Best transporter

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

They could have said that about the Italian, and German Navies as well. True, the Japanese were very well trained, and their ships were modern but the Royal Navy had a massive numercial superiority. And the Royal Navy knew how to use that to its advantage. Not something it could do in the pacific because the majority of its ships were in the Atlantic.
 
Yes the RN had numbers but that still did not give them a great time. The Hood was lost, and the Japanese cut the RN to bits in in 41 and 42. They were iradicated from the Indian Ocean until they could come back wit numbers and some help from the USN.
 
Excuse me, the Royal Navy were never defeated. They held all they needed to. Again you must believe Naval warfare is like ground warfare.
And I'll say again the MAJORITY of the Royal Navy was in the Atlantic. If we could have sent the full force of the Royal Navy out to the Pacific we could have probably crushed them, but we couldn't and that's where America came in.

And America wouldn't have had much of a chance if the Royal Navy didn't batter the Italian and German Navy.
 
The Hood was lost
Click to expand...

1) the RN went on to destroy the ship that sunk it (the Bismark)
2) the Hood wasn't quite ready, it's armour wasn't upgraded at trhe time, it still carried it's WWI armour, and it was only sunk because the Bismark gave it a couple of broadsides, at the time the Hood was turning to send back a couple of vollys, but she was hit before she could, there's arguments to suggest that if the Hood had given the Bismark a couple of broadsides, she would have been sunk insted............................
 
1) The Hood had been upgraded in side armor but her deck armor was still to the standards of WWI (when aircraft attacks were considering a joke and BB gunfire didn't have the range or accuracy to hit a long distance target). By WWII all of that had changed and the deck armor of the Hood was totally inadequate. Since we are on the subject, there is a possibility that the Hood was in fact sunk by the cruise Prinz Eugen which hit the Hood several times. It has been theorized that the fires from these hits produced enough heat to 'cook-off' the Hood's deck torpedoes causing a chain-reaction sinking the ship.

2) The RN could have sent everything they wanted to to the Pacific in 1941 and probably would have run into a slaughter. BB's are no match for carrier aircraft (note the loss of Repulse and Prince of Wales). The RN had neither the number of quality of carriers to combat the Japanese. Nevermind the fact that in Sept. 1941 the TOTAL strength of the FAA was 387 (less than the total aircraft compliments of Japan's front-line carriers at the time). I know this will probably be taken as a knock against Britain but it is NOT. I fully believe the USN would have been slaughtered as well and that it was extremely good fortune that a full fleet battle didn't errupt immediately after Pearl Harbor. In 1941, the IJN was just THAT good.
 
How could Britain send all its Navy to the Pacific? We had to blockade the Med, and the North Sea on top of protecting the shipping through the Atlantic. For that you need SHIPS!!!

They say that Hood was sunk from cordite that the Royal Navy gunners had stacked around the turrets for quicker firing. Completely against regulations, mind you. The same thing happened to the Battle-Cruisers in the Battle of Jutland (WW1).
 
I'm not saying that would have sent them all. My point was, that the RN numerical superiority in surface ships would have meant little in the face of the quantity and quality of IJN airpower.

Everyone agrees that the Hood was sunk by a cordite explosion. The British had sacrificed protection and safefty for rate of fire. The question is, what caused the explosion. Conventional wisdom says it was the Bismarck's salvo (which it probably was). But the Prinz Eugen did score several hits around the Hood's torpedo battery which (theoretically) could have caused the tragic chain of events.
 
Someone just wanted to throw in a spanner with that one. It was the Bismarck.
 
My point was, that the RN numerical superiority in surface ships would have meant little in the face of the quantity and quality of IJN airpower.
Click to expand...

1) why would we want to send all our carriers out to the pacific??
2) we didn't need a huge number of carriers, the germans or italians didn't have any to fight back with, we were only really using them against ships, and a swordfish stands a good chance against ships....................
 
Well, the discussion (as I understood it) was a theoretical one about an large-scale engagement between the RN and the IJN. If the RN was serious about trying to win it, they would need carrier power, but they still didn't have the numbers or quailty to match the airpower of the IJN.
 
If the RN had to face up to opponent carriers on its main operational theatre they would have put money into new carriers instead of into the battleships to face the German battleships and subs.
No Carrier was needed in the Atlantic.
 
No carrier was needed in the Atlantic? Carriers were the nail in the coffin of the U-Boat. Granted those were small CVEs rather that full fleet carriers but they were still needed.
 
Lanc, the CVEs let the convoys breath a little more. Before that the U-boats could still find wholes in the aircrat and in ship coverage. The CVE's aloud for the chase and kill more then the use of lad based planes. As good as the Coastal Comand Iarcraft were even wit Liberators the ocean is Realy big and U-boast can hide.

LG- I agree that the USN would ave had a lot of problums if a full fleet battle would have happened before 1942. Midway could have been a really bad loss, save for luck, and skill in codes.
 
That's what I said, LG. The Carrier wasn't the God send of the Atlantic, many things contributed to the destruction of the U-Boat threat. Britain unwilling to build Carriers in such large numbers proves it, no Carrier threat means you don't need Carriers of your own to combat it.
 
Britain didn't build many carriers because the US could supply all the CVEs either nation would ever want and the RN wanted a lot of them. MP-Willow is right, there was a fairly large hole in the air cover right in the middle of the Atlantic. The U-Boat skippers quickly learned about this and made this section of ocean a veritable death trap. In WWII, the best weapon for killing a sub was an airplane and the best way to keep aircraft with the convoy was the CVE.
 
Britain didn't need the fleet carriers that would have been needed to combat the IJN. Britain didn't need the carriers, they had one hell of an easier time with the small amount they had.
The U-Boats were destroyed by a massive number of things, escorting destroyers also made a very big impression on the Wolfpacks when decent tactics were sorted out.
 
I didn't claim that the U-Boats were beaten solely by the CVEs but they were the best weapon available to attack them. More fleet carriers would have been advantageous to the British. Britain was responsible for the defense of a world-wide empire (India, Singapore, Australia, etc.). These places were largely dependant on the RN for defense.
 
Not as World War 2 showed. They weren't lost to Naval Power but to Japanese land forces. Australia could be defended by land based fighters. Carriers aren't needed to defend a land with a large enough base to supply fighters in an equal manner to the Carrier fleet.

The Carrier Battles of the Pacific were over small islands with barely, if any, airfields. With Singapore, India and Australia the land bases could provide enough support.
 
So are you claiming that the RN would not have benefitted from more carriers? If you read my last post closely, I was merely pointing out that the RN could have used the extra carriers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter
9 10 11
Replies
218
Views
24K
Lighthunmust
L
N
Best Aircrafts
Replies
4
Views
2K
TheMustangRider
O
Poor Aircraft, Best Pilot
Replies
4
Views
2K
net_sailor
  • Locked
Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever
8 9 10
Replies
187
Views
27K
lesofprimus
  • Locked
Best Ground Attack Aircraft...
Replies
1
Views
7K
lesofprimus
Menu
Log in
Register