Churchill agrees to RAF reinforcements to Malaya. What to send?

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

"Long Lance" was our name, not theirs. They called it the Type 93. Also, the type 93 was only carried by destroyers and cruisers. It was 24" diameter, their subs only had 21" tubes and fired the type 95 torpedo (which had no special name I know of).
Type 93 had two air tanks ... compressed air followed by compressed pure oxygen. 29'6" long.
Type 95 was also a compressed oxygen torpedo. 23' 5" long. whether it was dual air tank like the 93 is unknown to me.
 
What flying boats were available in autumn 1941 that we could consider for Malaya ops? Possible roles would be additional reconnaissance in the Gulf of Thailand, South China Sea and the Andaman Sea; plus transport/communication between Ceylon, Singapore and Australiasia.

The final squadron or unit of the Short Singapore was already in the Far East. In addition to sending more Singapores, options may include the Short Empire, Short Sunderland, Supermarine Stranraer, Saro London. My money would be on sending the balance of Singapores and the obsolescent Stranraers (maybe a unit from the RCAF, with the Stranraer then in production by Canadian Vickers). The Sunderlands and Empires might get as far as Ceylon but they're otherwise needed in the Med and Home waters.
 
Last edited:

Not just operating, but producing, as two aircraft plants in Canada made them.
Vickers (Montreal) and Boeing (Richmond, BC) both make Catalinas under license.
 
buffnut453 said:
205 Sqn operated 5 Catalinas at Seletar as of 8 Dec 41.
Click to expand...
That makes sense, as that's about the same time the Short Singapore was withdrawn from Seletar for the backwater of New Zealand, presumably transferred from No. 205 RAF to No. 5 RNZAF. No. 205 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia No. 5 Squadron RNZAF - Wikipedia
Freebird said:
Not just operating, but producing, as two aircraft plants in Canada made them.
Vickers (Montreal) and Boeing (Richmond, BC) both make Catalinas under license.
Click to expand...
Cats and Cansos. I'm looking online to see when production began. Canadian Vickers was producing the Supermarine Stranraer into 1942, with the final RCAF squadrons receiving their Stranraer's in 1943.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Cats and Cansos. I'm looking online to see when production began. Canadian Vickers was producing the Supermarine Stranraer into 1942, with the final RCAF squadrons receiving their Stranraer's in 1943.
Click to expand...
Seems like production was definitely underway by 1940, but not sure what month.
Catalinas were the main aircraft built at the Boeing Canada plant up to 1944, with 362 built.
They also built a few dozen other aircraft, including Blackburn Sharks
By 1944 they started producing US aircraft types, including B-29 fuselages

Boeing Canada on Sea Island
 

Hi

According to 'Canadian Aircraft since 1909' by Molson and Taylor, p.207, production numbers were as follows:
Boeing of Canada:-
1942 - PBY-5A= 2
1943 - PBY-5A= 53, PB2B-1= 75
1944 - PB2B-1= 165, PB2B-2= 39
1945 - PB2B-2= 28.
Canadian Vickers/Canadair:-
1943 - PBY-5A= 72, OA-10A= 4
1944 - PBY-5A= 67, OA-10A=201.
1945 - OA-10A= 25.

The RAF received its first (US built) Catalinas in early 1941 going into service initially with No. 240 Sqn. from March 1941 in the UK, and with No. 205 Sqn. in the Far East from April 1941

Stranraer production in Canada (p.439) was as follows:
1938 - 2
1939 - 8
1940 - 2
1941 - 28

I hope that is useful.

Mike
 
"If somebody had money", the Boeing 314 would meet officer/material transport requirements.
At 210 top speed and 20k ceiling, they couldn't outrun or evade much. They would need fighter cover for areas of risk.
With a 5200 mile range, they could do U-boat/IJN scouting for convoys.
 
Before anybody gets too many ideas. Stranraer

  • Maximum speed: 165 mph (266 km/h, 143 kn) at 6,000 ft (1,800 m)
  • Cruise speed: 105 mph (169 km/h, 91 kn)
  • Range: 1,000 mi (1,600 km, 870 nmi) at 105 mph (91 kn; 169 km/h) and 5,000 ft (1,500 m)
Wiki doesn't list bombs but obviously it could carry some, Perhaps even 1000lbs as that seems to be somewhat standard for many of these British 1930s flying boats.
I have no idea if the range is with or without under wing load/s.

Chances of surviving in hostile air space?
It is just over 1600 miles from Ceylon to Singapore, it is just over 2000 miles from Singapore to the Darwin and about 2400 miles from Singapore to Perth.
Granted you could fly in multiple stages and refuel at intermediate stops but you are trying to use these old flying boats for a job they were never intended for.
 
