The Truth About Force Z?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

The Truth About Force Z?

Post by warspite1 »

I am reading an interesting book at present, The Royal Navy In Eastern Waters (Boyd), and the dispatch of Force Z features within. The author claims that the roles played by Winston Churchill and the Admiralty are, in truth, mirror opposites of the 'accepted version' of events.

Interesting - if not easy - reading. I will report more as I progress through, but essentially the author believes that the loss of the two capital Ships HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse can be laid squarely at the door of Admiral Dudley Pound who wasn't brow beaten by Churchill into agreeing their deployment at Singapore. He also claims that HMS Indomitable was never earmarked for Force Z.....
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by JeffroK »

He also claims that HMS Indomitable was never earmarked for Force Z.....

Surely swanning around off Jamaica was on the short cut to Singapore
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by spence »

It was her first ever voyage so "swanning around" in the Caribbean may not be exactly an accurate description of her activity. Machines and the men who man them take time to work themselves into working together.
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by Buckrock »

The Pound/Churchill responsibility debate isn't exactly new but it would be interesting to hear if the author has found some key piece of evidence
that was missed in previous works that normally end with the meeting on October 20th, 1941.

IIRC, Indomitable was never given orders for Singapore but had been ordered to Trincomlee and to arrive at a time when POW and Repulse should
have still been at Ceylon had their original sailing orders been kept. Official records of Churchill and the Admiralty seemed to make it clear though
that Indomitable was being sent to operate with POW and Repulse as to whatever situation unfolded in the Far East (hopefully nothing much).

Mind you, no-one seemed to have much clue as to what exactly these ships were supposed to do in case of war in the Far East other than look imposing.
This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: JeffK

He also claims that HMS Indomitable was never earmarked for Force Z.....

Surely swanning around off Jamaica was on the short cut to Singapore
warspite1

If one is sailing from the UK to Singapore via South Africa, then no, Jamaica is not a short cut - it is in the opposite direction.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

The Pound/Churchill responsibility debate isn't exactly new but it would be interesting to hear if the author has found some key piece of evidence
that was missed in previous works that normally end with the meeting on October 20th, 1941.

IIRC, Indomitable was never given orders for Singapore but had been ordered to Trincomlee and to arrive at a time when POW and Repulse should
have still been at Ceylon had their original sailing orders been kept. Official records of Churchill and the Admiralty seemed to make it clear though
that Indomitable was being sent to operate with POW and Repulse as to whatever situation unfolded in the Far East (hopefully nothing much).

Mind you, no-one seemed to have much clue as to what exactly these ships were supposed to do in case of war in the Far East other than look imposing.
warspite1

No the debate is not new - there is not much that is 'new' in WWII - but there has become an 'accepted' view (that paints Churchill in the wrong) and he appears to be challenging that - rightly or wrongly.

As to your comment re the 'Official records' and what Indomitable was being tasked to do, the author appears to be saying quite the opposite.

Should be interesting reading [:)].
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by Buckrock »

Well if you've read through it sufficient to already comment, the author's evidence regarding Pound and Indomitable would be interesting to hear.

Or will I need to eventually wade through a 10,000+ word Warspite1 essay just to find it?
This was the only sig line I could think of.
Alpha77
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by Alpha77 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Or will I need to eventually wade through a 10,000+ word Warspite1 essay just to find it?

That would be great, he should write books himself [;)]
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by crsutton »

Nobody's fault really. The common perception of the time was that fast battleships at sea could handle air attacks, and besides the Japanese air arm was only second rate, and not capable of that sort of sophisticated attack. The tactical decisions made rested on false assumptions. But to be fair, 90% of the admirals world wide at that time would have probably done the same. Let's just say it was an education for everyone. Underestimating the opponent was not just a British fault at the time.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by Alfred »

No one was to blame for sending Force Z to Singapore.  The operational deployment of a couple of capital ships to Singapore had been British "doctrine" for a long time.  In essence it had always been a political decision which predated Churchill becoming Prime Minister.  Neither Pound nor /Churchill should be criticised for merely implementing decisions which had been made before their tenures.  Everyone in high office always inherits prior decisions and it is simply unrealistic to expect every prior decision to be reassessed when the personnel changes.
 
Alfred
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by m10bob »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: JeffK

He also claims that HMS Indomitable was never earmarked for Force Z.....

Surely swanning around off Jamaica was on the short cut to Singapore
warspite1

If one is sailing from the UK to Singapore via South Africa, then no, Jamaica is not a short cut - it is in the opposite direction.


Might not be so distant or out of the way if perhaps intended for the Panama Canal?
The Warspite was there in Bremerton all by it's lonesome and due to exit in a not too distant future?


Just food for thought?
Image

User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

I read that Phillips was not expecting torpedo bombers so far away from enemy bases. After all, Netties had a range that was double any other nation's torpedo bombers
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I read that Phillips was not expecting torpedo bombers so far away from enemy bases. After all, Netties had a range that was double any other nation's torpedo bombers
The Japanese had quite a few secrets about their equipment, like the excellent torpedoes they had for both air and sea.

