Koh Chang Battle and Franco-Thai War
Some time in the last 2 years you posted a discussion of the Koh Chang battle that was somewhat different to most other accounts. At least, if I remember correctly, the outcome was not quite such a one sided french victory as normally described.
Could you please post this information again, with sources.
many thanks
Jon
Stuart wrote:The Battle of Koh Chang is a minor historical mystery. The usual account (described here as the "accepted account" ) is, in fact, the French report of the events of this action unverified and unchecked. The Thai account (from the Thai Naval Museum in Bangkok) of the action differs dramatically from the French account yet, because it is available in a language not easily available to European Historians, is virtually ignored. In reality the term "accepted account" of this action is grossly misleading. "Accepted account" suggests that it and conflicting claims have been weighed, the discrepancies researched and resolved according to the evidence available. This has never been done; the French account is simply quoted verbatim even though it contains many questionable features and some claims that cannot possibly be true. The following puts the two accounts side by side so they can be compared. I think this is the first time this has ever actually been done. The purpose isn't to prove either the French or Thai accounts to be the more accurate but to try and find out what actually happened.
The French Version
The French squadron closed on the anchorage at 05:30 on the 17th. At 05:45 they split into the three groups as planned, the Lamotte-Picquet heading for the Eastern part of the anchorage, Dumont d'Urville and Amiral Charner continuing to the central position and the Tahure and Marne heading for the Western side. Caught napping by the oncoming French the Thais desperately began to raise steam and make preparations for slipping their anchors. The coastal defense ships had an advantage over their smaller consorts since, being diesel powered they were able to get under way almost immediately.
Despite their initial shock at coming under attack it was the Thai forces which opened fire first at 06:14 when the range had come down to 9,000 meters. The French responded almost immediately. Lamotte-Picquet fired at the dark shapes in the anchorage and fired a spread of three torpedoes at 06 20. One torpedo was seen to hit the coastal defense ship Sri Ayuthia. Heavily damaged by the torpedo and gunfire she headed for the cover of the islands and was finally beached on the mainland. The torpedo boat Trad then became the Lamotte-Picquet's next target. She was heavily damaged and also disappeared behind the cover of the islands, where she later sank. Fire then switched to the remaining torpedo boats, Chonburi and Songhkli, which were rapidly overwhelmed and abandoned. Gunfire from the sloops finished them off at 07:00.
At 06:38 the lookouts on the Lamotte-Picquet spotted the second coastal defense ship, the Dhonburi, at a range of 10,000 meters heading to the North West. A running battle ensued with the fire of both ships frequently blocked by the towering islets. The fire from the Thai ship was heavy, but inaccurate. By 07:15 fires could be seen on the Dhonburi, which then found herself engaged not only by the cruiser but also by the sloops. Believing they had a better chance of hurting the smaller French ships the Thais shifted their fire onto the Amiral Charner, which soon found 8" salvoes falling around her. The Dhonburi shifted fire back to Lamotte-Picquet after a salvo from the French cruiser put her after turret out of action. Soon she reached the safety of shallow water which the French ships could not enter for fear of grounding, but it all came too late for the hapless Thais as the Dhonburi was burning fiercely and listing heavily to starboard. At 07:50 the Lamotte-Picquet fired a final salvo of torpedoes at a range of 15,000 meters but lost sight of the Dhonburi behind an island from which she was not seen to emerge.
For the next hour the French ships patrolled the area, picking up survivors and ensuring their victory was total. At 08:40 Berenger ordered the squadron to head for home, but this coincided with the start of the expected Thai air attacks. Several bombs were dropped close to the Lamotte-Picquet but a vigorous barrage was put up by the ship's AA guns and further attacks were not pressed home. The final raid departed at 09:40, following which the victorious French squadron returned to Saigon.
The French left behind them a scene of total devastation. The Sri Ayuthia was heavily damaged and hard aground on a sand bar in the mouth of the Chantaboun river. She was later raised and repaired by the Japanese, survived the war, but was sunk by Thai shore batteries on 3rd July 1951 during an attempted revolution. The Thai transport Chang arrived at Koh Chang shortly after the French departed and took the Dhonburi in tow but she eventually capsized that afternoon and was a total loss. The torpedo boats Trad, Chonburi and Songhkli had all been sunk. The only survivors were the torpedo boat Rayong, the minelayer Nhong Sarhai and the fishery protection vessel Thiew Uthok. These three ships, which had been sheltering to the North of Koh Chang, wisely chose not to break cover and thus were not observed by the French. At a stroke the cream of the Royal Thai Navy had been wiped out. The French were elated, for they had inflicted a defeat as decisive in its way as the Japanese at Tsushima.
The Thai Version
The Royal Thai Navy had assembled a squadron off Koh Chang Island in order to block an anticipated French naval thrust through coastal waters and to prevent any French attack on the Thai coast. The fleet stationed at Koh Chang consisted of the coastal defense ships Ayuthia and Thonburi, the large sloops Maeklong and Tachin, the torpedo boats Trad, Cholburi, Songkhla and Rayong, the minelayers Nonsarai and Banrachan and the fleet oiler Samui. This fleet was supported by 12 Curtiss Hawk III fighters of Foong Khap Lai 72, a fighter-bomber squadron specially trained for co-operational with the Thai Navy.
