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

[Kevin J]

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.

If we'd have modernised our not so old ships in the thirties then there would have been no money for the RAF, so not a good idea. IIRC the American only had 5 16-in gun battleships in 1941, so only one per decent aircraft carrier that they had. If we needed that long list of capitol ships and carriers in the Far East then only the Americans can provide them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If we'd have modernised our not so old ships in the thirties then there would have been no money for the RAF, so not a good idea.

Agreed. Britain didn't need more battleships or even carriers. What it needed was more top grade fighter and strike aircraft. In Sept 1939 Britain had four fast fleet carriers (Ark Royal, Courageous, Furious and Glorious) plus two slow, smaller carriers (Eagle, Hermes) and then Argus. But there weren't enough aircraft to fill all these carriers. HMS Glorious when she was sunk had six Swordfish and nine Sea Gladiators - on a ship with over 57,000 sq.ft. of hangar space and fuel/munitions capacity to support a CAG of at least 48 aircraft. When HMS Courageous was sunk she had twenty-four Swordfish, no fighters or Skuas. When HMS Ark Royal sank in Nov 1941 she had a credible CAG of five squadrons onboard, but this makes sense as the war's been on for over two years so hopefully more aircraft were coming on line. From 1940 to 41 all four Illustrious class entered service - did they operate full CAGs? We know that HMS Hermes had no aircraft whatsoever aboard in April 1942, having flown off her small Swordfish group.

My point..... the RN has enough carriers and battleships, but desperately needed a pre-war FAA and RAF pilot and ground crew recruitment and training scheme. And both the RAF and FAA need more aircraft. Makes those, not more empty carriers or converting old battleships. The entire Singapore naval base was a waste of money - £60 million spent on a useless base when a single Spitfire cost £12,600. When Singapore naval base opened in 1938 the Admiralty had already decided that no navy would be deployed at the base and that any fleet for Singapore would only arrive 45-60 days after it was needed.

And yes, Singapore naval base cost the equal of almost five thousand Spitfires. Imagine that £60 million allocated to Singapore defence instead going to building defendable airfields, defensive works, and procuring tanks and first-rate aircraft to defend the colony. Malaya Command knew the enemy would come across the Gulf of Thailand and from Thailand itself, but no defensive works were made to deter this. The BoB, North African and Malayan campaigns would have benefited from more attention paid to aircrew, ground crew expansion and aircraft procurement.

 

[ssnider]

The RAF did however build 27 airfields across Malaya without regard to defencability and then did not place aircraft on most of them. The Japanese however did use some of them later. the total lack of coordination between RAF and the army makes one wonder if more planes, tanks etc. would really made a difference. I suspect that if preparations and deployments were handled expertly the existing resources could have saved Singapore .

 

[Admiral Beez]

The RAF did however build 27 airfields across Malaya without regard to defencability and then did not place aircraft on most of them. The Japanese however did use some of them later. the total lack of coordination between RAF and the army makes one wonder if more planes, tanks etc. would really made a difference. I suspect that if preparations and deployments were handled expertly the existing resources could have saved Singapore .

It's a good question. Could a credible military leader, given sufficient time to get things organized but no more units than historical have held back the Japanese? Monty doesn't arrive in North Africa to lead the British army until August 1942. Perhaps send Monty to Malaya in summer/autumn 1941. He'll likely shut down most of those underused and undefendable airfields for starters.

 

[RCAFson]

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.

Basically, the RN as built, from 1936 onward, less war losses. By Dec 1941 the RN would have had 20 battleships and 9 fleet carriers and two light carriers, and 80+ cruisers and 200 plus destroyers, with four more battleships and fleet carriers nearing completion along with many smaller ships. War losses in the ETO/MTO and building delays imposed by bombing and higher priority for RAF and Army equipment requirements, slowed the RN's planned growth.

The RN was being built up as a "two ocean navy" able to meet all the Axis navies simultaneously.

 

[RCAFson]

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.

The RN modernized 3 QE class and the Renown, and were planning to modernize Repulse, Hood and the other QE class when war started in Sept 1939. Italy had nearly another year to complete her modernizations and Japan, over two more years, before they entered the war.

 

[Shortround6]

the RN has enough carriers and battleships, but desperately needed a pre-war FAA and RAF pilot and ground crew recruitment and training scheme. And both the RAF and FAA need more aircraft.

The RAF had a massive pilot and ground crew recruitment and training scheme going on, In fact in some years it might have been a bit too massive, leading to ordering too many obsolete biplanes because they could obtained in a hurry. In 1934 there were 42 squadrons with about 800 firstline aircraft, by 1939 (month not specified and things were changing by the month)
there were 142 squadrons and 3700 aircraft. You are also going to get different numbers depending on what was considered a first line aircraft and/or counting overseas squadrons/aircraft.
Please note that this period of time also saw the introduction of much more complicated aircraft. Some the Squadrons that first got Blenheim had a rather high accident rate.

Blenheim...........................................plane they were changing from
Monoplane..........................................Biplane
Flaps.......................................................no flaps
Retracting landing gear..................fixed landing gear.
Two position prop.............................fixed pitch prop
Brakes on main wheels....................no wheel brakes (on some biplanes)

Ergonomics was unheard of and some controls required a near circus trained contortionist to reach and a clairvoyant to figure out if the hand was actually on the correct lever.
Even pilots of several years experience needed a period of adjustment.

And yes, Singapore naval base cost the equal of almost five thousand Spitfires. Imagine that £60 million allocated to Singapore defence instead going to building defendable airfields, defensive works, and procuring tanks and first-rate aircraft to defend the colony.

Not quite a fair assessment as even a few thousand Spitfires are going to need fuel 10s of thousand of gallons per day and perhaps well over 100 thousand gallons on a busy day. They are going to need 8-10 ground crewmen per plane, who are going to need food, water, clothes and buildings (or tents) and they are going to need spare parts.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The RN was being built up as a "two ocean navy" able to meet all the Axis navies simultaneously.

Not needlessly losing Courageous, Glorious, Ark Royal and arguably Hermes (sent to the Far East without credible CAG and sent to sea to escape Nagumo without any aircraft onboard or Ceylon air support) could have gone a long way to meeting the Axis globally.

In April 1942, Sommerville faced Nagumo with three carriers HMS Formidable, Indomitable and Hermes. Send Hermes (and the old Revenge class BBs) to the Med, but give Sommerville Ark Royal, Courageous, Glorious; and these five fast carriers, if equipped with at minimum 240 good aircraft will give Nagumo something to worry about.
Given the weakness of IJN carriers to dive bombers versus torpedo attack, let's hope Sommerville has some Skuas.

But I'm taking my own thread off topic, so I will repost the above to the relevant What'If thread Better luck for the RN carrier force 1939-1941

 

[Shortround6]

Agreed. Britain didn't need more battleships or even carriers. What it needed was more top grade fighter and strike aircraft. In Sept 1939 Britain had four fast fleet carriers (Ark Royal, Courageous, Furious and Glorious) plus two slow, smaller carriers (Eagle, Hermes) and then Argus. But there weren't enough aircraft to fill all these carriers. HMS Glorious when she was sunk had six Swordfish and nine Sea Gladiators - on a ship with over 57,000 sq.ft. of hangar space and fuel/munitions capacity to support a CAG of at least 48 aircraft. When HMS Courageous was sunk she had twenty-four Swordfish, no fighters or Skuas. When HMS Ark Royal sank in Nov 1941 she had a credible CAG of five squadrons onboard, but this makes sense as the war's been on for over two years so hopefully more aircraft were coming on line. From 1940 to 41 all four Illustrious class entered service - did they operate full CAGs? We know that HMS Hermes had no aircraft whatsoever aboard in April 1942, having flown off her small Swordfish group.

