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

[Admiral Beez]

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.

From an Army and RAF perspective this does seem the case. But the RN assigned both their latest battleship and aircraft carrier to Singapore, AIUI due to Churchill's insistence. So, if Churchill didn't underestimate the Japanese threat, why send your latest capital ships but only a token RAF force? Makes one wish Churchill had exclaimed "forget the navy's latest and greatest ships, get some tanks and first-rate aircraft to Malaya now!". Of course this has to happen we'll before Churchill's September decision to send Force Z.

 

[swampyankee]

From an Army and RAF perspective this does seem the case. But the RN assigned both their latest battleship and aircraft carrier to Singapore, AIUI due to Churchill's insistence. So, if Churchill didn't underestimate the Japanese threat, why send your latest capital ships but only a token RAF force? Makes one wish Churchill had exclaimed "forget the navy's latest and greatest ships, get some tanks and first-rate aircraft to Malaya now!". Of course this has to happen we'll before Churchill's September decision to send Force Z.

An interesting aside I heard about Churchill in, iirc, a USNI podcast. The message "Winnie's back!" wasn't so much a cry of joy as one of "oh, crap!" Given, oh, the Dardenelles, I can see why one may say that.

I don't know the validity of this, as it's unlikely any pre-1940 RN personnel are still alive, and this is, at best, an aside in a podcast where the presenter (who was a bona fide historian) was tossing something out that some memoirist wrote well after WW2 was over.

 

[yulzari]

Again I feel the urge to point out that new and extra squadrons means they go by sea which requires that they are loaded in the summer of 1941 which is only a year after the fall of France and the entry into the war of Italy plus the entry of the Soviet Union into the war demands most urgent supply of tanks and aeroplanes to bolster them up at a critical point and fight the French from time to time. Any aeroplane types chosen have to not just be in production but also have been delivered by the summer of 1941. In the summer of 1941 operational types in the Middle East (away from Libya) included whatever was leftover from early 1930s service including not a few biplanes. Given the war and world situation in that summer any good types are going to the UK or Middle East where the war is actually being fought and the UK is organised to repel a perceived invasion threat that only is reduced in July when Barbarossa begins and the Soviets are in actual immediate need of supplies.

Like the Buffalos the Far East will only get what is left over or sub standard. It is noteworthy that IOTL Malaya gets the best that arrives, Burma gets some and India makes do with what it already had from pre war types.

Of course, ideally, Malaya would get the best Spitfires, Tomahawks, Beauforts and Sunderlands together with a full suite of RAF early warning kit and processing. It isn't going to happen. Now the OP is quite specific that up to 500 modern types are sent. Whatever my view of the OP the POD demands that. Where does without these 500 types from the summer of 1941? In active offensive theatre of North Africa Spitfires were scarcely arriving. New kit were Hurricanes and Tomahawks. Blenheims were the bombing backbone and had about 1,000 total operational types in late 1941.

The lower figures suggested in the POD are the best likely. I would suggest that all the Tomahawks and Marylands be sent together with all the associated kit leaving the UK to lose more Hurricanes and Benheims to make up the numbers in the Middle East. Possibly US supplies associated can be shipped directly to Malaya? You won't get Beauforts for the torpedo role so the only option in any numbers and with any sort of speed are the Bothas, however poor. Maybe the remaining Skuas, with Rocs reduced to spares as dive bombers.

 

[yulzari]

Good idea. Must we use ships to get them to Malaya?

You can fly the airframes (with some losses on the way) but all the ground crew etc. and supporting spares, jigs, tools etc. have to go by sea so the aeroplanes may as well accompany them. "Oh dear my magneto has failed. Where can I get another'? 'They are somewhere off West Africa at the moment but they will be here in a couple of months'....

 

[MikeMeech]

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.

Hi

Just to reminder of what the air strength the 'British' had in Malaya at the time, Volume 1 of the Official History 'The War Against Japan' has the following detail:

Reference Royal Navy analysis of what vessels were needed in a war with the Japanese, in the late 1920s early 1930s the estimate as mentioned on p.333 of the Official History, Volume 1 of 'Grand Strategy' it mentions that:

"Making allowence for docking and refitting British ships, the force required to be sent to the Far East was estimated at:
12 Capital ships
5 aircraft carriers
46 cruisers
9 flottillas of destroyers
50 submarines
51 minesweeper sloops
It was further accepted that three more capital ships and four more cruisers would be needed for home waters.
These totals were in fact met by the existing British fleet. The weakness of that fleet lay in the proportion of old ships which it contained-the product of the big building programmes of the First World War-ships which would nearly all need to be replaced at the same time. Since, however, war then seemed so remote, a very slow rate of replacement was accepted in the 1930 London Naval Treaty."