The action opened at 05:00 when the French ships entered the Thai anchorage in line ahead. The first targets were the two torpedo boats Cholburi and Songkhla that were anchored near the approach. These two ships were overwhelmed by gunfire and quickly sunk. The Thai fleet was caught completely unawares and the ships were trying to come into action stations while under attack with the Thonburi opening fire some 15 minutes after the opening French salvoes. She succeeded only in attracting gunfire onto herself and was soon disabled by numerous hits from six inch gunfire. Burning and suffering from serious flooding, the Thonburi was beached at the mouth of a local river. However, her sacrifice had bought time for the rest of the squadron to come to action stations. The Ayuthia engaged the French cruiser Lamotte Picquet while the Maeklong and Tachin engaged two French sloops. Meanwhile the torpedo boats Trad and Rayong started to get up steam for a torpedo attack on the French formation.
The exchange of gunfire was indecisive for some time with the French ships unwilling to enter the anchorage to close to decisive range and the Thai ships unable to move due to their need to raise steam. However, at 06:15 the situation changed dramatically. The Ayuthia scored a single 8 inch hit amidships on the Lamotte Picquet which penetrated to the engine rooms. The two surviving torpedo boats finally got up enough steam to start their attacks. They were joined by the minelayer Nongsarai, the Captain hoping that his unarmed ship would draw fire from the torpedo boats and give them a better chance of launching an effective attack. Simultaneously, a Hawk III of Foong Khap Lai 72 overflew the battle area, reporting that one Thai ship was on fire and another apparently sinking. On the basis of this report, FKL-72 started to ready a flight of 3 Hawk III aircraft.
Facing a Thai fleet now coming to full readiness, with his flagship hit and with a torpedo attack imminent, the French commander broke off the action at approximately 07:00 retreating from the scene of the battle pursued by the Trad and Rayong. At 08:00 the French squadron was intercepted by the flight of three FKL-72 Hawk IIIs, lead by Flying Officer Brasong Kunadilok. Flying Officer Brasong's Hawk III was armed with a single 550 pound bomb. He dived on the Lamotte Picquet, scoring a direct hit amidships but his bomb failed to explode. His two wingmen, whose Hawk IIIs were armed with 4 110 pound bombs each dived on the sloops but failed to score any hits.
Following the battle, the crew of the Thonburi put out the fires threatening their ship and refloated her with the aid of the oiler Samui. The Samui towed the badly damaged ship back to Bangkok where she entered dock for repairs. These were never completed, the ship suffering further damage during US air attacks in 1944. She survived as an accommodation hulk in Bangkok until 1956. Ayuthia received only superficial damage and was sunk during a Thai coup in 1951 (she was bombed by the RTAF who didn't expect her to sink so easily ? the Firefly that did the deed is now in the RTAF museum at Don Muang). The Trad and Rayong both survived until 1976 (a photograph of Trad appearing in Janes Fighting Ships 1974-75)
Although Koh Chang was a tactical defeat for the Thai Navy, having lost two torpedo boats in exchange for damage to a light cruiser, it was a strategic victory for them. There was no French dockyard capable of repairing the damage to Lamotte Picquet closer than France itself. The cruiser was disarmed and laid up at Saigon where she was sunk by the US Navy. The French Navy was prevented from interfering in the land war which the Thai Army was winning smartly. A few days before the battle of Koh Chang, advancing Thai infantry had destroyed a battalion of the Foreign Legion at the Battle of the Tonle Sap. Leading elements of a Thai division contacted another French force at Battambang leading to skirmishing between the forward elements of the opposed units. The cease-fire intervened before this could be developed into a major battle.
So what happened?
These two descriptions differ so dramatically that its hard to believe they refer to the same battle. Virtually every detail is different from the times and sequence of the engagement to the casualties inflicted and the ultimate outcome. So how can we reconcile them?
Factual errors
There are several points where the French account is obviously false. They claim to have sunk the torpedo boat HTMS Trad . This is obviously untrue; the ship survived until the mid-1970s and was frequently photographed until she went to the breakers. They claim the HTMS Ayuthia was finally sunk by Thai shore batteries in 1951 during an attempted coup ? in fact she was divebombed by the RTAF. They claim HTMS Thonburi capsized and sank ? in fact she outlived her sistership and was only scrapped in 1956 after serving as an accommodation ship for ten years. Other errors, such as spelling Thai names wrong, are forgivable ? Thai is a very hard language to transliterate. However, the undoubted factual inaccuracies throw some doubt on the integrity of the French version.
In contrast the Thai account does not contain such easily detectable errors. It is congruent with what we know to be the case (the ships that survived postwar). The records of the air attack on the French fleet are extant and they show only the single raid by the three aircraft of FKL-72. The French account implies there were several raids over a period of almost two hours. Unless it can be proved that the Thai Navy and the Thai Air Force collaborated to falsify the records of air missions flown during that period, the two Thai service accounts must stand as independent confirmation of their version and, by definition, pointing to another proven falsehood from the French.
Implausibility's and controversies
The French claim that their formation split into three groups as they entered the anchorage. On the face of it this seems unlikely. It is an well-accepted rule that it's a bad idea to divide one's forces before engaging an equal or stronger enemy. Had the Royal Thai Navy squadron been alerted and waiting for the French, the French unit would have been destroyed in detail. The Thai version of the French ships steaming in line ahead seems more plausible and would have been a wiser tactical choice for the French.
The French account states that they spent an hour patrolling the anchorage and picking up survivors. Whose? According to both accounts the French did not lose any ships and neither French nor Thai reports mention any prisoners from the sunken Thai ships. So who were the survivors and where did they come from? It would seem plausible that the "picking up survivors" is an invention inserted by the French to suggest how "civilized" they were. And patrolling the anchorage for an hour? Without finding the three ships they claim were hiding in the Northern end of the anchorage? That doesn't sound right.
The timings themselves are weird. The Thais put the action an hour earlier than the French with firing commencing at 0500 and the French pulling out at 0700 (and being hit by an airstrike at 0840 while returning to Saigon). The French claim firing started at 0615 and they pulled out at 0840 (with airstrikes ending at 0940). The full time discrepancy is two hours by the end of the action. However, there is an interesting explanation for this. If the Thai Navy had scored a hit of the Lamotte Picquet, reducing her speed, the time taken for the French squadron to get home would have been increased. By claiming to have left Koh Chang two hours later than was the case, this slow-down would be hidden.
This leads us to the vexed question of who damaged what. Did the Thai Navy hit the Lamotte Picquet? They say they did, the French say they did not. Supporting evidence for the Thai claim is a sheet of armor plate in the Thai Navy Museum with a shell hole through it. They claim this was taken from the L-P when she was laid up in Saigon in 1944. Also, L-P never went anywhere or did anything of note after Koh Chang and the Japanese never attempted to take her over. That's suggestive of something being wrong with her. Related to this is what happened to the two Thai coastal defense ships, Thonburi and Ayuthia. One thing is very important to note; these ships were almost completely identical. In a night/early dawn action under confused circumstances, it would be very easy to mix the two ships up. One other point is important. In common with most tropical countries, Thailand goes from night to day fast at dawn; its about 15 minutes from night conditions to full daylight.
In essence the French claim they torpedoed the Ayuthia and drove her aground then shot the Thonburi into a wreck that went down shortly afterwards. The torpedo salvo was probably fired around 0520, half an hour before dawn. So the French fired torpedoes, saw an explosion in the dawn nautical twilight and assumed they had hit. Problem ? the range of 9,000 meters is pushing it for the 55 cm torpedoes on the L-P (max theoretical range was 15,000 meters). This makes hitting rather improbable in the poor visibility. 9,000 meters is a long way in pre-dawn half-light. My guess is that there was no torpedo hit ? the explosion was the 8 inch guns of Thonburi firing at the French ships. If that hit and the claim it drove Ayuthia aground are eliminated things begin to fall into place. We have Thonburi engaging the French squadron, being heavily damaged in the process then Ayuthia (fresh, at full power and knowing what was going on) joining the action, allowing Thonburi to withdraw and lick her wounds. This fits post-battle history. Ayuthia was in service without a break after Koh Chang; Thonburi is reported in JFS to have gone to Japan for repairs. In reality, she was in the Bangkok Dockyard but its quite likely Japanese experts came over to help fix her (she was built in Japan).
We also have the statement from FKL-72 that there was one ship burning and one ship sinking in the Koh Chang anchorage. If the Thai account is to be believed, that can be interpreted to mean that Thonburi was the ship burning and either Cholburi or Songkhla was the one sinking (the other having been either missed or already gone down). If the French account is to be believed there should have been three sinking and two burning ships in the anchorage. Both versions have discrepancies but its easier to reconcile the Thai account with the Air Force report than the French version.
The end of the battle is less ambiguous. The Thai Navy claims the French retreated when the two surviving torpedo boats started to make an attack (aided by the Nongsarai whose Captain deserves the Medal of Honor if the account of his decision is correct) . The French claim that they left due to the threat of air attack. This is a case where both accounts could be accurate; perceptions differing but the results being the same.
It would be very interesting for somebody to put together a realistic account of just what did happen at Koh Chang. I believe that the "accepted version" (the unverified French report) is heavily doctored to maximize the French achievement and minimize their damage. It should be remembered it was written at a time when the French Indo China Army was suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Royal Thai Army. Thus, the temptation to exaggerate the importance of a success that was achieved is understandable. However, the obvious factual errors in the French report mean that its other comments must be under some doubt. The Thai account has the ring of truth about it ? they don't deny they lost the battle and don't hide the losses of Cholburi and Songkhla. It doesn't have obvious errors that can be used to discredit it. Thailand was winning this war and winning it handsomely; they didn't need to bury a single defeat. But, if somebody wants to write a university thesis that can get them a free trip to Bangkok for "research" , determining what really happened at Koh Chang will do it.
jonathan clarke wrote:Many thanks, this is what I was after. Your reconstruction is most plausible, much more so than the Frehcn version. What is your source for Thai version? Interesting that the Maeklong was involved. i saw this elegant vessel several times and was aboard her once.
Some questions on the battle:
With respect to French tactics, it be possible to square the divergent Thai and French tactics in the battle. The French may well have decided to operate the L-P independently of the sloops, as she was much faster. The sloops also were of two different classes, and separating these into sub-units may also have been advantageous. The accounts as you have summarised do not differ that much. The Thai account is of the French disposition as they entered the anchorage and the French statement applying to their disposition after entering.
