Worst generals

anyway, i think British commanders are one of the worst overall. Lack of imagination and all that. But that is to be said about a maritime natiopn

 

Except we had lost control of the water reservoirs and therefore the British army and all the civilians had no access to fresh water. Plus they vastly overestimated the size of Japanese forces. It seemed a hopeless situation, especially after our most powerful naval assets were sunk without doing much harm to the IJN.

Out of interest, how is Percival to know that the Japanese were down to 1 week's supplies?

 

Hello Ricky,

While what you said was true, the two destroyers, The Repulse and Prince of Wales should never have been sent without air support off the straits of malaysia. Of course, while water supplies were cut and so on,it was a hopeless cause. However, the problem with him was that he underestimated and then overestimated Japanese forces,to me that is the worst form of mistake one can make after about a month of battles?

Of course i can't blame Percival for his defeat and all that. However, the first mistake he had made was to ignore the warnings of possible landings...Heck,it was the british who surveyed where the Japs might land and then when they had found them,they chose to ignore the possibility.

 

... because they felt the jungle to be 'impassable' (a bit like the Ardennes! ). They felt that by blocking off the roads they would be safe.

When Japanese troops started rolling all before them and zooming down the Malayan peninsula at high speed I can see why Percival thought that he was outnumbered...

Yes, the defense of Malaya and Singapore could have been handled a lot better - but a lot of the changes that need to be made are very much 'hindsight' changes, that commanders at the time could not or would not see/realise.

 

It is of interest to note that Percival,being the Commander in chief, left Singapore to return to England, leaving behind his army of Australians and British and Sepoys to rot in what was to be the Death Railway. Can anybody tell me what kinda commander was this? Even Paulus surrendered with his men!(though Hitler would have shot him if he returned.)

 

Potentially a wise one.

Good commanders are hard to come by, and the loss of one can seriously harm your efforts in a given theatre - look at the British fortunes in North Africa after O'Connor got himself captured.

It is all very well being the commander who shares the burden of his men, but if that is detrimental to your country's war effort then you are failing in your job.

That being said, I'm not sure Percival would have been a loss.

As a note of accuracy - I always thought that Percival himself lead the surrender party and signed the surrender documents. How could he do that after flying out?

 

Percival a loss? It's like saying that Goring was a valuable asset. And for your info, those 15-inch guns that sat on the island of Sentosa could turn northwards and DID fire on Japanese positions.However they were armed with only AP rounds which was a mistake of logistics though.

Oh and, Percival did sign the papers himself! My mistake,however. He was held in Manchuria as a prisoner though.

The official figures for British forces were about 80,000 while the Japs had 30,000. It would be fair to say that the Japs held the advantage of tactics,experience and air support though.

Anyway,to give him credit,he did what he could,but that doesn't make him a good commander anyway. IT is interesting to note that he commanded the 43rd division of the BEF in 1939 though.

On further reflection,i think that perhaps i was wrong to say Percival was the worst commander, he did what he could in the mess we know as the Malayan campaign. However,his blunders were glaring enough

 

Kaiser, I think that I pretty much agree with your last post - especially the first bit!

Did I ever say welcome to the Forum to you? No?

Well, welcome to the Forum.

 

Private Kaiser reporting,SIR!