Shortround6 said:
Chances of surviving in hostile air space?
Click to expand...
About as bad as the poor bastards in the Vildebeests. I listed off the older flying boats as that's likely what would be made available to add to what's in Malaya now. If new, modern aircraft were going to be sent

It must have been an epic 60-70 hours, 5,500 to 6,000 mile multiple-stop flight from Singapore to New Zealand. This four plane move done pre-Pacific war, but still must have resulted in some engine overhauls upon arrival.
Great info Mike, thanks for digging that up. Here's a Supermarine Stranraer in civilian service in 1965. That's not a bad run for design that was obsolete when it left the Canadian Vickers factory. Of course this is bush plane country where military surplus and robust and basic aircraft prevail, but can you imagine taking a passenger flight in this in the mid 60s in the era of the Boeing 707?

 
Regardless of the importance the UK seemed to place on the defense of Malaya and Singapore, the actuality seems to be that the UK badly underestimated the threat of the Japanese. Of course, they were rather busy fighting Germans, Italians, and others (I don't think the British ground or naval forces ever engaged the Romanians, Bulgarians, or Hungarians during ww2, but they may have) in and around the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, and over their home islands at the time. They also had a very worried and outspoken Australian leadership, an independence movement in India (which, for idiotic reasons, they thought was communist -- many government officials and pundits seemed (and continue) to think any unhappiness on the part of workers, people indigenous to imperial possessions, and discriminated against ethnic groups must be because of external agitation), and chronic internal security problems in many parts of the Commonwealth.

Also, until fairly recently, the UK had a good relationship with Japan (they gave the IJN destroyers during WW1) and may have felt that the threat was minimal; if so, they were rather obviously wrong.

OK; back on topic. First, nothing was going to be sent much before October of 1940, with the Franco-Thai War, and not likely before mid-1941. While the Japanese army and navy were quite competent, the army, at least, seems to have had its general operational and tactical skills quite underestimated (not just by the Commonwealth), which did tend to weaken the urgency felt by the British high command. Because of this, it's likely that UK would not be sending its first team. So: Hurricanes, P-40s, Battles, and Defiants. Skuas may not be a bad idea; they'd be useful for CAS (divebombers can actually hit targets, not drop something in the vague neighborhood). The likeliest bomber may be the Wellington.

On the ground, more artillery and anti-tank weapons. For A/T, I'd send whatever, including guns like the 25 mm Hotchkiss that may have been rescued from France, could be sent. I'd also send some of the less useful tanks (Matildas? Mk VI light tanks?) More HE for the coast defense guns in Singapore could come in handy.
 
Thanks Mike!

The Boeing website also previously mentioned the Blackburn Shark built at Sea Island, I think it was 17?
So presumably in 1940/41 there were Blackburn Shark's built as well.
Does your book give numbers for those?
 
Nothing short of a Sunderland is really going to add anything to the defences. They will increase the numbers of aircraft and increase the maintenance load and amount of fuel required to keep them flying.
You already have "the poor bastards in the Vildebeests ", sending more aircraft of the same general "abilities" isn't going to get you much except more dead poor bastards in plane XXXXX.

What Might have worked (and been available) were Blenheims. But you need at least 4-6 squadrons. A couple of Squadrons of Blenheim fighters fly CAP over the Prince of Wales and Repulse might have made a difference. The Japanese bombers had no fighter escorts of their own. Blenheim fighters could strafe landing ships and beaches (and carry a few small bombs. They could conduct recon and have some chance of escaping Ki.27s flying low level with engines running 9lb boost.

Blenheim bombers could do low level strikes against landing ships and small escorts/warships. How much good they would be in land jungle warfare I don't know but they can't be any worse than the Vildebeests.

As always, the real problem is getting the air and ground crew for such a force.
 
Freebird said:
Thanks Mike!

The Boeing website also previously mentioned the Blackburn Shark built at Sea Island, I think it was 17?
So presumably in 1940/41 there were Blackburn Shark's built as well.
Does your book give numbers for those?
Click to expand...

Hi

Yes, 17 were built over 1939-40. Although Canada also had some British built Sharks delivered as well.

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
RAF Fighter Pilots Wounded/Injured Compared to US Pilots
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
5K
GrauGeist
M
How Would You Like To Ride Here?
Replies
9
Views
737
Dimlee
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
AAF TECHNICAL REPORTS: Where to find?
Replies
5
Views
566
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
Menu
Log in
Register