With respect to the time problem, although Saigon is currently in the same time zone as Bangkok, was this the case in 1941? If Saigon were an hour ahead of Thai time, it would explain the much of the discrepancy of the beginning of the action, although not the end.
Was Nongsarai actually unarmed during the battle? Some sources suggest an armament of 3"AA.
Why did the Thai not pursue the French? At the end of the battle the RTN still had one armoured ship, two torpedo boats and two torpedo armed sloops, all faster than the French squadron which was limited to 14 kts (the speed of the slowest French sloop) plus air support.
Did the Thai ever publish casualty figures?
Some further questions:
How did the piece of plate from the L-P penetrated by an 8" round get to Thailand?
When was the L-P disarmed? If it were before the Vichy collapse in 1943 it would lend strong support to the Thai claim. If it was after, then it might reflect only Japanese reaction to the presence of a ship belonging to a now hostile power.
What is the best estimate of total casualties in the entire war? I have seen figures for less than 200 military deaths on each side, for about 700 on each side, and for about 2000 military + civilian deaths for each.
Some sources mention an attack on French ships off Trad on December 1st, supposedly damaging one ship. Others appear to move the air attack you mention at Koh Chang to this day. Do you have anything more on this event? Was this attack also the work of FKL-72?
One source I have mentions a French river gunboat being sunk on the Mekong on December 3rd. Do you have any information on this?
Tiornu wrote:I am skeptical of the claim of the 8in hit on LP. Whatever damage the ship did receive, it didn't prevent her puttering about locally and later sailing to Osaka for a refit. She was not paid off into reserve until 1942 (I think), and I can't see her receiving treatment any different from that given by the Japanese to other French vessels. I don't have specific sources, however, and I'd be interested in hearing of the subsequent movements of the big sloops. In any case, the Japanese didn't start seizing French gunboats until 1945, and LP was sunk by the US in Jan 1945.
Stuart wrote:The source of this information is the Royal Thai Navy Museum in Bangkok. They had a big display on this battle with show-and-tell boards up on the walls, the armor sheet propped against a wall and a model showing the "critical moment" with the Ayuthia (not Sri Ayuthia by the way) scoring her hit and the torpedo boats making their run. The RTAF Museum in Bangkok (which is worth going to Thailand to see - they have unique things there) has the squadron records - these were used as the basis of an article in Aircraft Enthusiast (I think 25) that is the only article I know that uses Thai records. Finally scuba divers have a resort at Koh Chang and have dived on the wrecks. There are only two down there.
Dispositions
Very good points. Another possibility is that the French split just happened; the L-P went her way speeding up under combat conditions and the other ships manoeuvered to their best advantage. The effect would be to split more or less by class. It may be the French split wasn't a plan at all, it just happened.
Time zones Don't know. I'd assume they are the same.
Nongsarai The Thais claim she was unarmed, her AA gun not being installed. This may be a little discrete emphasis on the conduct of her Captain.
Why didn't the Thai pursue? Look at this from the Thai commander's point of view. The French Navy had a long history of bombarding thai coastal towns and deliberately attacking unarmed civilians. His job was to block any French thrust towards Trat and Bangkok. From his point of view he had done just that, albeit at serious cost. In his eyes he'd won, he'd done what he set out to do. If he went chasing after a French squadron he thought he'd seen off, he'd be risking what was left of his force without any greater aim. Of course, we know now the French target was the Koh Chang squadron not the coastal towns behind it. The Thai commander didn't.
Casualties The Thai Navy did publish the losses at Koh Chang but I don't have them. If I remember correctly, the losses at Koh Chang represent the majority of the Thai casualties in the war.
The armor plate The Thai account is that they had a naval mission in Saigon - where the IJN had its HQ and they visited the laid-up L-P. They took the armor plate from the dockyard to prove they had hit her. Remember Thailand and Japan were "allies" between 1941 and 1945 (although the Thai Government was industriously playing both ends against the middle - for example "declaring war" on the US but forgetting to tell us so no state of war ever officially existed).
The bombed sloop The French sent one of their sloops (I have her name somewhere) to bombard Trat. FKL-72 dive-bombed her and got her with a 50kg bomb.
Land Fighting You'll have to ask Suphi on this one; she's got a description that she's put up before. When she gets disentangled from dealing with muttering Burmese, ask her for her input. I do know that the French Indo-China army was slapped around something horrible; the casualties were very disproportionate. By the way, a lot of the 5REI troops taken prisoner after one of their battalions was overrun refused to go back to Indochina, stayed in Thailand and settled down there.
Stuart wrote:To be honest there is so little reliable evidence on this hit that I don't believe its possible to be either sceptical or supportive of the claim. The puttering around followed by a trip to Osaka could just as easily by fixing the damage (puttering around to test the quality of the hull structural repair followed by the Osaka trip to repair machinery damage). We just don't know and, in all probability, never will. Unless somebody comes up with a photograph of the ship returning with a hole in her side (or lack thereof) to clinch the matter its always going to be unprovable. I know that's unsatisfactory, but its the only really honest answer
jonathan clarke wrote:Thanks very much once again. The Air Enthusiast article I have read, it is this one which conflated the two attacks on French shipping.
