavy defences facing NORTH not south as you claimed, additionally guns designed to fire half and quarter to shells at ships twenty miles away would have been little use at such relative short range, and even less use in the congested streets of Singapore.

Has it occured to you yet that I might actually know something about this subject?
Read the above post, I gave the quote showing that those large guns were used during the invasion, which were able to turn.

The documentary doesn't show or say that those guns were in action.

Another ad-hom, just for reference.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 24 2017, 10:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 10:12 PM
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 10:11 PM
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 09:40 PM
37:09 - Says no defence on the south, when it fact the guns were shooting at the Japanese advance for most of the battle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng-O_BJpby0
Inevitably you've resorted to telling lies.  :(

The clip specifically says there were no heavy defences facing NORTH not south as you claimed, additionally guns designed to fire half and quarter to shells at ships twenty miles away would have been little use at such relative short range, and even less use in the congested streets of Singapore.

Has it occured to you yet that I might actually know something about this subject?
Read the above post, I gave the quote showing that those large guns were used during the invasion, which were able to turn.

The documentary doesn't show or say that those guns were in action.

Another ad-hom, just for reference.
No more from me on this subject, you knowingly posted a lie.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 10:16 PM
Dan1989
Apr 24 2017, 10:12 PM
Tigger
Apr 24 2017, 10:11 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng-O_BJpby0
Read the above post, I gave the quote showing that those large guns were used during the invasion, which were able to turn.

The documentary doesn't show or say that those guns were in action.

Another ad-hom, just for reference.
No more from me on this subject, you knowingly posted a lie.
Ad-hom two, I guess you couldn't counter the quote, I'll show it again.

Yours

Quote:
 
The clip specifically says there were no heavy defences facing NORTH not south as you claimed, additionally guns designed to fire half and quarter to shells at ships twenty miles away would have been little use at such relative short range, and even less use in the congested streets of Singapore.


Mine

Quote:
 
It is a commonly repeated misconception that Singapore's famous large-calibre coastal guns were ineffective against the Japanese because they were designed to face south to defend the harbour against naval attack and could not be turned round to face north. In fact, most of the guns could be turned, and were indeed fired at the invaders. However, the guns—which included one battery of three 15 in (380 mm) weapons and one with two 15 in (380 mm) guns—were supplied mostly with armour-piercing (AP) shells and few high explosive (HE) shells. AP shells were designed to penetrate the hulls of heavily armoured warships and were mostly ineffective against infantry targets.


The show does talk about the guns once, but does not tell us that they were used, it's kept the common misconception that they were not used, or at-least useless, when they weren't.

Also the Habour isn't 20 miles away.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 24 2017, 10:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Regards the 6in and 9.2in embedded guns, some could not engage targets on the mainland, while some could. Such guns could not by themselves stop the flow of Japanese troops. As for the large numbers of Army personnel, well if Percival had had more fighting spirit, they could have delayed the inevitable, but not stopped it - there were severe logistical issues - the same went for the RAF and the Navy. Singapore perhaps fell too easily, BUT fall it would have.

ps. When I was there as a young nipper, in 1949-52, there was still much evidence of the fortifications and war damage. Changi prison looked very forbidding. There were still many coastal machine-gun nests/bunkers. Our favourite swimming spot was near one - I have an old B&W photo showing it.
Edited by Oddball, Apr 25 2017, 07:19 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oddball
Apr 25 2017, 07:12 AM
Regards the 6in and 9.2in embedded guns, some could not engage targets on the mainland, while some could. Such guns could not by themselves stop the flow of Japanese troops. As for the large numbers of Army personnel, well if Percival had had more fighting spirit, they could have delayed the inevitable, but not stopped it - there were severe logistical issues - the same went for the RAF and the Navy. Singapore perhaps fell too easily, BUT fall it would have.

ps. When I was there as a young nipper, in 1949-52, there was still much evidence of the fortifications and war damage. Changi prison looked very forbidding. There were still many coastal machine-gun nests/bunkers. Our favourite swimming spot was near one - I have an old B&W photo showing it.
The loss of Singapore shows what happens if you don't prepare properly. Those restricted guns are mainly symbolic. The lack of intel, secrecy, air superiority fighters and tanks absolutely disastrous. Those running Singapore both locally and from London were locked in 1914 mentality.

Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Guys I agree, it was a logistical failure, also the troops present won't up to scratch, more time was needed.

Also it was lower in priority, probably understandably, but it didn't help with the defence.

My main point was the misconception of the main guns not being used, when a lot of them were in use, just not stocked with the right ammunition.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
« Previous Topic · General Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply