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

Until disposable CVEs are readily available the best way to blunt the U-Boats is target saturation (send more ships than they can sink), convoys, ASW escorts and (when available) Ultra. Running fast fleet carriers in slow, lumbering and predictable circuits is putting the ships at great risk.

But we can do both; hit the Italians hard at Taranto with sixty plus Swordfish, follow up with two dozen Skuas against the tank farms. If the fleet is throughly scuppered Mussolini may have trouble holding onto power, especially if the RN can advance the Taranto strike to before the Italian invasion of Egypt in Sept 1940. Then the British carriers can secure Malta with RAF ferry flights and then move into convoy protection - but ideally as distant fast coverage rather than close escort.

After three plus years of hard service we need Courageous and Glorious (and ideally Furious) to be in-depth refitted in early 1941 as Indomitable and Victorious enter service. Then Courageous and Glorious (and ideally Ark Royal) sail with Force Z in October 1941. Though hopefully with an experienced aviation-minded admiral in command rather than Phillips, perhaps Sommerville or Fraser. The latter was captain of HMS Glorious in the 1930s and CNC British Pacific Fleet in 1944-45.
 
Last edited:

Putting unarmored carriers into close waters within range of large land-based air forces doesn't seem prudent to me. I'd rather have them in wide waters, where they can use that speed, helping keep U-boats grinding their batteries underwater.

Shipping them off to the East might work well, or might not. But keeping them in the Med is just asking for sailors to swim. Those were hotly-contested waters with the Axis controlling plenty of the shoreline and airbases lining it.
 
Some of this is timing.

There is no mid Atlantic gap in 1939-40 because the Germans are not operating their U-boats in the Mid Atlantic.

1. Most of their boats don't have the range/endurance to reach the mid Atlantic and patrol for more than 2 days (if that)
2. There were easy pickings in the British costal waters due to a really crappy coastal command (brave men flying training aircraft with almost useless anti-sub bombs) and a reversion to the crappy tactics of 1915-16 instead of the much more effective tactics of 1918. Not to mention that the British surface ships weren't doing a very good job either. German boats can fire off their torpedoes and return to German/Dutch/French port/base, refuel and rearm and be back in the killing zone in a few days. It took over week one way to get to or from the mid Atlantic. When you only have about 50 boats in service (20 something actually at sea) that is too much time spent in transit.

Sending carriers into the mid Atlantic was a waste of fuel and aircraft (operational losses) if there is nothing there for them to find.

The Courageous class certainly had their flaws but their 90,000 hp power plants and resulting 30kt speed were not cheap or easy to replace. And pretty much useless for defending a 7-10 kt convoy.
The Germans need a lot more Type VII boats (and type IXs) to make the mid Atlantic a viable operational zone.

U-boat production:
1935 (14)
1936 (21)
1937 (1)
1938 (9)
1939 (18)
1940 (50)
1941 (199)
1942 (238)
1943 (286)
1944 (229)
1945 (91)

Total: 1,156

Over 1/2 of the boats available in late 1939 were the small Type IIs with just 5 torpedoes total in the boat and ranges of under 3800 miles and that is at 8 kts on the surface.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Putting unarmored carriers into close waters within range of large land-based air forces doesn't seem prudent to me.
Click to expand...
HMS Illustrious and Eagle were based beyond the range of land-based bombers at Alexandria, from where the former sailed to hit Taranto and then returned. The RN are going to keep carriers in the Med for as long as they can. HMS Courageous and Glorious could either join at Alexandria or sail from the Atlantic and meet up off Taranto. Either way, no RN carriers are going to hang about afterward. We hit Taranto hard, and then we can chase your submarines across the Atlantic.

But you're right about avoiding land based air cover. We know that no RN fleet of any size at Singapore will serve as a deterrent to Japan; so the British fleet carriers (and their slow Fulmars and slower Swordfish) need to stay the heck away from the Bettys in FIC. Instead HMS Ark Royal, Courageous and Glorious go to Darwin to protect Australia. Once the fighting starts Sommerville can head to Ceylon with his three carriers per history.
 
Last edited:

Bases might be out of range, but you're definitely going into range if you're striking with Swordfish.