The reference to the unexploded bomb on L-P also supports the possiblility that thai representatives did examine the ship, or had access to reports onn her condition. if you are going to make up a story of a hit, why have the bomb not explode? Conversely, if only the pilot's evidence is available, it is unlikely although not impossible) that they would even realise they had scored a hit if the bomb did not detonate.
One further question. You mention that the Thonburi was damaged by allied aircraft in 44, Janes mentions that the friagte Tachin was similarly damaged in 45. Given that Thailand was covertly woring with the allies during this time were the attacks made in error, by over zealous pilots, or were the allies concerned that the vessels might be appropiated by the Japanese? Alternatively perhaps the attacks made by the RAF as Britain was at war with Thailand, although supporting the Free Thai movement through SOE.
Stuart wrote:The situation in Thailand between 1941 and 1945 borders on the ludicrous. For example the Bangkok Police ran the escape route for allied airmen shot down over Thai territory from the Bangkok Central Jail. The allies bombed targets throughout the country, mostly using B-24 Liberators. They did one superb raid in 1944 that took out the HQ of the Japanese secret police in Bangkok without damaging any of the surrounding civilian buildings. This caused great admiration in the Thai Government that only faded in 1947 when they found that the bombers had been aiming at the Rama IV railway bridge a mile and a half away. I assume Thonburi got wrecked as collateral damage when the dockyard was bombed. My guess on Taksin is that she was mistaken for something else.
There was a book called "Bangkok - Top Secret" that described the Free Thai movement and what it achieved. I think its out of print now but its worth finding
jonathan clarke wrote:Surreal might be a better word!
I remember reading one account of a function hosted by the Thai government4ent attended by various allied military representatives in full uniform while external security was provided by the Japanese, apparently unaware of what was going on. Or perhaps they did not want to.
Another story was of the Thai's taking their POWs (again in uniform) on weekend visits to the fleshpots of bangkok (note for others, POWs held by Thailand were separte from those help by the Japanese).
jonathan clarke wrote:French anyone? I have come across an interesting web page on the battle that has photos of all classes of French vessels, a rather and their commanders, a rather fuzzy track plot, and a photo of a burning ship in the distance. Unfortunately it is in French, so I can't tell whether it adds anything of substance or if it just repeats the standard French version of a crushing victory over the Thai aggressors through French superiority. Any takers? It is at <www.netmarine.net/bat/cro...index.htm>
There is also a brief description of diving one of the wrecks at <home1.pacific.net.sg/~bob...cuba3.htm>
Supatra wrote:Casualties
Sad to say lose many good men at Koh Chang. On torpedo boats were almost 150 men about half were killed most of rest have wound. On Thonburi was not so bad about 15 killed but also many wounded. Total was 83 dead.
On land are fortunate casualty not so heavy for us very heavy for French. At Poipat 3/1 Infantry battalion of Black Panther Division attack 3rd battalion of 5th REI. We lose very few less than ten dead and wounded. French lose 60 dead eight plus wounded. Is that way for all battles we fight against French on land. By time Japanese make us sign peace agreement almost have French army surrounded. Panthers in position to south west and north of French to east is Tongle Sap. Think three four more days French must surrender. Please Khun Jon come back tomorrow have better account for you give background to what happen. Stu Khun Tim have maps of fighting show position when start what is position when ceasefire is called. Cannot link from here if send can post please?
Tiornu wrote:Well, with help from Mark Horan and Bob Henneman, I've tried to pin down exactly what work was done on LP after the battle. The info they dug up derives from French sources. LP had gone without a proper refit for five and a half years, and she needed hull work and retubing for her boilers. The French had no drydock of sufficient size and so had to make arrangements with the Japanese. The hull work was done at Osaka, and LP headed back to Saigon where she would have her boilers tended. She ran into a typhoon on the way home, leading to a month of repairs.
Subsequently she was immobile, probably for want of logistics. But I haven't found any indication of battle damage. The French sources don't mention any dud bombs, but they do note some rattling near misses. Apparently the French admired the vigor with which the Thai ships fought, and the accounts don't evidence any inclination to mask any damage they might have received--but who knows?
So this is a long way of saying that no significant news was revealed.
Stuart wrote:I'm not sure - this is a very strange story. What it appears to say is that we have a ship that has hull deterioration and serious engine problems. So first they sail her to a drydock in Osaka, fix the hull problems, then they bring her back and fix the engine problems.
Uhhhh that doesn't compute.
Since the dockyard in Saigon is capable of retubing the boilers, wouldn't it have been more logical to have done that first, got the engines working properly THEN taken her to Osaka for the drydocking? The way the account says, the French were running a serious risk of a terminal machinery breakdown on the way to or from Osaka and having their cruiser drifting around without power in typhoon season. Thats a good way to lose a cruiser. The only reason for doing things the way they did is if there was hull deterioration or damage that had to be fixed before the machinery repairs could be undertaken. A shell hole in the plating opening a boiler room to the sea would do it. We'd have a temporary plate welded over the hole, then the ship goes to Osaka for drydocking and full repairs. Then the French bring her back to Saigon where they fix the boiler room.
All of which is a complex way of saying we still have no unambiguous evidence either way. My problem with the French claims is that they are demonstrably incorrect in the one place we can check them. Of the five ships they claim to have sunk, two were actually undamaged (or only superficially hurt) and one was badly chewed up but survived.
