RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1975 https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j0995146d 162 DONALD C. BOWIE of 230 moved on 20 January 1942 from Hong Kong to Camranh Bay and thence to Sumatra. The 230 regiment left Camranh Bay on 18 February 1942 and landed at Java. The whole Japanese operations in Hong Kong, the Philippines, Malaya and elsewhere had been carried out by only eleven divisions. As soon therefore as Hong Kong fell on 25 December 1941 it must have been Japanese policy to withdraw the fighting troops in order to replace their losses, which had been substantial, reequip and reorganise them for the next operation. The atrocities in Stanley, Happy Valley and elsewhere were carried out by fighting troops flushed by success in battle. I imagine that these must have been withdrawn before our hospital and Hong Kong generally suffered. This seems the most likely explanation for the facts, for as I said earlier Bowen Road was practically in the front line as the fighting ended and the city of Victoria was an exceedingly rich prize. During hostilities we in Hong Kong learned of the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse off the Malayan coast, which with the destruction also of a large part of the American fleet of course extinguished any hopes of relief. Rumour spread among us and was eagerly passed on that a Chinese army was hastening to our rescue. To those who had watched the failure of the Kuo Min Tang Chinese to make an effective attempt to dislodge the Japanese armies from Canton and South China since 1938 this story was considered to be most unlikely to be true, as so it proved. Soon after our surrender, nurses and other staff and patients who had survived the outrages of Stanley, Happy Valley, St. Albert's Convent Hospital and elsewhere rejoined Bowen Road and their experiences soon became known to all staff and patients. Even so it came as a shock to many to see and hear Japanese methods with captives. For several nights for example our guards had a number of Chinese as prisoners; these they had tied to trees and seemed to carry out barbarities upon them. Some of our people reported that they had smelt burning flesh and certainly the cries of the prisoners were shattering. Rumour had it that the Chinese were caught looting, of which large numbers were undoubtedly guilty, but this experience shook patients and some staff considerably for a while. One of the early Japanese officers to visit the hospital expressed surprise at finding women there at all, and advised that they should make themselves as inconspicuous as possible. This warning spread ================================================================================ RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1999 https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x 124 Table 1 The Battles of Crete, Hong Kong and Singapore Compared British possessions Crete Hong Kong Singapore taken by Axis forces (date) 14 16 (evacuation: 31.5.1941) (surrender: 25.12.1941) (surrender: 15.2.1942) Land area defended (approx, square km) 8,30017 1,01318 58219 Local British air superiority immediately before and during the battle no no no (virtually no air combat capabilities force ab initio) Local British naval superiority immediately before and during the battle yes no no (due to loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse) Length of fighting prior to evacuation/surrender 11 days (20.5.1941-31.5.1941) 17 days (8.12.1941-25.12.1941) 7 days (8.2.1942-15.2.1942) [Battle of Malaya: 70 days: 8.12.1941-15.2.1942] No. of British POW taken by Axis forces 12,000 approx. 10,000 approx. 130,000 approx. Strength of defenders prior to Axis invasion 42,640 12,931 85,000 Strength of invading Axis forces (excluding naval and air forces) 22,000 40,000 35,000 Ratio of strength of invading to defending forces (X) 0.52 3.09 0.42 [Battle of Malaya: 0.5] British Losses During hostilities [loss rate] 15,743 [37%] 4,413 [34%] 3,708 [4%] (killed in action: 3,000) (killed in action: 2,113) [Battle of Malaya: 138,708 killed, wounded and captured] ================================================================================ RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1999 https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x Luis osses [loss rate] PENYA BARU PE 6.580 (6000 paratroopers) 2.096 (Killed in action: 683) 5.093 (killed in action: 1715) [30%] [15%] [15] [Battle of Malaya: 125 dead, 9.612 3.507 wounded, 6,105] Ratio of British/Axis losses 2.39 (Y) 2.11 (killed in action: 31) 0.73 Battle of Malaya: 14 431 Relative loss rate of defenders to invaders in combat 4.60 0.68 weighted by relative strength of invaders to defenders 1.74 Battle of Malaya: 28.861 (Y/N) The British defenders of Crete and Singapore outnumbered their invaders. The German forces that invaded Crete had a strength that was only about 50% of the British garrison. The garrison in Singapore had a numerical superiority of more than 2 to 1. Yet, Crete yielded in 14 days and Singapore surrendered in one week. The outnumbered garrison in Hong Kong, however, was able to hold out for more than half a month. The loss rates for the three invasions for both sides were high in the Battle of Crete. The Axis loss, including missing figures, was 30%, which also meant a hard blow on Hitler's paratroopers' strength. The British loss was 5% higher and was almost 40%. In the case of Hong Kong, the loss rate of the British forces measured in terms of killed and wounded alone amounted to 34% whereas the Japanese incurred just 5%. If we compare only these rates of Hong Kong with those of Singapore, it would seem that the Hong Kong garrison was less effective in inflicting casualties on the enemy. Both the Crete and Hong Kong garrisons had sustained a relative loss rate of more than 2 to 1. However, if we weigh the relative loss rate of the British garrison by its relative strength vis-à-vis the invaders for each battlefield, then we might come to the conclusion that the Hong Kong garrison was most effective in inflicting disproportionate casualties upon the invader. As ================================================================================ RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1999 https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x 136 13 Yip (1982): 94. 15 Figures on losses for the Battle of Crete include those of killed, wounded, captured and missing. Source: Arbeitskreis für Wehrforschung (1994) Figures on losses for the Battle of Hong Kong are those on casualties only, i.e. those of killed and wounded. Source: Ko and Wordie (1996) 16 Figures on British losses are estimated by deducing total casualties in the Malaya campaign as reckoned by Leasor minus those losses incurred on the Malay Peninsula loss recorded by Liddell Hart. Japanese losses for the Battle of Singapore are those on casualties only, i.e, those of killed and wounded. Source: Leasor (1968); Liddell Hart (1970) http://www.crete.tournet.gr/crete-intro-Location_and_Size-15-en.html * Annual Report, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer, 1938. 19 Singapore Year Book, Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1965, 20 According to Rollo (1992), this figure includes six x 18 pdr; six Lewis guns; two Bofors; four x 2 pdrs; eight x 4.5 inch guns; 23 x 3.7 inch guns. The total figure is very close to the numbers of field guns claimed to be captured by the Japanese: 47 guns. 21 According to Rollo (1992), this figure includes three x 9.2 inch Mark VII; five x 9.2 in March V; 12 x 6 inch CP II; two x 6 inch naval; two x 4.7 inch; four x 4 inch naval; two x 60 pdrs guns. Most of these guns were in active use in the defence. 2 Except those with asterisks, the references are those available in the University of Hong Kong Main Library and those quoted in Birch and Cole (1979); Tse (1995); and Ko and Wordie (1996). ================================================================================