I'd use them in the Indian Ocean as ferries if I sent them to that theater, myself. Take a few more squadrons to Singapore in 41, and have them handy for any emergency there otherwise. I wouldn't want to operate them in the Med with capable Fliegerkorps X or RA bombers so close.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Bases might be out of range, but you're definitely going into range if you're striking with Swordfish.
Click to expand...
Of course. But the Taranto raid was at night, with the RN rushing in and then hurrying away. Perhaps I'm thick, but I don't understand your position, you don't want the carriers to be either effective by hitting the enemy or in harm's way where they can hit the enemy? And staying out of the Med does not give the carriers any more safety, of all eight RN carriers lost, only two, HMS Ark Royal and Eagle were lost in the Mediterranean, and neither through land based aircraft attack.

Forget about using fast fleets to chase submarines, that's not what fleet carriers are for. And U-boats are the greatest risk to Britain's carriers, accounting for 5/8 of losses. And it's not necessary, as it was the U-boats lost the Battle of the Atlantic the moment the US enters the war. There's just too many ships to sink with too few boats. The RN needs to use its fleet carriers in the same manner as the IJN and USN, striking the enemy surface fleet at sea or in its bases. Or to be closer to home, in the manner the RN used their carriers at Taranto, Matapan and against Bismarck and Tirpitz.
 
Last edited:

Fliegerkorps X. which wasn't present at the time of Taranto, moved into the Med in Jan 1941. Here's what they did to Illustrious shortly after arriving in-theater:


Armoured Aircraft Carriers

Without that armored deck, I don't doubt those hits would've been fatal to either Glorious or Courageous.


As I already said, they would have to be suitably screened, especially for ASW work. With the numbers of U-boats tripling in 1941, the Brits will need every asset available. One needn't sink the U-boats to ensure the safe passage or ships; all you have to do is keep U-boats submerged for a day with loitering a/c as you shepherd a convoy past.

I completely disagree with putting those carriers in the Med for any length of time. Too many Axis aircraft, not enough FAA fighters embarked, unarmored, too easy to find and kill. If you're going to take big risks, then one should at least ensure commensurate potential rewards. I don't see that obtaining in the Med, myself.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
No one is suggesting putting more carriers in the Med for an extended period of time. We're racing in, hitting Taranto and running back to the Atlantic.
Click to expand...

I suppose I misunderstood you, then. As noted above, I've got no problem with getting them in and out, provided the potential rewards merit the great risk.

My apologies for my misunderstanding.
 
Thumpalumpacus no worries

What I'd like to see is someone in the RN perceive the opportunity to operate the greater number of RN carriers in groups of two or more ships. The devastation of Taranto is likely good evidence of the theory in practice. And Bismarck with Prinz Eugen will be in a heap of trouble if Ark Royal and Victorious are joined by two Courageous class.

We still have the three problems of uncompetitive aircraft, too few aircraft of any type, and too few personnel (aircrew, handlers, mechs, etc.). At Taranto, the RN managed to cobble together 21 Swordfish by stripping HMS Hermes of her air group. This suggests that both carriers were in a war zone with under strength CAGs. We need each carrier to have an expanded, not a reduced peacetime CAG size. Glorious and Courageous each need to sail with at least 48 aircraft plus CKD spares.
 

I agree that in some instances aggregating their flattops would definitely accord with the principle of mass and should have been practiced more often when able. But I also think they had enough imperial responsibilities that the RN really couldn't maintain such formations for much time. You're right that they could be flexible enough to amalgamate groups, shift squadrons between carriers on occasion (unlike IJN doctrine, for instance), that sort of thing. I just wonder if they had enough resources to support their responsibilities while gathering and maintaining a striking force. I'd think such a grouping would be more an extemporaneous thing, which can have both good and bad aspects.

I confess surprise at seeing that Courageous and Furious had such large air groups. I had thought they were smaller. Not only do I learn things from folks here directly (yourself included), I also learn a lot when I'm doing background for the discussions I engage in here.

I like their being able to carry 48 planes each. Such a complement aboard would allow for TBR recon/strike and fighter CAP as well. That'd be a valuable help to searching the open ocean as well as maintaining a defense against FW-200s/Ju-88s. Given its vulnerability, a carrier should always have some birds in the air, imho.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
But I also think they had enough imperial responsibilities that the RN really couldn't maintain such formations for much time.
Click to expand...
True. Given the additional carriers I'd like to see Britain meet its responsibities for defending its territories in the I/PTO, including ANZ, the Solomons (British), PNG (Aus) and Malaya. These are ideal places for the non-armoured carriers with their larger CAGs, though hindered by smaller avgas and endurance.

My dream team for Singapore or Darwin? HMS Ark Royal, Glorious and Courageous (the latter pair with all the non-folding Martlets available), protected by HMS Hood, Repulse and Renown (each with greater AA), four or five Dido class AA cruisers and a dozen destroyers. And subs, ideally out of Hong Kong so to be close to Japan prewar.
 

lol, now we're rescuing BCs as well as CVs!

