Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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
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).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.
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.I love this stuff too but by mid 1944, the IJN may have had the flight decks but they didn't have the pilots.
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.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.
Your math is wrong.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)
220 vs 450, oof that's bad odds even with poor japanese pilots.Armoured Aircraft Carriers
The British Pacific Fleet Task Force 57 Politics & Logistics: Sakishima Gunto, Okinawa Campaign, 1945www.armouredcarriers.com
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.
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.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:
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.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.
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.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.
Only Indefatigable was formally suspended for about 4 months in 1940.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.
The first Unryu was planned before PH. But the Japanese didn't have the yard capacity to lay it down until Aug 1942.The first Unryu class carrier wasn't completed until Aug 1944 and our proposed war starts in Dec 1941.