Singapore II.

This is coolbert:

Consider this item within the context of the previous blog entry:

Thanks to the Internet web site diggerhistory.info and the article "The Fall of Fortress Singapore"

That historical narrative repeated over and over is that plans for the defense of Singapore in case of Japanese attack included coastal artillery that could only fire seaward and not at inland targets.

Here with the rest of the story and elaboration:

"Myths about Fortress Singapore"

Myth: "The guns could only face the ocean, they could not be fired towards Malaya."

Singapore island not so large. Depending how you measure about 29 miles [46 kilometers] by 16 mile [26 kilometers]. That profusion of coastal artillery as located at the bottom of this image did not have the range anyhow to engage targets to the north [top of the image]?

 "Not so. The naval guns installed could manage full traverse and fire towards Malaya. Unfortunately there was little use in so doing. They were NAVAL guns with ammunition for firing at ships at sea over very long distances i.e. flat trajectory. That is totally different from firing at a bunch of infantry soldiers on pushbikes. As anti-personnel weapons they were useless, regardless of which way they pointed."

 ". . . A further point which soon emerged was that most of the ammunition for these guns was of the armor piercing variety, quite unsuitable for the bombardment of ground forces."

Assumptions as made by the British military planners as regard to Singapore all wrong? Seems it was so! Plans predicated on correct assumptions as a consequence also totally wrong much to the disadvantage of the defenders! And we all know how the story ended!

coolbert.