I've translated the French article Jon pointed us to and it doesn't really add much to the sum (except for an exposition of French brilliance). It does seem that Thonburi's lonely battle (I'm convinced the ship initially fired on and the French thought they'd torpedoed and the ship that did the long gunnery duel were both Thonburi) kept the French out of the main part of the anchorage. That would explain why the French only fired on five of the eleven ships present.
Supatra wrote:Land War in Indochina
Please excuse but must start with thing behind conflict. After much dispute border between Siam and Vietnamese kingdoms of Annam, Tonkin, Cochin settled along Mekong River. French take Vietnam Laos and Cambodia in 1887. British have Malaya and Burma. Siam in middle so French start steal our territory. First they take Sibsong Chuthai and Huapan Tanghok Provinces in 1887. Under law where river is boundary between state border run down middle of river. French ignore first say border is west bank and take all islands in Mekong. Then in 1893 tell more lie and say border is west edge of watershed and steal all territory there. In 1904 French steal Paklai and Champasak Provinces. Follow in 1907 by taking away Battambang, Srisophon and Siamrap Provinces.
Siam can do nothing to stop. Army is old fashion has no way to fight French Army. His Royal Highness Rama V decide Siam must become modern country with western army to protect country from French. His Royal Highness is great hero to Thai people we not like those who make fun of. We have eight province in South were part of old Kingdom of Pattani. In 1909 English make claim for these but behave with honor. French steal. English negotiate and we split. Four north province stay with Siam four south provinces Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu go to English. English also tell French to stay away from rest of Siam. This why Thai people like English so much.
In 1917 His Royal Highness King Rama VI declare war on Germany, send military units to France to fight with English. One unit medical, Thai nurses with this only women to serve in trench on Western Front. Also send aircraft squadron but not see action. In East intern German people and ships. When German go home in 1919 say were treated with great kindness by Thai people. This make for friendship between Germany and Siam.
After First World War Siam hire German advisors to train new Thai Army. This why Royal Thai Army for very long time was German in thought. Still is. Doctrine stress maneuver not firepower. Officer taught to lead not manage. Small units expect to think for self not sit wait for order. Have special training for staff. Teach staff work to as many officer as can. Is better for officer to know little of staff than nothing. By 1935 have new Army. Army look German. Have jackboot have coal-scuttle helmet. Some Thai troop fight in Vietnam still have this. Make American very nervous. Each German train division is quadrilateral. Platoon has four squad for 44 men. Company has four platoon. Battalion has four company, Regiment has four battalion. Division has four regiment. In total Division has 16,000 men. Has artillery regiment has tank battalion. Each regiment has motorized machine gun company with Vickers machine gun on Carden-Lloyd light tank. Buy much German equipment for new army. Soon add new thing to Army. Mount 37 mm AA gun on Carden Lloyd to give first purposeful AA tank in world.
Army also has cavalry division and other unit but four new infantry division with 50,000 soldier are backbone. One Division is King's Guard, rest are Queen's Cobra Division Black Panther Division White Horse Division. In 1935 is incident with French. Khun Inta Bangcongcit own logging company buy timber in Laos float down Mekong river to Siam. French break all treaty agreement and contract take timber and give to own company. Khun Inta complain French authority arrest give to police who beat him and rape wife. Siam make complaint to League of Nations. As result in 1937 new treaty between Siam and 13 other country. All extra-territorial law abolish now all people in Siam subject to Siam law. France order to compensate Khun Inta and wife but never do. In 1938 Siam approach France to renegotiate boundary to prevent more incident like Khun Inta. France refuse to talk this or any time. Siam keep ask for negotiation on border but France refuse.
Important this. France say Siam only make demand because Japanese in Indo China. This see not true. Try to negotiate for many year but France refuse. English do negotiate on border in south do not make change but give trade concession instead. Give help with other things.
In April 1940 Phya Direk is Thai Foreign Minister. Phya is honorary title for man equivalent for lady is Khunying. Make non-aggression treaty with Japan and England. After fall of France authority in Indo China change. Phya Direk hope new government will have friendly attitude so approach again ask for negotiation. France again refuse this time with much rudeness. Include personal insult to Major General Luang Pibul who is prime minister of Thailand now. English now express concern to General Pibul about French Indo China becoming Japanese. English Minister Sir Josiah Crosby say to General Pibul that if Japan take Indo China Thailand should ask for return parts where people are Siamese.
English now put much pressure on France to negotiate with Thailand. Thailand offer non-aggression pact with France like that sign with Japan and England. Negotiations start 10th September 1940 with six agenda that make border more clear and return some area to Thailand. Negotiations go for two week then France walk out. French authority make thing very bad for Thai in Indochina. People who cross for business are arrest and police beat. 7th October 1940 Khun Canta Sintharako and family cross border to make business deal with partner in Cambodia. Police arrest make family watch while beat Khun Canta to death. Thailand demand investigation apology and renewal of talk.
On 20th October 1940 France reply. In secret document make policy they call dissuasion. If Thailand try to make negotiate or complain France take military action on border. French aircraft overfly Thai territory. French artillery start to shell border posts. Soon Thai border police find French patrol are crossing border. Soon Thai Army start aircraft patrol along border to turn back French intruder. Army also move artillery to border return French fire. All November incident get more common. French send bomber at night to avoid Thai fighter. 1st December 1940 French Navy send three sloop shell coast town of Trat. FKL-72 send flight of three Hawk III bombers to defend Trat. Attack sloop hitting one with 50 kilo bomb. French very angry respond with night bomb town Aranyaprathet. Kill six civilian. Next night bomb Nakhorn Thanom kill two more. In all drop 40 ton of bomb on towns. Major General Pibul beg for calm but public anger demand action. Bombers came from Ban Sin airfield so FTR-50 send six Martin bombers to attack on 16th December. Hit field in daylight destroy some aircraft there.