Also:

"In the designs of ships the emphasis was placed on suitability for use in a war against Japan in which a general fleet action was still considered a possibility. The Southampton type cruisers were primary designed to match the Japanese Mogami class, the Tribal destroyers to counter the Fubuki class, together with large submarines for service in the Far East where long endurance was essential."

It appears pre-WW2 the Japanese 'threat' was not totally ignored, however, by the time WW2 started for 'Britain' in the Far East many of those vessels were busy elsewhere.

Mike

 

[Kevin J]

Hi

Just to reminder of what the air strength the 'British' had in Malaya at the time, Volume 1 of the Official History 'The War Against Japan' has the following detail:

View attachment 578264

Reference Royal Navy analysis of what vessels were needed in a war with the Japanese, in the late 1920s early 1930s the estimate as mentioned on p.333 of the Official History, Volume 1 of 'Grand Strategy' it mentions that:

"Making allowence for docking and refitting British ships, the force required to be sent to the Far East was estimated at:
12 Capital ships
5 aircraft carriers
46 cruisers
9 flottillas of destroyers
50 submarines
51 minesweeper sloops
It was further accepted that three more capital ships and four more cruisers would be needed for home waters.
These totals were in fact met by the existing British fleet. The weakness of that fleet lay in the proportion of old ships which it contained-the product of the big building programmes of the First World War-ships which would nearly all need to be replaced at the same time. Since, however, war then seemed so remote, a very slow rate of replacement was accepted in the 1930 London Naval Treaty."

Also:

"In the designs of ships the emphasis was placed on suitability for use in a war against Japan in which a general fleet action was still considered a possibility. The Southampton type cruisers were primary designed to match the Japanese Mogami class, the Tribal destroyers to counter the Fubuki class, together with large submarines for service in the Far East where long endurance was essential."

It appears pre-WW2 the Japanese 'threat' was not totally ignored, however, by the time WW2 started for 'Britain' in the Far East many of those vessels were busy elsewhere.

Mike

So roughly our fleet needs to be twice the size we had, basically the combined size of the RN and USN. So we need to dissolve the Indian Empire between WW1 and WW2, give India its independence, and grant full access to the Commonwealth and remainder of Empire to the USA in return for American assistance.

 

[MikeMeech]

So roughly our fleet needs to be twice the size we had, basically the combined size of the RN and USN. So we need to dissolve the Indian Empire between WW1 and WW2, give India its independence, and grant full access to the Commonwealth and remainder of Empire to the USA in return for American assistance.

Hi

I don't quite understand the comment. In the inter-war years the Royal Navy was basically saying it could take on the Italian and maybe German navies or the Japanese Navy, not all three. The strength of the British Empire navies at the outbreak of war in 1939, according to 'Conway's All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946' p. 4, is as follows:

"12 battleships, 3 battlecruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 15 8in cruisers, 22 modern 6in cruisers, 27 older cruisers, 2 monitors, 1 minelayer, 184 destroyers, 57 submarines, 32 sloops, 6 patrol vessels and 47 minesweepers (a few older sloops and patrol vessels are excluded)."

So in the range of what was needed to combat the Japanese navy but not three navies, in 1939 the French Navy was also allied so the British were not alone to fight at the time.

Mike

 

[Kevin J]

Hi

I don't quite understand the comment. In the inter-war years the Royal Navy was basically saying it could take on the Italian and maybe German navies or the Japanese Navy, not all three. The strength of the British Empire navies at the outbreak of war in 1939, according to 'Conway's All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946' p. 4, is as follows:

"12 battleships, 3 battlecruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 15 8in cruisers, 22 modern 6in cruisers, 27 older cruisers, 2 monitors, 1 minelayer, 184 destroyers, 57 submarines, 32 sloops, 6 patrol vessels and 47 minesweepers (a few older sloops and patrol vessels are excluded)."

So in the range of what was needed to combat the Japanese navy but not three navies, in 1939 the French Navy was also allied so the British were not alone to fight at the time.

Mike

Alternately, the French stick with us, the Dutch aren't invaded and proving the French convert all their Normandie class battleships to carriers and we retain and modernise the Iron Duke class, Tiger, Agincourt and Erin then we all stand a chance of retaining our Far East colonial Empires.

 

[Admiral Beez]

So roughly our fleet needs to be twice the size we had, basically the combined size of the RN and USN.

Indeed, that estimate seems intentionally huge to make any effort seem pointless.

So in the range of what was needed to combat the Japanese navy but not three navies, in 1939 the French Navy was also allied so the British were not alone to fight at the time

Such a huge proposal would result in the admirals and politicos throwing their arms in the air and exclaiming, well that's that, we'll send nothing instead - which is exactly what they did until Churchill demanded Force Z sail in October 1941. The British admirals even withdrew Malaya's submarine flotillas. The French Navy were even more neglectful, sending essentially nothing to FIC.

But it doesn't matter, this isn't a naval affair; outside of amphibious assault, the Malayan campaign was an army and air power contest. The IJN surface and submarine fleet played very little part. In the late 1930s and in 1940 Malaya Command accurately reported how the IJA would attack and listed what was needed to counter it. Malaya Command didn't ask for battleships and carriers, but for tanks, artillery, better and many more aircraft and first line troops, and permission to take the initiative into Thailand.

 

[Kevin J]

Indeed, that estimate seems intentionally huge to make any effort seem pointless.
Such a huge proposal would result in the admirals and politicos throwing their arms in the air and exclaiming, well that's that, we'll send nothing instead - which is exactly what they did until Churchill demanded Force Z sail in October 1941. The British admirals even withdrew Malaya's submarine flotillas. The French Navy were even more neglectful, sending essentially nothing to FIC.

But it doesn't matter, this isn't a naval affair; outside of amphibious assault, the Malayan campaign was an army and air power contest. The IJN surface and submarine fleet played very little part. In the late 1930s and in 1940 Malaya Command accurately reported how the IJA would attack and listed what was needed to counter it. Malaya Command didn't ask for battleships and carriers, but for tanks, artillery, better and many more aircraft and first line troops, and permission to take the initiative into Thailand.

So what are the French able to send to FIC?

 

[Admiral Beez]

So what are the French able to send to FIC?

Ships.

 

[Kevin J]

Ships.

How? Maybe troops from French Somalia, but they turned down Roosevelts off to transport them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

How?

Not troops, ships. France fights on.

But I'll reply no more about France or its navy as that's just taking us off topic.

 

[Kevin J]

Not troops, ships. France fights on.

But I'll reply no more about France or its navy as that's just taking us off topic.

I like the idea, but they didn't. Petain and the French Establishment took a business decision that not only did they not to fight to the last French man to save the British Empire, but that they regarded the USSR as the bigger threat.

 

[Kevin J]

Not troops, ships. France fights on.

But I'll reply no more about France or its navy as that's just taking us off topic.

It's relevant because Britain can't defend its colonial interests in the Far East by itself.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

People seem to think that all US factories/aircraft companies in 1940-41 were huge and ready to go.

Curtiss was one of the largest Aircraft companies in the US in 1939 and had made quite a number of airplanes during the 20s and 30s. They had an existing plant and work force.
The fighter production figures for 1940 tell part of the story

Bell...................24 planes, including 11 YFMs
Curtiss............1259 planes, Hawk 75s and 81s
Curtiss S.L......27 planes (CW-21s)
NA....................6 planes
Republic........104 planes, most EP-1s for Sweden
Lockheed......1 plane
Brewster.........160 planes
Grumman.......103 planes.

Now some companies were building other types of aircraft, but for some, like Bell, the 1940 production was the majority of the aircraft they had built in their history. NA had a large trainer program going, Lockheed was building Hudsons. Republic/Seversky had only built a few prototypes/racers and the initial P-35 order. it had taken Seversky 15 months to deliver 76 aircraft in 1937-38, that is from first delivery to last , not start of work. perhaps another 2 dozen 2 seat aircraft?
President Roosevelt had called for a 50,000 plane airforce in the middle of 1940, it was going to take a while to get going. See plans for Packard production of Merlins, Ford produciton of R-2800s, Studebaker production of R-1820s and all of the rest of it. You are simply not going to get many more planes built in the year between the summer of 1940 and summer of 1941 than were built historically no matter what you do. While the Flying Tiger Airplanes had a particularly hard trip the were put on board ship in June of 1941 and went into combat in late Dec. 1941. By the time any US (or British) planes are shipped, unloaded, assembled, test flown and ground and air crew given even a modest amount of training it is going to be 5-6 months.



Local production requires machinery that either doesn't exist locally or is already committed to other programs. Any machinery will have to be imported. Britian is already walking a tight rope for machinery. They were importing machine tools from germany during the mid to late 1930s. The Huge US expansion strained the machine tool industry. At one point Allison was short over 800 machine tools and they had an A1A priority rating.



The whole "cheap empire fighter" thing is an illusion, 2nd rate fighters are only cheap if your opponent is also using cheap/obsolete fighters. Once your opponent shows up with 1st class equipement your "cheap" equipment becomes very expensive target practice supplied to you opponent.

The Western powers underestimated the Japanese and thought that small numbers of 2nd rate (or 3rd rate) equipement would be enough. It wasn't.

