Any chances for IJN and RN carriers to meet in battle 1943-45?

[Admiral Beez]

Was there any instances where the IJN and RN carriers could have encountered each other in 1943 to 45? I'd like to see how a RN AFD carrier equipped with radar, single-seat fighters (Seafire, Martlet, Hellcat or Corsair) and modern strike aircraft (Tarpon or Barracuda) would perform against a IJN carrier equipped with the latest A6M, B7N and D4Y. Of course by late war the quality/experience of IJN aircrew was reduced, but the Kido Butai remained a fighting force, for example at the June 1944 Battle of the Philippine Sea the IJN fielded nine carriers with 450 carrier aircraft. Perhaps this is where the RN can contribute a carrier?

But if there was never any chance of such an engagement my idea is moot. There is the one example of HMS Victorious' sinking IJN CVE Shimane Maru, avenging poor HMS Hermes, but like Hermes, the IJN carrier did not have a CAP defence, and in the IJN case the ship was at anchor. I'm looking more for a fleet carrier fight. For example, if an IJN carrier or two accompanies the March 1944 Indian Ocean Raid, such as one or both of the newly commissioned Chitose-class.

 

[mack8]

Since i'm a sucker for IJN carrier ATL scenarios, i'll bite. So what's the POD, how far can we diverge from OTL history? Can suggest various scenarios based on that.

I think i stated my opinion elsewhere that even against Ozawa's force with it's poorly trained aircrews, one-on-one a RN carrier force, even comprising ALL british fleet carriers at that time -how many were they operational in mid 1944, perhaps 5? we can even add the surviving Folly, and still looks grim for RN- they would be in grave danger. They don't have the numbers to stop a 300 plane strike from KB, and they don't have enough decks to absorb damage and still retain enough operational ships for a large counterstrike, nevermind actually getting 275 miles from Ozawa, iirc the absolute maximum strike range for the US planes to safely return, unless they accept most will ditch on the way back and send at 300 nm or more.

 

[SaparotRob]

I love this stuff too but by mid 1944, the IJN may have had the flight decks but they didn't have the pilots.

 

[RCAFson]

Was there any instances where the IJN and RN carriers could have encountered each other in 1943 to 45? I'd like to see how a RN AFD carrier equipped with radar, single-seat fighters (Seafire, Martlet, Hellcat or Corsair) and modern strike aircraft (Tarpon or Barracuda) would perform against a IJN carrier equipped with the latest A6M, B7N and D4Y. Of course by late war the quality/experience of IJN aircrew was reduced, but the Kido Butai remained a fighting force, for example at the June 1944 Battle of the Philippine Sea the IJN fielded nine carriers with 450 carrier aircraft. Perhaps this is where the RN can contribute a carrier?

But if there was never any chance of such an engagement my idea is moot. There is the one example of HMS Victorious' sinking IJN CVE Shimane Maru, avenging poor HMS Hermes, but like Hermes, the IJN carrier did not have a CAP defence, and in the IJN case the ship was at anchor. I'm looking more for a fleet carrier fight. For example, if an IJN carrier or two accompanies the March 1944 Indian Ocean Raid, such as one or both of the newly commissioned Chitose-class.

View attachment 616338

There was certainly a possibility that HMS Victorious (AKA USS Robin) could have tangled with IJN carriers based at Rabual or Truk in mid 1943.

Otherwise the RN had few carriers operating in the IO due to commitments in the MTO and ETO.

Mid 1944 and onward (before mid June) presents a slender possibility but there was only Illustrious in the IO at that point, IIRC


As an aside, according to a Halsey biography in 1945 the BPF was forbidden to attack high value IJN targets in IJ homewaters; IJN capital ships were reserved for the USN.

 

[RCAFson]

Since i'm a sucker for IJN carriers ATL scenarios, i'll bite. So what's the POD, how far can we diverge from OTL history? Can suggest various scenaros based on that.

I think i stated my opinion elsewhere that even against Ozawa's force with it's poorly trained aircrews, one-on-one a RN carrier force, even comprising ALL british fleet carriers at that time -how many were they operational in mid 1944, perhaps 5? we can even add the surviving Folly, and still looks grim for RN- they would be in grave danger. They don't have the numbers to stop a 300 plane strike from KB, and they don't have enough decks to absorb damage and still retain enough operational ships for a large counterstrike, nevermind actually getting 275 miles from Ozawa, iirc the absolute maximum strike range for the US planes to safely return, unless they accept most will ditch on the way back and send at 300 nm or more.