Is quiet for two week. Then French attack with bombers on night 4th January hit towns of Udorn and Nong Kai. Next morning large French force cross border near Aranyaprathet advance on town. Before get far are ambush by company of Black Panther Division Other company outflank French force and drive back in much confusion. On 6th January Black Panther Division invade Cambodia and Queen's Cobra Division invade Laos.
<www.myezboard.com/project...FTW1A.jpg>
Plan is simple. First Regiment Black Panther Division near coast straight away seize Poipet on border then attack to Sisophon. Have support from Hawk II fighter and Nagoya bomber from KBN-75. Some French unit try to stand but each time same story. French unit pin by frontal attack while Panthers outflank and roll up defense. Soon are moving north to Tonle Sap. In North is Fourth Regiment Black Panther Division. These cross border destroy small French force then drive south also to Tonle Sap. In center is Second and Third Regiment Black Panther Division. Both these move down road to Battambang. French think this is main thrust move most of army to meet. Is bad mistake for them ignore moves from north and south. French walk into trap. Soon all of French Army in Cambodia is surrounded supplies cut. One destroyed plan is to drive on Saigon restore border to rightful place.
While Panthers fight in Cambodia Queen's Cobra Division crosses border into Laos drives to Mekong River. In front of Cobras is battalion of the French Foreign Legion 5th Regiment Etranger d'Infanterie (5 REI). They are in defensive position. At night guards see movement to front and call alert but too late. Cobras already over wire and catch French. Very soon all is over. Legion battalion surrender to our infantry. Cobras advance to river then halt. On 22 January recon platoons of Second and Third Regiments Black Panther Division find French final line of resistance at Yang Dang Khum. There is skirmish on line. French infantry unit attack our scout platoons we drive back in great confusion. Our recon troop develop position and wait for tank and infantry to catch up so can destroy French army but ceasefire come first.
<www.myezboard.com/project...ftw1B.jpg>
Japanese think we win so well that we take all Indo China and wish to stop this so mediate peace agreement. Is signed on cruiser Natori 31st January 1941. We get territory French steal from us back but lose again in 1945. If only Japanese not stop us border be all along Mekong River today. Think how many problem this stop.
jonathan clarke wrote:I now have a translation of the web page on the Koh Chang battle at www.netmarine.net/bat/cro...index.htm. As Stuart said, it adds little to what is known. The triumphalism in the French accounts is understandable, I think. Koh Chang was their only victory in a war they lost ignominiously and the only bright patch in an otherwise very tragic period in French history. Indeed, it is perhaps the only example of a French naval victory against a technologically equivalent foe since the Napoleonic wars.
In reading the translation and other versions of the "accepted" (i.e. French) account (e.g. www.btinternet.com/~david...chang.htm) there are several anomalies.
At first glance the French version appears to be a straight-forward account of how the French saw their side of the battle. The inconsistencies with the Thai version are not significantly greater than what is normal in viewing a battle from different sides. However, closer inspection reveals difficulties additional to those noted by Stuart.
1. The French accounts all name the Thai ships present. This is not an issue for the Thonburi and Ayuthia, being the only member of a distinctive 2-ship class. But how were the French able to identify the torpedo boats Rayong, Trat, Songkla and Chonburi as present? These were members of a 9-ship class, all identical. As far as I can tell the Thai navy rarely painted identifying numbers on its ships. They also correctly identified the minelayer Nonsari as being present. This would suggest that either they did indeed pick up some survivors, as some accounts say, or that they had access to Thai records after the event. This second possibility raises more questions. If the French have read the Thai accounts (or even post-war editions of "Jane's Fighting Ships" they would surely have known that the Thai's lost only 2 ships, not 5. They would also have discovered that the Thai squadron consisted of 11 ships, not 8. Surely this makes the French victory more impressive. Even if they chose to ignore the actual Thai losses, why do French sources ignore the actual size of the Thai force?
2. The French language web page say that there were only 82 survivors from 4 sunken Thai ships. Col Supatra in her most helpful posts says that there were only 83 dead in total. The numbers are almost the same, only what they refer to are different. I can think of three possibilities. Perhaps the French were relying on badly translated Thai sources for the casualty figures, or have been misled, or they made the figure up.
3. The French language web page also says that the captain of the Thonburi was killed in the opening salvoes of Motte Piquet, these also killed the officer in charge of the telephone link to the shore station. Shells falling long from the sloops are supposed to have destroyed the shore station itself. These statements would suggest that the writer, or his sources, had access to Thai accounts, to give such detail. However, as with difficulty 1, if they had access to Thai sources, why is the correct strength of the Thai squadron not given, or the correct losses? Col. Supatra, are these claims true?