I have no idea why people think the M-20 was "cheap". It used a Merlin XX engine, the best and most complicated Merlin of the time, it used a constant speed prop, best and most expensive fighter prop in England at the time. It used the same armament as a Hurricane or Spitfire, no savings there, it used the same radios and instruments. Only savings is the lack of retracting landing gear and possibly the airframe being made of wood. Cost of airframe depends on the woods used and the time needed to assemble the wooden pieces. Wood needs a lot of careful selection for aircraft use, each board/piece of wood needs careful inspection. Scrap rate/rejection is going to be higher than a metal airframe, If you don't have enough aluminum it is one thing. But it may not be as "cheap" as some people think. yes, wood may not require the investment in tools to work it. Or tools suitable for working with wood may be in greater supply in some areas/colonies.
In any case, why the M 20 is considered cheaper or better than a Hurricane II using the same engine, prop, guns, radio and instruments is a mystery to me.

As Shortround notes the M20 wasn't designed to be cheap, it was designed to get into production quickly. The construction was wood because thats how Miles built their aircraft. Similarly the Rolls Royce power egg was already in production for the Beaufighter. As a matter of fact Rolls Royce controlled Powell and Powis (aka Miles) until 1943.
The use of the power egg greatly simplified production in that there are no radiators to mount, no oil piping and no coolant piping. Eliminating the retractable undercarriage eliminated the entire hydraulic system,

 

[swampyankee]

Alternately, the French stick with us, the Dutch aren't invaded and proving the French convert all their Normandie class battleships to carriers and we retain and modernise the Iron Duke class, Tiger, Agincourt and Erin then we all stand a chance of retaining our Far East colonial Empires.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say the British stick with the French. The UK wasn't exactly helpful when Germany started massive violations of the Versailles Treaty's territorial and military provisions. I know it's all PC to blame Versailles for Germany's resurgent militarism, but it's equally supportable that Versailles wasn't harsh enough.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Perhaps it's more accurate to say the British stick with the French.

That's my thinking behind positioning British forces from Malaya in FIC to bolster French deterrence to Japan.

As for when Japan does move in.... the French had fighters and other aircraft in FIC, did any aircrew or even aircraft make it to British or Dutch territory after Vichy gave Japan the okay to move in? Not that their rubbish Farman F.220, Potez 25 or Potez 540 will be of any use. The Loire 130 flying boats and Ms.406 fighters are competitive but in small numbers, and all without parts availability. But any willing Free French pilots and ground crew will likely be welcomed in Malaya or DEI.

 

[Shortround6]

So roughly our fleet needs to be twice the size we had, basically the combined size of the RN and USN. So we need to dissolve the Indian Empire between WW1 and WW2, give India its independence, and grant full access to the Commonwealth and remainder of Empire to the USA in return for American assistance.

At the time that estimate was made the German navy was a coast defence force (2 old pre Dreadnought battleships with four large caliber guns each) and the Italian navy was not very formidable either. It was thought to balanced (most of the time) by the French. The Italians in the 1920s and most of the 30s had 3-5 Battleships in service at one time, the oldest was scrapped in 1928 and the Cavour started a nearly 4 year refit in 1933. The Unrefitted ships would have had a very hard time against even the R class.

The British fell behind in the modernization race of the 30s and in the heavy treaty cruiser (8in gun) race of the late 20s.

Italy's modernization of the other 3 old Battleships and the construction of the new 15in gun battleships was pretty much from 1937 on. Combined with the German rearmament program it did throw the 1920s and early 30s calculations out the window.

Keeping old, obsolete ships around just to make up numbers on paper may have been a costly exercise in futility.
The British (and some other navies) had gone through an even worse period of "economy" in the late 1800s when they kept just about every old, crappy totally obsolete ship that didn't have a wooden hull or require constant pump outs on the reserve lists. The slaughter that would have ensued with ships using iron armor and muzzle loading guns against ships with steel armor and breech loading guns using smokeless powder can only be imagined. Sanity finally prevailed and the vast majority of this "junk" was stricken from the lists in just a couple of years. Returning to this mindset was not what the Admiralty might want to do. This period was within the living memory of some serving officers.

 

[swampyankee]

That's my thinking behind positioning British forces from Malaya in FIC to bolster French deterrence to Japan.

As for when Japan does move in.... the French had fighters and other aircraft in FIC, did any aircrew or even aircraft make it to British or Dutch territory after Vichy gave Japan the okay to move in? Not that their rubbish Farman F.220, Potez 25 or Potez 540 will be of any use. The Loire 130 flying boats and Ms.406 fighters are competitive but in small numbers, and all without parts availability. But any willing Free French pilots and ground crew will likely be welcomed in Malaya or DEI.

One simple issue is that the French armed forces accepted Vichy as the legitimate government of France: for them to do anything but obey Vichy would require that they be, legally, in rebellion against a man who was probably one of the most prestigious of France's modern military leaders. This would be a very large step for any soldier to take.

I would no more expect that to happen than for British -- not Indian -- Army forces in India to side with Gandhi in 1939.