In mid 1944, (no ETO/MTO war) with some allowance for slightly faster completion of the Implacables, the RN could have had 7 fleet carriers (6 x AFD) and Ark Royal with about 450 embarked aircraft. Add the 3 Furious class and Unicorn, as fighter carriers for another ~150 fighters (Seafire III and ~50 ASW/strike aircraft).

However, we have to remember that the 'great turkey shoot' was a function of the IJN decision to pause the attack. amd orbit the USN TFs whilst within easy range of USN CAP, to try and better assess the position of the USN carriers; this was a truly suicidal tactic and if repeated against the FAA would probably have led to similar dire consequences for the IJN. If the IJN strike had gone straight in things would been a lot harder for the USN.

This assumes no new carrier builds, but the UK could have had ~6 Light Fleet carriers in service by mid 1944 for another ~240 embarked aircraft, given earlier start dates for laying down and faster build times with higher build priority.

 

[mack8]

I love this stuff too but by mid 1944, the IJN may have had the flight decks but they didn't have the pilots.

It may be that the IJN didn't have the pilots, but the RN didn't have the flight decks/numbers! It's like a fight between someone missing an arm and another missing a leg.

 

[mack8]

In mid 1944, (no ETO/MTO war) with some allowance for slightly faster completion of the Implacables, the RN could have had 7 fleet carriers (6 x AFD) and Ark Royal with about 450 embarked aircraft. Add the 3 Furious class and Unicorn, as fighter carriers for another ~150 fighters (Seafire III and ~50 ASW/strike aircraft).

However, we have to remember that the 'great turkey shoot' was a function of the IJN decision to pause the attack. amd orbit the USN TFs whilst within easy range of USN CAP, to try and better assess the position of the USN carriers; this was a truly suicidal tactic and if repeated against the FAA would probably have led to similar dire consequences for the IJN. If the IJN strike had gone straight in things would been a lot harder for the USN.

This assumes no new carrier builds, but the UK could have had ~6 Light Fleet carriers in service by mid 1944 for another ~240 embarked aircraft, given earlier start dates for laying down and faster build times with higher build priority.

Well, it's up to the OP to decide his prefered scenario, but if we give RN all their carriers build OTL with no losses at all, we can give IJN the 4 lost Midway carriers and 2 CVLs lost in 1942. And hell, some Unryus to counter the RN CVLs! Btw as discussed elsewhere, no ETO/MTO war means RN will probably have another pair of Implacables in 1944.

As a sidenote, interestingly enough, it seems that despite their difficult situation the japanese were spitting out Unryus faster than UK did Colossus CVLs. But both were but to shame by the Essex building speed.

 

[mack8]

This is for spring 1945, so it's biased towards RN for our ATL carrier battle in 1944 (but presumably the numbers might not be very different, though the composition might, more Barracudas and Seafires?), but this is how the RN carrier groups looked like according to the excellent Armouredcarriers.com website :

The British armoured carriers held about 220 aircraft between them. US aircraft made up 76 per cent of this force. A USN Fifth Fleet Task Group contained an average of 320.

• HMS Indomitable: 857 squadron (15 Avengers), 1839, 1844 squadrons (29 Hellcats)
• HMS Victorious: 849 squadron, (14 Avengers), 1834, 1836 squadrons (37 Corsairs), 2 Walrus ASR
• HMS Indefatigable: 820 squadron (20 Avengers), 887, 894 squadrons (40 Seafires), 1770 squadron (9 Fireflies)
• HMS Illustrious: 854 squadron (16 Avengers), 1830, 1833 squadrons, (36 Corsairs)
• HMS Formidable: 848 squadron (19 Avengers), 1841, 1842 squadrons, (36 Corsairs)

Armoured Aircraft Carriers

The British Pacific Fleet Task Force 57 Politics & Logistics: Sakishima Gunto, Okinawa Campaign, 1945

www.armouredcarriers.com

220 vs 450, oof that's bad odds even with poor japanese pilots.