So the mystery deepens. Difficulty 1 may be resolved if the French understanding of the Thai forces and losses was based on their own interpretation of the battle and information they extracted from survivors. Problems 2 and 3 however indicate that the French account (a) relies on high unreliable/poorly translated Thai sources, (b) includes fabricated information, or (c) uses only information that adds to the brilliance of the French victory. I would prefer (a) and I think that (c) is unlikely as, if correct, why do the French accounts not include the larger Thai force that was actually there? If (b) is correct, then the entire French account, including the course of action and the lack of damage to the French force, becomes highly suspect. Some of these issues could be resolved if primary sources could be found which indicate whether or not Motte Picquet was damaged, what Thai sources have been used by the French, and whether or not Thai survivors were picked up. Whatever the answer, it is inexcusable that the original French version of events, in particular the supposed Thai loses, should be uncritically repeated 60 years after the event when they real figures could be ascertained by anyone with access to Jane's.
One final question. Why did Motte Picquet go to Osaka for dry dock, not Singapore, which was closer?
jonathan clarke wrote:Thank you Col. Supatra for your most illuminating description. I look forward to further details. As I understand it the French between 1858 and 1907 forcibly occupied almost half of the terrtiory nominally owing alligence to Thailand.
Stuart wrote:Mysteries of Koh Chang
I've been talking this over with Antony Preston as well who had an insight into why the French attach so much importance to this action. Its simply the only naval battle they've got even a passing claim to winning unassisted since 1781.
1) The French information on the orders of battle is, I think, based on radio intercepts and human intell. If they were basing ID of which ships are where on call-signs that would explain why they knew which ships were which out of those identified. However ships that hadn't transmitted from that location yet wouldn't be known. Suphi's emailing me some maps of the land war for relay to here. Acording to her intro, they are based on French intelligence maps and show French positions accurately. The Thai positions were more or less accurate but are incomplete and units are partially identified (battalions have the correct numbers but not regimental or divisional affiliation). This suggests that the French had cracked into the low-level communications networks but not the higher net. (Dirk - comments from a SIGINT would be much appreciated here). The maps we'll be getting have been corrected with the proper dispositions and designations. I think the French didn't actually get into the anchorage at Koh Chang but tooled around outside (the track chart suggests that) so didn't see the other ships and perhaps only found out they were there postwar. That, again, suggests that the "accepted account" is the contemporary French action report.
2) As to casualties, both figures may be correct. The total crews of the two torpedo boats was around 140 - 150 men (they are listed at 70 each). 83 dead plus 82 saved gives 165 which gives us ten or 15 dead on Thonburi. This, again, strongly implies that the French claim to have torpedoed Ayuthia is mistaken. By the way, the description in the French account of the "torpedo explosions" strongly suggests that the French torpedoes exploded in shallow water. My guess is the French torpedo salvo exploded prematurely in shoal water and the "explosion on the hull of Ayuthia" was Thonburi opening fire.
3) No idea, we'll have to wait for Suphi to get back (there was an attempt to assassinate the Thai Prime Minister on Saturday and the drug lords are the prime suspects. My guess is it'll be some days before she has time for the internet on any consistent basis. I got a brief email from her Sunday night saying the maps were being got ready and explaining the position out there),
4) Timing is crucial on the drydock issue; remember this is very early 1941. France has fallen, the Indo-China government is very strongly dominated by Vichy. The British are not going to use their drydock capacity to repair a French warship that might serve against them in a few weeks or months time. Osaka is probably the only available option (somebody really devious might suggest that the Japanese helped fix the L-P up because they wanted her themselves......)
I think we're zeroing in on two issues that need clearing up (three if we include those referred to Suphi). One is were there any PoWs from the two sunken torpedo boats and the second is was the L-P hit? The force structure problem I'm inclined to suggest was due to the French simply not seeing some of the ships and then never ammending their accounts.
Passing thought; telephone link? . Surely not. Radio link probably. In which case if the L-P was intercepting Thai radio comms they may have seen their overs, heard the radio link go off the air and assume they'd taken it down.
Dirk Mothaar wrote:This all has to do with the ground battle. There is a fair amount of traffic generated between companies and their parent battalions, so they're fairly easy to identify. In my experience, most combat units don't pay so much as lip service to communications security and figuring out who is who on a given net takes just a few minutes. My guess with Thai units is that they started using landlines at higher headquarters. A regimental headquarters would probably have landlines to its parent division and it would not surprise me greatly if it also used landlines to talk to its subordinate battalions.
There are a couple of other, less likely possibilities as well. The French may have had an inadequete number of Thai linguists. They could have intercepted a lot of voice and morse traffic, but been unable to translate it. This would have required them to rely mostly on traffic analysis (B, C, D and E all talk to A, but not to each other - it is likely that B, C, D and E are subordinate to A). This will yield some information, but doesn't tell some things. For example, you may be able to identify a battalion talking to its companies, but have no idea which battlion it is (and sometimes even what kind of battalion).
The other possibility that comes readily to mind is that the French SIGINT unit was inadequete to the job, either through lack of sufficient numbers of personnel and equipment (pretty self explanatory) or through incompetence. Incompetence can take several forms - the linguists may not be good enough to understand what they've intercepted, the analysts may not be good enough to interpret the translations, the intercept equipment may have been badly sited (in a valley or on the wrong side of a mountain, for instance) and unable to intercept much. There are really a lot of problems that could have caused the French to misidentify a regiment or division or simply have a blank on their unit chart.