As for what Force Z was supposed to do when war broke out, I think the idea must have been to threaten Japanese invasion attempts from the west while the US threatened from the east, and the Dutch/Australians from the south. The Japanese made Force Z a priority because it was a major threat. With a carrier providing CAP the PoW and Repulse may have made it to Kota Bharu to challenge the invasion. Whether they could last against the Japanese torpedoes there is another question.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by dr.hal »

I believe there were provisional plans for HMS Indomitable to be part of the Repulse and PoW team, it was to be called Force Orange, for somewhat obvious reasons. However she ran aground on a coral reef near Jamaica during her shakedown on 3 November 41 and that made it impossible for her to join the PoW team, which was consequently named Force Z. She made repairs in Norfolk VA and then proceeded to Colombo where she arrived in January, much to late for Force Z. Churchill is blamed for a lot of things, and much is justly deserved but I don't think he wanted to, or did exercise ANY tactical control over Force Z and as Alfred suggests, had few options due to prior planing in terms of strategic deployment.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by warspite1 »

Where had you read of 'Force Orange' please? I've read previously that the Force was originally Force G and later Force Z but never heard it called Force Orange. Just curious.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No one was to blame for sending Force Z to Singapore.  The operational deployment of a couple of capital ships to Singapore had been British "doctrine" for a long time.  In essence it had always been a political decision which predated Churchill becoming Prime Minister.  Neither Pound nor /Churchill should be criticised for merely implementing decisions which had been made before their tenures.  Everyone in high office always inherits prior decisions and it is simply unrealistic to expect every prior decision to be reassessed when the personnel changes.

Alfred
warspite1

In responding I am taking up the position of the author. He makes some very good points but whether his conclusions are correct I leave to others to judge - I certainly will be reading other works on this subject to get a more rounded picture.

But as I say, for now, in this debate I will post based on the author's position.

1. The operational deployment of a couple of capital ships was not long time doctrine. The position of what to do come war (and assuming Germany, Italy and Japan were the opponents) was debated continually as can be imagined.

The RN was not big enough to meet all three head-on. Discussion ranged from trying to decide where the RN would be offensive and where defensive e.g. the UK and the Far East or UK and the Middle East (with the third defensive) and what the nature of the defensive forces would be. Much later, once the Mediterranean had seemingly won that argument, the problems were compounded by wartime losses, the realisation that many naval assets were obsolete, the position in the Mediterranean, the intentions of the US, and of course, those of the Japanese. In such a fluid situation the debate was never truly settled and only in the last few months of 1941 was firm action to send a force to the Far East (whether Cape Town, Ceylon or Singapore is another question).

As can be seen above, the length of debate and the form it took meant that this was not a case of Pound and Churchill coming into positions whereby firm decisions had already been taken but simply not reassessed. These two individuals had been living and breathing this topic for years - Dudley Pound became first First Sea Lord in June 1939, Winston Churchill had been Prime Minister since May 1940 (and First Lord since the previous September).
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: JeffK

He also claims that HMS Indomitable was never earmarked for Force Z.....

Surely swanning around off Jamaica was on the short cut to Singapore
warspite1

If one is sailing from the UK to Singapore via South Africa, then no, Jamaica is not a short cut - it is in the opposite direction.


Might not be so distant or out of the way if perhaps intended for the Panama Canal?
The Warspite was there in Bremerton all by it's lonesome and due to exit in a not too distant future?


Just food for thought?
warspite1

The obvious question to my mind would be why? If Indomitable was earmarked for joining Prince of Wales and Repulse and she needed to work-up ahead of any operational deployment, then in order to maximise time working with the capital ships surely it would make sense to send her to Cape Town/Ceylon as quickly as possible?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by Buckrock »

Perhaps the book you are reading might shed light on this intriguing puzzle.[:)]
This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I read that Phillips was not expecting torpedo bombers so far away from enemy bases. After all, Netties had a range that was double any other nation's torpedo bombers
The Japanese had quite a few secrets about their equipment, like the excellent torpedoes they had for both air and sea.

As for what Force Z was supposed to do when war broke out, I think the idea must have been to threaten Japanese invasion attempts from the west while the US threatened from the east, and the Dutch/Australians from the south. The Japanese made Force Z a priority because it was a major threat. With a carrier providing CAP the PoW and Repulse may have made it to Kota Bharu to challenge the invasion. Whether they could last against the Japanese torpedoes there is another question.

A single British carrier would have only been able to put up perhaps half a dozen fighters or so considering the need to rotate aircraft. Maybe ten at the most. British carrier fighters were not the best at the time. Then you have the inexact science of vectoring and interception with unreliable early war radar. It is conceivable that there would have been no intercept at all. And CAP, even if it could intercept, would have probably been overwhelmed by numbers. Only real impact that a single carrier could have at at this stage would have been one less capital ship on the registry...

I know Indomitable carried up to 34 fighters in 1942 (Sea Hurricanes and Martlets) but don't know if that complement was carried in 1941 at the time of Force Z. I am guessing that the fighter compliment may have been boosted as a result of that action but don't really know. Did the Brits have Martlets before the outset of American involvement?
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: The Truth About Force Z?

Post by MakeeLearn »



Books and what's hidden inside...

Image
Attachments
book.jpg
book.jpg (474.45 KiB) Viewed 630 times






Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”