Some of your details are bit off. When Glorious was sunk she had her own air group of the six Swordfish and nine Sea Gladiators you mention but she was also carrying 10 Gladiators of No 263 squadron and the remaining Hurricanes of No 46 Squadron. 18 Hurricanes had been flown off 11 days before but I don't have the number evacuated at hand. Perhaps due to small air group or other reasons (only ship available?) she was being used as an aircraft ferry to bring aircraft to Norway. This did affect her ability to operated much of an air group of her own.
The ability of the Glorious, Courageous and Furious to operate an air group of the size their official capacity suggests (48 or so planes) for more than a few days is a bit suspect. The 48 planes may also be based on their initial complement of 16 Flycatchers, 16 IIIFs and 16 Ripon torpedo bombers. The amount of fuel needed for 400-600hp engines being somewhat less than the fuel needed for 800-900hp engines.
The Hermes was also being used as an aircraft ferry during some of the time before her loss. You also just can't stick a bunch of planes on the deck and declare you have an operational air group. An air group needs at least a few days of training on a particular carrier to accustomed to any idiosyncrasies of that ship and crew (batsmen?) Hermes may also have been down to about a 12 plane airgroup due to the larger planes in use compared to the 1920s. 12 planes is hardly a viable air group against any sort of aerial opposition.

My point..... the RN has enough carriers and battleships, but desperately needed a pre-war FAA and RAF pilot and ground crew recruitment and training scheme. And both the RAF and FAA need more aircraft. Makes those, not more empty carriers or converting old battleships. The entire Singapore naval base was a waste of money - £60 million spent on a useless base when a single Spitfire cost £12,600. When Singapore naval base opened in 1938 the Admiralty had already decided that no navy would be deployed at the base and that any fleet for Singapore would only arrive 45-60 days after it was needed.

It took over 15 years for the Singapore naval base to be completed and the defence policy had several changes in direction during that time. Most of the actual work was done from 1931 on (after the Japanese invaded Manchuria) but well before the rise of Hitler and Germany rearmament.
How much of the base was completed in 1936 when German ambitions became more public and forced some changes in British plans/deployments?

The BoB, North African and Malayan campaigns would have benefited from more attention paid to aircrew, ground crew expansion and aircraft procurement.

All these campaigns could have benefited from an expanded RAF but the RAF was expanding by a large amount as shown elsewhere. Unfortunately it may not have expanded in best possible manner and Bomber Command sucked up too much of the resources for very little return in the first few years of the war.

The great KNOCK OUT BLOW being delivered by hundreds of planes carrying a 1/2 ton apiece seems like a joke in bad taste in retrospect.

 

[buffnut453]

The great KNOCK OUT BLOW being delivered by hundreds of planes carrying a 1/2 ton apiece seems like a joke in bad taste in retrospect.

Entirely agree although, in fairness, the RAF wasn't the only air arm that over-promised and under-delivered in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

 

[Shortround6]

I will grant you that the RAF was working on getting numbers of planes that could carry 2 tons into service and also working on the 4 engine heavies but keeping so many light bombers in BC's fold when they could have been used elsewhere to at least as great a purpose smacks too much of empire building and I don't mean the British empire

 

[pinsog]

I've enjoyed reading this thread, but I have one serious reservation: I don't believe the British Royal Navy could handle the Japanese in late 1941 even if they weren't fighting the Germans and Italians.

let's assume no war in europe and no US intervention or equipment. This means 6 or so British carriers with 240 aircraft VS the 6 Japanese carriers of the Pearl Harbor raid with 414 aircraft. This means Swordfish, Fulmars, Skuas and Sea Hurricanes vs Zeros, Kates and Vals.

