Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

In my view, the actual sinking was directly due to the Admirals actions, and inactions.  Had the ships been better deployed, along with air cover, they should have survived.  Now, how much good they could have done later is another question.  

Plausibly, the could have aided in defense of Singapore using HE shells, given the land based large batteries were equipped with antiship AP shells.

But, that's a guess, and also plausibly wrong.

Sending the ships was not, in my view, a major error, at that time, though it turned out to be obviously.  Japan was not at war with GB when they were sent.  As I suggested, the idea was their mere presence might have deterred Japan from attacking at all.  That wasn't realistic, as we know now.

I think we all agree it ended up as an error and that the ships were badly handled at sea.  The only variance in opinion is whether it was a major error by WC at the time.  I think WC made other more significant avoidable errors personally.  He also made some correct calls.

CD they simply didn't have enough air cover in the SCS even if it did arrive on time.It wouldn't have been close just more Tommies taking one for the team. Sorry but ordering them forward was all show and no go.Horner and many others have covered this in their research.

I think any military commander in history cna be faulted for some calls at times.  Maybe Alexander is an exception, but that was so long ago his story may have been whitewashed at times.  Grant made mistakes, Lee made mistakes, Jackson made mistakes, so did Patton and Guderian and Manstein and Rommel.  And higher up, one can say the same about FDR, WC, Hitler, Stalin, and Togo.  The French obviously had an incredibly flawed design in 1940, one almost impossible to believe unless one tries to put on their shoes at that time.  The French had reasons for their approach based on the WW One experience.  That obviously ended up being a disaster.

Mistakes are inherent in war.  And they often are easier to spot in hindsight.

Saturday, December 11, 1920, Robert Muno Rueckheim, (1913-1920), famous as the iconic “Sailor Boy” personification of Cracker Jack popcorn & peanut snack food, met his unfortunate & untimely earthly demise at the age of seven when he died from the effects of pneumonia at the city of Chicago in Cook County, Illinois.

☞Requiéscat in Pace, Robert Rueckheim.

According to the “Find a Grave” website page for Robert Rueckheim:

☞Advertising Icon. Born the son of Dorothy Muno & Edwin Lewis Rueckheim. His grandfather & great uncle, F. W. Rueckheim & Louis Rueckheim, had invented & introduced the caramel-coated popcorn & peanut confection, Cracker Jack, in 1893. The popular sweet was relabeled as early as 1916 bearing an image of young Robert as the brand mascot, Sailor Jack with his dog, Bingo. The logo of the boy & his dog was trademarked in 1919. Robert contracted pneumonia the following winter & succumbed at the age of 7. The Cracker Jack brand still bears his likeness today.

☞The photograph depicts an early Cracker Jack advertising illustration of Sailor Jack & his dog Bingo.

I used to play a board game with a friend that took forever about the Bulge campaign.  The German basically couldn't win anything decisively at all.  The game was useful for learning place names and terrain.

Slaughterhouse-Five: Full Book Summary | SparkNotes

This book and movie were based (very loosely) on Vonnegut's experiences with the 106th when he was captured.  

Churchill was ass for sending them,specially after the Imperial Japanese Navy just displayed in aces 3 days earlier what sea launched airpower was capable of. He couldn't bring himself to admit that Britania didn't rule the waves anymore.Japan had not only the biggest but most advanced NAVY afloat at the dawn of WWII

Nubbz,
This was your initial post on this issue. It was, is, and remains factually wrong.

The decision to send Repulse and POW out of Singapore was a local, tactical decision. It would have been wildly inappropriate for such a decision to be made by a head of state. It wasn't, the decision was made at the appropriate level by Admiral Phillips in Singapore aboard POW:

https://www.navygeneralboard.com/the-loss-of-prince-of-wales-and-repulse/?amp=1

Note that Phillips "did not make the decision lightly, calling a meeting of his senior officers aboard the Prince of Wales at 12.30 on 8 December and outlining the options.[20] They could, he said, stay where they were and get bombed; withdraw out of reach of the Japanese; or attack the invasion force. His officers were clear. The invasion force had to be tackled."

Your assertion that Winston Churchill made this decision is unequivocally and indisputably wrong.

That link also addresses the reasons for sending Repulse and POW to the Far East in the first place. As @Cincydawg and I have patiently explained repeatedly, they were sent in the hope of deterring Japanese aggression. However, the link reminded me of two other reasons that were even more important:

First, the British needed to demonstrate to the Australians, New Zealanders, and other Far Eastern members of the Commonwealth that they would provide defense for them.

The Australians particularly were alarmed by Japanese aggression and reasonably feared that the British would prioritize defense of the home islands at the expense of the defense of Australia.

This was such a serious issue that:
"Australian and New Zealand alarm at the growing Pacific crisis reached the point where both Dominions began holding forces back for local defence, instead of sending them to join Britain’s ground war in North Africa. The Australian government also threatened to pull its army divisions out of Egypt."

Second, the British considered it critical to demonstrate their resolve to the United States to encourage the US not to simply concede. As it turned out that was unnecessary but the British didn't know that when they ordered Repulse and POW to the Far East.

Churchill made lots of mistakes. He is decidedly NOT my hero despite your false assertion otherwise. What you seem to fail to grasp is that neither @Cincydawg nor I are arguing that Churchill was a genius or hero. This whole question is irrelevant to your initial mistake. Irrespective of how smart or dumb Churchill was, he absolutely, unequivocally, and indisputably did NOT order Repulse and POW out of Singapore to impede the Japanese invasion of Malaya.

I think it pretty clear the Admiral made some glaring errors.  Had he done a couple more things properly and reasonably, they might have suffered damage but not been sunk.  There also was the error/issue with not sending a carrier to the region.  I know one was damaged, another apparently sat in South Africa.

I think it pretty clear WC should not have sent them anyway.  It probably seemed like a good idea, to him, at the time, needing to show support for Anzac.  At his level, he's thinking more politically and strategically than tactically.  

Most Admirals of that era believed in their hearts that a capital ship could not be sunk by air attack when fully manned and at sea.  It turned out the Japanese had an excellent Long Lance torpedo that could be effectively air dropped, and the Allies didn't know this.  The Repulse apparently did a fine job avoiding the torpedoes in the first attack.  The PoW got hit in a very vulnerable spot, somewhat akin to what happened to Bismark.