Honestly, my biggest concern about the UK carriers is their assigned airplanes being inferior to the opposition.

Having said that, had the two Brit carriers survived 1940 (and -41), I bet Somerville could have prepped a nasty surprise for Nagumo in April of '42. At least 130 a/c afloat, and the RAF contingent on Ceylon, could really have hurt Kido Butai, if the British airplanes could get through the CAP. And with those numbers, I bet many could have, with deft command and planning. Three carriers, Albacores with ASV radar, enough carriage for a decent CAP and good British torpedos ... who knows?

Maybe basing the two carriers in your ATL in Aden rather than Gibraltar from, say, mid-1941 would have allowed them to help reinforce the Far East as well as maintain a threat towards the Med? Ferry Takoradi airplanes to the Far East or Suez theaters, and bring combat complements to any battle in either area? I don't know, however, if the Brits had the resources to arm, fuel, and provision the ships from Aden.

I don't know, I'm blue-skying that and haven't run any numbers.
 
Might that have been considered too provocative at the time? I'm not sure of the timeline here. Is PM Chamberlain's government still in? At the time being considered, how frosty are relations between the two empires?
 
I'd still rather have Courageous and Glorious at the Rock, in position to do flyoffs to Malta, which I think in spring of 41 would have had good effect. Stationed at the Rock they'd also be available to hunt down German surface raiders breaking out into the Atlantic -- and keep the Italians nervous in the Med as well. Given that while tensions with Japan were spiraling, they still weren't at war, so sending the carriers east early, while helpful, would perhaps dissipate combat power.

The IO/PO operations imagined here wouldn't unfold until the latter part of the year, at any rate. Send them to Aden in the summer.

Given the Axis aerial domination of the Med in the first half of '41, Malta could use the help, and there's a lot of risk sailing the two carriers through Suez to Aden. Going around Africa takes time.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
I'd still rather have Courageous and Glorious at the Rock
Click to expand...
We've still got Ark Royal at Gibraltar, at least into 1942. Plus Eagle at Alexandria and Furious running ferry RAF runs to Malta, plus Formidable and Illustrious until they're damaged. History demonstrates that this is sufficient to hold Malta. But if Glorious and Courageous in the Mediterranean can contribute to an earlier defeat of the Italians in North Africa before the Germans can assist, we may free up forces for Malaya.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
If the fleet is throughly scuppered Mussolini may have trouble holding onto power, especially if the RN can advance the Taranto strike to before the Italian invasion of Egypt in Sept 1940.
Click to expand...

Apparently, Cunningham had a flair for the dramatic and as a nod to history wanted Operation Judgement to take place on Trafalgar Day, but he couldn't get it to work, so it was done on Armistice Day.
 
Admiral Beez said:
At Taranto, the RN managed to cobble together 21 Swordfish by stripping HMS Hermes of her air group.
Click to expand...

It was Eagle that sent her Swordfish over to Illustrious. Eagle was going to take part in the raid but near misses from bombs dropped by SM79s when escorting a Malta convoy in October had damaged the avgas system causing leaks and seawater contamination.
 
fastmongrel said:
It was Eagle that sent her Swordfish over to Illustrious.
Click to expand...
D'oh, I knew it was Eagle, but I'm got Hermes on the brain.

Speaking of Hermes, if Ark Royal, Courageous and Glorious survive into 1942, how is Hermes' career impacted? We likely now have the leeway for a modest 1940-41 upgrade (flatten the aft round down, add outriggers and crash barrier) and maybe (though now we're beginning to exceed the ROI) square the lifts, enclose the open stern and widen the flight deck forward.

Some great pics, including the open stern. MaritimeQuest - Vice Admiral Sir Cecil Ponsonby Talbot, K.C.B., K.B.E., D.S.O. Page 19
 
Last edited:
I think a refit in the US and she makes a great aircraft ferry and support carrier for the Fleet Carriers. Cram the hangar with stripped down aircraft and spares, now she doesn't have a large air detachment there should be space for workshops and a foundry. She has enough speed to keep up with the fleet and can carry a flight of Swordfish for anti submarine protection on the deck if detached from the fleet.
 
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 4
Replies
63
Views
5K
Admiral Beez
A
A
A better Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
wuzak
W
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
Radial engines favored for powering the tanks & AFVs, 1935-45
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
1939 Tactical Bomber
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register