1st wave at Pearl Harbor was 89 Kates, 51 Vals and 41 Zeroes. 89 Kates with the best torpedo pilots in the world carrying the worlds best air dropped torpedo covered by the worlds best carrier fighter flown by some of the best pilots in the world along with 51 of the best dive bomber pilots in the world. The 6 japanese carriers worked as one large well oiled machine. They crippled the Yorktown at Midway with only a handful of surviving aircraft. How in the world do you plan on defending your British carriers with Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes against an attack of this size??? The Japanese were, simply put, the best anti shipping force on planet earth well into 1942. The British couldn't even stop the Germans from sailing a force up the English Channel (channel dash) and the Bismarck chase was a major challenge for the Royal Navy. I maintain the Bismarck could have been handled by a single attack from any of the large Japanese fleet carriers (27 Vals and 27 Kates would make short work of Bismarck. Vals hit first destroying radar, radios antennas and AA guns, then Kates attack 14 off one bow and 13 off the other).

let's also remember that the Japanese dispatched Force Z with little effort even scoring multiple hits on Prince of Wales with twin engine level bombers from medium altitude.

the British would likely never get within range of the Japanese carriers.

 

[RCAFson]

I've enjoyed reading this thread, but I have one serious reservation: I don't believe the British Royal Navy could handle the Japanese in late 1941 even if they weren't fighting the Germans and Italians.

let's assume no war in europe and no US intervention or equipment. This means 6 or so British carriers with 240 aircraft VS the 6 Japanese carriers of the Pearl Harbor raid with 414 aircraft. This means Swordfish, Fulmars, Skuas and Sea Hurricanes vs Zeros, Kates and Vals.

1st wave at Pearl Harbor was 89 Kates, 51 Vals and 41 Zeroes. 89 Kates with the best torpedo pilots in the world carrying the worlds best air dropped torpedo covered by the worlds best carrier fighter flown by some of the best pilots in the world along with 51 of the best dive bomber pilots in the world. The 6 japanese carriers worked as one large well oiled machine. They crippled the Yorktown at Midway with only a handful of surviving aircraft. How in the world do you plan on defending your British carriers with Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes against an attack of this size??? The Japanese were, simply put, the best anti shipping force on planet earth well into 1942. The British couldn't even stop the Germans from sailing a force up the English Channel (channel dash) and the Bismarck chase was a major challenge for the Royal Navy. I maintain the Bismarck could have been handled by a single attack from any of the large Japanese fleet carriers (27 Vals and 27 Kates would make short work of Bismarck. Vals hit first destroying radar, radios antennas and AA guns, then Kates attack 14 off one bow and 13 off the other).

let's also remember that the Japanese dispatched Force Z with little effort even scoring multiple hits on Prince of Wales with twin engine level bombers from medium altitude.

the British would likely never get within range of the Japanese carriers.

So that's why the USN was defeated in every carrier battle against the IJN... At Midway, the battle was basically won by ~30 SBDs who attacked undetected until in their attack dives. IIRC, one IJN carrier was sunk by a single bomb hit.

The RN was aware of the IJN's invasion forces approaching Malaya and they were not caught by surprise.

Could IJN carriers have operated in the same seastate as Ark Royal? Did they have ASV radar?

Victorious was carrying a total of 9 Swordfish and 6 Fulmars when she engaged Bismarck. She missed embarking another ~18 Albacores by ~24 hours. If Victorious had a full aircomplement and been accompanied by 3 or 4 more carriers, it's very likely that Prinz Eugen and Bismarck would have both been crippled and/or sunk by air strikes alone.


IIRC, the IJN level bombers scored one bomb hit on Repulse and one on PoW.

 

[pinsog]

So that's why the USN was defeated in every carrier battle against the IJN... At Midway, the battle was basically won by ~30 SBDs who attacked undetected until in their attack dives. IIRC, one IJN carrier was sunk by a single bomb hit.

The RN was aware of the IJN's invasion forces approaching Malaya and they were not caught by surprise.

Could IJN carriers have operated in the same seastate as Ark Royal? Did they have ASV radar?