PS: Implacable's air group in 1945 was 48 Seafire, 21 TBF and 12 Firefly, so a grand total of 300 planes for the 6 armoured carriers. Thought the OTL completion dates show the 2 Implacables couldn't have been ready for a mid-1944 Pacific battle, unless we have a scenario where they are finished earlier.

PPS: Furious could have had as an example 24 Seafires (or maybe Hellcats?) and 9 Barracudas in mid 1944, though the type numbers may vary up or down.

 

[RCAFson]

This is for spring 1945, so it's biased towards RN for our ATL carrier battle in 1944 (but presumably the numbers might not be very different, though the composition might, more Barracudas and Seafires?), but this is how the RN carrier groups looked like according to the excellent Armouredcarriers.com website :

The British armoured carriers held about 220 aircraft between them. US aircraft made up 76 per cent of this force. A USN Fifth Fleet Task Group contained an average of 320.

• HMS Indomitable: 857 squadron (15 Avengers), 1839, 1844 squadrons (29 Hellcats)
• HMS Victorious: 849 squadron, (14 Avengers), 1834, 1836 squadrons (37 Corsairs), 2 Walrus ASR
• HMS Indefatigable: 820 squadron (20 Avengers), 887, 894 squadrons (40 Seafires), 1770 squadron (9 Fireflies)
• HMS Illustrious: 854 squadron (16 Avengers), 1830, 1833 squadrons, (36 Corsairs)
• HMS Formidable: 848 squadron (19 Avengers), 1841, 1842 squadrons, (36 Corsairs)

Armoured Aircraft Carriers

The British Pacific Fleet Task Force 57 Politics & Logistics: Sakishima Gunto, Okinawa Campaign, 1945

www.armouredcarriers.com

220 vs 450, oof that's bad odds even with poor japanese pilots.

PS: Implacable's air group in 1945 was 48 Seafire, 21 TBF and 12 Firefly, so a grand total of 300 planes for the 6 armoured carriers. Thought the OTL completion dates show the 2 Implacables couldn't have been ready for a mid-1944 Pacific battle, unless we have a scenario where they are finished earlier.

PPS: Furious could have had as an example 24 Seafires (or maybe Hellcats?) and 9 Barracudas in mid 1944, though the type numbers may vary up or down.

Your math is wrong.

44 + 53 + 69 +52 + 55 = 273 + 81 (implacable) = 354.


Both Implacable class carriers were delayed due to various suspensions of work during their building. RN carrier aircraft complement varied day by day as per any operational carrier force, but on June 21 1944 Illustrious was operating 57 aircraft ( 15 Bara and 42 F4U) whilst numbers for Indomitable bounce around, but she typically carried 50+ aircraft (40 fixed wing Seafire IIc and 15 Albacore for Husky). The Seafire III required less deck space than the F6F/F4U as they could be parked 4 abreast in the hangar.

Here's another snapshot later:

Orders of Battle - Carrier Raids on the Home Islands - Battles of the Pacific - World War II - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Furious operated 24 fixed wing Seafires and 9 Albacores in late 1942 for Torch, and certainly could have carried more Seafire IIIs. Glorious and Courageous had larger hangars than Furious.

 

[mack8]

Your math is wrong.

44 + 53 + 69 +52 + 55 = 273 + 81 (implacable) = 354.


Both Implacable class carriers were delayed due to various suspensions of work during their building. RN carrier aircraft complement varied day by day as per any operational carrier force, but on June 21 1944 Illustrious was operating 57 aircraft ( 15 Bara and 42 F4U) whilst numbers for Indomitable bounce around, but she typically carried 50+ aircraft. The Seafire III required less deck space than the F6F/F4U as they could be parked 4 abreast in the hangar.

Here's another snapshot later:

Orders of Battle - Carrier Raids on the Home Islands - Battles of the Pacific - World War II - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Well, not my math but the site's! Should have checked though, i guess they meant "about 270 planes". Still 350 planes is a far cry from the 900 planes of TF58 that Ozawa had to face (including about 450 F6Fs) in OTL. RN will only have just roughly half that number of fighters.

PS: the later numbers 53, 54, 81 and 64 add to 252 on 4 ships.

 

[RCAFson]

Well, not my math but the site's! Should have checked though, i guess they meant "about 270 planes". Still 350 planes is a far cry from the 900 planes of TF58 that Ozawa had to face (including about 450 F6Fs) in OTL. RN will only have just roughly half that number of fighters.

