Better luck for the RN carrier force 1939-1941

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

With their short range and limited avgas, would Glorious and Courageous be able to operate in the Indo-Pacific theatre in the blue water carrier on carrier battles of 1942?

PNG and the Solomon Islands, contested at Coral Sea were British Empire territory after all. If Britain has additional carriers into 1942 they should contribute to Imperial and CW defence in the PTO. Better bring your A-game though, so Albacores, Fulmars, Sea Hurricanes and hopefully Martlets.
 
Last edited:
Apologies for necromancy, but Glorious in the IO has me thinking of the fifty ex-French Vought Chesapeake.



The RN rejected the aircraft because it was too slow for the intended CVE ops. But.... if Glorious and/or Courageous survive they may be the ideal platform for the Chesapeake, and for that matter the first hundred non-folding Martlets and hopefully earlier trials of the Dauntless. Load them up with Chesapeakes, Martlets and Dauntless as part of Force Z prep in San Diego, CA or alongside USS Saratoga at Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, WA.

If they were on the US Pacific coast on Dec 7th neither carrier can easily get to Singapore. They're short ranged, so it'll be Pearl Harbour for fuel, then Australia before heading to Malaya. Force Z is sunk on Dec 10th well before the RN carriers leave port. So, what do these carriers do now? Can they put their CAGs of Martlets, Chesapeakes and maybe Dauntless to use in the PTO? PNG and Coral Sea for starters. I'd like to see what the FAA names their Dauntless.
 
Last edited:

All things considered, the Skua is probably a better aircraft as it can actually divebomb. The Chesapeakes had their dive brakes wired shut and were incapable of true divebombing. They also had a rather poor power to weight ratio and it's unlikely that they could actually carry more than a 500lb bomb.
 
Good points. It's a funny name to choose. The Battle of the Chesapeake in 1781 was a decisive and rare defeat for the RN against the French, resulting in Cornwallis' defeat at Yorktown and the loss of the American colonies. It's akin to the French naming a warship series the Waterloo, or Agincourt class. Why would Britain pick this name?
 
So, it's autumn 1941 and we have HMS Glorious and Courageous at Puget Sound, WA loading up with non-folding Martlet and Dauntless, plus the folding wing Chesapeake. The plan is to use US-compatible aircraft in the Pacific as part of Force Z. On the morning of Dec 7th both carriers having left Puget Sound with their American aircraft, are now found at CFB Esquimalt making a courtesy call to BC's capital Victoria. Commanding Officer Pacific Coast, Commodore William Beech interrupts a meeting of the RN senior officers to announce the Pearl Harbour attack. Now what?

BTW, anyone interested in the RCN naval list would find this informative The Navy List - CFB Esquimalt Naval and Military Museum
 
Last edited:
I'd rather use Courageous and Glorious in the Atlantic to help close the air gap, and keep Ark Royal at the Rock where it can respond into the Atlantic or Med as need be. In the latter theater it could help Malta with fly-offs, too.

One of the three could be shifted to the IO later in 41.
 

This rather depends on when.

There wasn't much of an air gap in 1939-40 and part of 41 simply because the Germans had a bit of a submarine gap in the mid Atlantic. Roughly 1/2 of their subs where the short range (some very short range) MK IIs that only had 3 torpedo tubes and 2 reloads. Until the German subs (even the MK VIIs) could base out of French ports German U-boat time on station in the mid Atlantic was a few days. Germans didn't build much for subs in 1940 either, at least compared to later production, they commissioned around 2 a month or less for the year.
As the costal patrols, both air and sea, around Britain got better the U-boats pushed out into the Atlantic for safer hunting grounds. Each succeeding class of U-boats got bigger fuel tanks.
 

You're right that coastal patrols meant much, but if you've got two small carriers unfit for close waters due to vulnerability, giving them a decent amount of destroyers and using their airplanes as U-boat spotters/attackers seems more useful to me than risking them in the Med, so long as they have an organic screen (say, two destroyers that never leave the carrier) as well on those cruises. One carrier, two DDs escorting it, and eight DDs for the "killer" part?

Even if not needed further out in the Atlantic, using Glorious and Courageous on the Approaches and away from shore-based land seems smart to me.
 
How about all three join Illustrious and hit the Italians hard in Nov 1940? That should help to keep Malta and North Africa in Allied hands.

As for the IO, maybe instead of deployed to Malaya or Aus, Glorious and/or Courageous can run RAF aircraft to the IPTO before running back to the Med or Atlantic?

It's noteworthy how just short the RN was in carriers by 1941. Ark Royal, Courageous and Glorious sunk, plus Illustrious and Formidable crippled and in long term repair stateside. Thankfully these last two were returning to service just about as Hermes and Eagle were sunk. Thankfully Indomitable, Victorious (aka USS Robin) and Furious seemed to avoid significant damage.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
How about all three join Illustrious and hit the Italians hard in Nov 1940? That should help to keep Malta and North Africa in Allied hands.
Click to expand...

No argument here. I'd still put the smaller carriers in wider waters for ASW work, but there's nothing saying that they can't be pulled aside for a special strike. Adding 40 Swordfish to that attack sounds like a decent idea to me so long as you have the escorts to see the carriers into and out of the battle zone. Bear in mind that with the straits under Spanish watch, having two carriers ingress the Med would most likely raise eyebrows.

I still might prefer having those same forty planes doing ASW over the Atlantic. Forcing U-boats underwater for a few days without dropping so much as a "get-well" card would be useful in and of itself, in trying to sail a convoy over.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
1939 Tactical Bomber
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Z
Better German naval strategy 1930-1945?
6 7 8
Replies
143
Views
7K
SaparotRob
Trouble free, most expedient way to 2000 HP engine for 1941
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
Howard Gibson
Italian air force is indifferent on on the air-cooled engines?
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register