Victorious was carrying a total of 9 Swordfish and 6 Fulmars when she engaged Bismarck. She missed embarking another ~18 Albacores by ~24 hours. If Victorious had a full aircomplement and been accompanied by 3 or 4 more carriers, it's very likely that Prinz Eugen and Bismarck would have both been crippled and/or sunk by air strikes alone.


IIRC, the IJN level bombers scored one bomb hit on Repulse and one on PoW.

The US Navy carriers never faced all 6 Japanese carriers at one time. Midway was not won by 30 SBD's, the Japanese fleet had already fought off multiple attacks from Midway itself, I'd have to look it up but seems like around 50 bombers from Midway, then 3 full squadrons of carrier based torpedo planes without a single scratch other than a couple of Zeros shot down by rear gunners and a few more shot down by Thachs Wildcats before Enterprise and Yorktown SBD's finally arrived on scene and caught the Zeros out of position. Even then, Hiryu managed to cripple Yorktown with a mere handful of aircraft. Do you really think that your going to get close enough to 6 Japanese carriers to launch an attack with Swordfish and Skuas with no escort and have success? The Royal Navy let an undamaged carrier get sunk by 2 heavy cruisers, this is not the guys that are going to take on the 6 Japanese fleet carriers of Pearl Harbor and win. They are outnumbered by aircraft almost 2-1, not to mention the better quality of the Japanese aircraft and the better training of the Japanese carriers and flight personnel.

 

[pinsog]

So that's why the USN was defeated in every carrier battle against the IJN... At Midway, the battle was basically won by ~30 SBDs who attacked undetected until in their attack dives. IIRC, one IJN carrier was sunk by a single bomb hit.

The RN was aware of the IJN's invasion forces approaching Malaya and they were not caught by surprise.

Could IJN carriers have operated in the same seastate as Ark Royal? Did they have ASV radar?

Victorious was carrying a total of 9 Swordfish and 6 Fulmars when she engaged Bismarck. She missed embarking another ~18 Albacores by ~24 hours. If Victorious had a full aircomplement and been accompanied by 3 or 4 more carriers, it's very likely that Prinz Eugen and Bismarck would have both been crippled and/or sunk by air strikes alone.


IIRC, the IJN level bombers scored one bomb hit on Repulse and one on PoW.

So if the entire Royal Navy carrier force had attacked they might have sunk Bismarck and Prinze Eugene?? Wow. A SINGLE Japanese fleet carrier would have disposed of both and never broke a sweat. 27 Vals and 27 Kates would probably sunk both in one mission, 2 at the most and if the German AA performed as it did against the British they wouldnt even have lost a single plane doing it.

 

[Shortround6]

The Royal Navy let an undamaged carrier get sunk by 2 heavy cruisers,

Was there a British carrier sunk that I don't know about?

This is not a cruiser. Heavy or otherwise.

Yes the British Captain was an idiot.

 

[pinsog]

Was there a British carrier sunk that I don't know about?
View attachment 578467
This is not a cruiser. Heavy or otherwise.

Yes the British Captain was an idiot.

Dang it, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were pocket battleships. My bad

 

[RCAFson]

So if the entire Royal Navy carrier force had attacked they might have sunk Bismarck and Prinze Eugene?? Wow. A SINGLE Japanese fleet carrier would have disposed of both and never broke a sweat. 27 Vals and 27 Kates would probably sunk both in one mission, 2 at the most and if the German AA performed as it did against the British they wouldnt even have lost a single plane doing it.

When and where did a single IJN carrier sink a battleship? The IJN aerial torpedo had the same warhead as the RN aerial torpedo. Vals carried 550Lb bombs How could they have possibly sunk Bismarck and Prinz Eugen in a single strike?

I think we need a "fantasy" forum for posts like yours, above.

 

[RCAFson]

Dang it, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were pocket battleships. My bad

Try again.

 

[Shortround6]

Hmmm, Pocket battleships didn't have "B" turret.