But the OTL is not being discussed here and the numbers you have selected are low (see my edits above) as you've left a number of carriers off the table.

 

[RCAFson]

Well, it's up to the OP to decide his prefered scenario, but if we give RN all their carriers build OTL with no losses at all, we can give IJN the 4 lost Midway carriers and 2 CVLs lost in 1942. And hell, some Unryus to counter the RN CVLs! Btw as discussed elsewhere, no ETO/MTO war means RN will probably have another pair of Implacables in 1944.

As a sidenote, interestingly enough, it seems that despite their difficult situation the japanese were spitting out Unryus faster than UK did Colossus CVLs. But both were but to shame by the Essex building speed.

You are creating a June 1944 ATL that seems to start off on the basis that the USN vanishes in mid 1944. As mentioned the IJN home islands were not bombed until mid 1944 and there was no disruption to IJN building plans , whereas UK shipyards were actively repurposed for other tasks, which meant that many RN ships were suspended on the ways. Again the UK suffered through a massive loss of shipping due to u-boats and a Luftwaffe bombing campaign, starting in earnest in May 1940. This creates an impossible handicap for the RN as it means that the UK and Commonwealth built hundreds of escort ships to counter a non-existent U-boat war, and myriads of other items, such as a massive AA force in the UK for no purpose. Whereas the IJN is building and fighting essentially the same war that they faced in the OTL.

The first Unryu class carrier wasn't completed until Aug 1944 and our proposed war starts in Dec 1941.

If the USN had to fight in the ETO/MTO and PTO simultaneously, with no BCE support, the USN OTL building plans would not have survived either.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Brits still have good radar-directed fighter intercept. As long as they have good fighter planes and pilots too, might not be too bad. Focus on the Kates, let the DBs bounce bombs off'n those armored decks, which rejected kamikazes later OTL. Shoot down anything else not wearing roundels. Still wouldn't be pretty, but hey-ho.

 

[EwenS]

Your math is wrong.

44 + 53 + 69 +52 + 55 = 273 + 81 (implacable) = 354.


Both Implacable class carriers were delayed due to various suspensions of work during their building.

Only Indefatigable was formally suspended for about 4 months in 1940.

Fairfield had so much work on in 1940/41 for the size of its workforce that something had to give. Implacable and cruiser Bellona suffered because priorities lay elsewhere and they were hardly worked on for c10months. Orders for 2 destroyers were transferred to John Brown just downriver because they could progress them faster.

At John Brown the biggest priority 1940/41 was the BB DoY. Even the monitor Roberts had a higher priority in 1940/41 for yard labour than Indefatigable.

More delays due to design changes.

Then finally trials revealed machinery problems leading to 3-4 months delay after they left the yards in 1944.

 

[EwenS]

The first Unryu class carrier wasn't completed until Aug 1944 and our proposed war starts in Dec 1941.

The first Unryu was planned before PH. But the Japanese didn't have the yard capacity to lay it down until Aug 1942.

Build time on these was just short of 2 years. But there were machinery changes amongst the ships planned as capacity was outstripping supply.

 

[EwenS]

The British light carriers were ordered in 1942 with an expected build time of 2 years. The expectation was to have 3-4 in service between mid-1944 and the end of the year. The first 3 completed Dec 1944 / Jan 1945 with the 4th in April and the 5th in Aug. Combat entry was delayed by a lack of fleet train support them in the Pacific.

The 5 wartime completions took 25-32 months from laying down to completion. After that the postwar slowdown (also seen in US yards) affected the next 3 ships completed early 1946 plus Magnificent.

Another project that affected the naval yards from the end of 1943 was the LST(3) (only a handful were built in smaller civilian yards). Begun in late 1943 to support IO operations planned for 1945 because it was clear to the Admiralty at that point that no more LST(2) would be forthcoming from the USA (in late 1944 they relented and transferred two flotilla from USN vessels already in the ETO/MTO and which then needed refitted in Britain before going east in 1945). The LST(3) were given a fairly high priority in the yards.

As for the Essex class, the original build time was planned at 3 years. Essex herself saw 3 months saved before PH and a massive 13 months after allowing her to complete in Dec 1942 instead of a contractual mid-Aprol 1944. The advantage of massive industrial might able to work without all the interruptions and conditions of wartime Britain.