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

[Kevin J]

Whilst a 1945 trained army with 1841 weapons could have been a bad thing for the Japanese the Japanese army was at it's most vulnerable at sea approaching Malaya. Anything that can strike the troopships before they land their troops and/or return for more will have more impact that the same resources deployed on land. It may be cool to picture carriers steaming to launch decisive air strikes but this is not the deep Pacific. It is a (very large) coastline open only to the east. Land based maritime strike is a better choice. What carriers can do is appear with a air strike capacity where land based aeroplanes cannot. A squadron of Bostons for example, will deliver far more bang than a carrier squadron and has the fuel and bombs to maintain action over weeks without steaming away to refuel and rearm in a port days away. In 1941 one might have (War Cabinet willing)
Wellingtons
Hampdens
Blenheims
Bostons
Battles
Henleys
Hudsons
Beauforts

All of which need fighter cover. It is said that bombs let in air but torpedos let in water which is a correct view of attacking warships with armour and damage control. But troopships are unarmoured and vulnerable to fires and damage control is hard. To strike at the naval vessels torpedos are the answer but bombs at low level by trained aircrew will do very nicely for the troopships. If you want torpedoes then you have to look at the spare FAA resources additionally to the above to whit
Albacore
Swordfish
Shark
Vildebeest

These will not live in a defended environment no matter how brave the crews but can operate at night by moonlight or flares.

Not normally mentioned when defending Malaya is spoken of is that Burma was being invaded at more or less the same time by land across northern Thailand eve if you hold Malaya.

You need Fortress Penang Island, 210 miles away from the landing beaches by air, you need radar there, an Observer Corps forwards of it. Hurricane IIa's for air defence, Hurricane IIb's with drop tanks for long range escort, Hurricane IIc's with long range tanks for strafing the beaches and HP Hampdens equipped with torpedoes, mines, bombs. They're capable of dive bombing and have a max range of 2000 miles. By all means base the Catalinas on the East Coast to patrol the South China Sea. But remember, you cannot lose Penang, after that it's game over. Throw in some Harrows and/or Bombays for resupply and medivac of your troops defending Kota Bharu. Worse case scenario there is an orderly retreat down the railway line to Kuala Lumpur which must be held. You're going to have to hold onto Port Blair in the Southern Andaman Islands too as its an essential staging Post for reinforcements from India and Ceylon. Maybe we need to have some old WW1 battleships moored in harbours for defence too. If we lose either Penang or Port Blair it's game over in the defence of Malaya. In the case of Burma, we can simply retreat and over extend the Japanese supply line.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Whilst a 1945 trained army with 1841 weapons could have been a bad thing for the Japanese the Japanese army was at it's most vulnerable at sea approaching Malaya. Anything that can strike the troopships before they land their troops and/or return for more will have more impact that the same resources deployed on land. It may be cool to picture carriers steaming to launch decisive air strikes but this is not the deep Pacific. It is a (very large) coastline open only to the east. Land based maritime strike is a better choice. What carriers can do is appear with a air strike capacity where land based aeroplanes cannot. A squadron of Bostons for example, will deliver far more bang than a carrier squadron and has the fuel and bombs to maintain action over weeks without steaming away to refuel and rearm in a port days away. In 1941 one might have (War Cabinet willing)
Wellingtons
Hampdens
Blenheims
Bostons
Battles
Henleys
Hudsons
Beauforts

All of which need fighter cover. It is said that bombs let in air but torpedos let in water which is a correct view of attacking warships with armour and damage control. But troopships are unarmoured and vulnerable to fires and damage control is hard. To strike at the naval vessels torpedos are the answer but bombs at low level by trained aircrew will do very nicely for the troopships. If you want torpedoes then you have to look at the spare FAA resources additionally to the above to whit
Albacore
Swordfish
Shark
Vildebeest

These will not live in a defended environment no matter how brave the crews but can operate at night by moonlight or flares.

Not normally mentioned when defending Malaya is spoken of is that Burma was being invaded at more or less the same time by land across northern Thailand eve if you hold Malaya.

Against troop ships it would seem ideal to have dive bombers. By 1941 the Skua has been withdrawn from the RN. They'd be deadly against thin and crowded troops ships. Provided they have RAF fighter cover, I imagine if the German had ever been mad enough to try their cross channel invasion the Skuas would played a similar role.

 

[buffnut453]

Whilst a 1945 trained army with 1841 weapons could have been a bad thing for the Japanese the Japanese army was at it's most vulnerable at sea approaching Malaya. Anything that can strike the troopships before they land their troops and/or return for more will have more impact that the same resources deployed on land. It may be cool to picture carriers steaming to launch decisive air strikes but this is not the deep Pacific. It is a (very large) coastline open only to the east. Land based maritime strike is a better choice. What carriers can do is appear with a air strike capacity where land based aeroplanes cannot. A squadron of Bostons for example, will deliver far more bang than a carrier squadron and has the fuel and bombs to maintain action over weeks without steaming away to refuel and rearm in a port days away. In 1941 one might have (War Cabinet willing)
Wellingtons
Hampdens
Blenheims
Bostons
Battles
Henleys
Hudsons
Beauforts

All of which need fighter cover. It is said that bombs let in air but torpedos let in water which is a correct view of attacking warships with armour and damage control. But troopships are unarmoured and vulnerable to fires and damage control is hard. To strike at the naval vessels torpedos are the answer but bombs at low level by trained aircrew will do very nicely for the troopships. If you want torpedoes then you have to look at the spare FAA resources additionally to the above to whit
Albacore
Swordfish
Shark
Vildebeest

These will not live in a defended environment no matter how brave the crews but can operate at night by moonlight or flares.

Not normally mentioned when defending Malaya is spoken of is that Burma was being invaded at more or less the same time by land across northern Thailand eve if you hold Malaya.

We're coming up with some useful lists of possible reinforcement types but a fundamental problem remains: reinforcing Malaya will not help Brooke-Popham decide when to act. Throughout most of 1941, Brooke-Popham (CinC Far East) was directed to report back to London before taking any military action. After months of lobbying, in late November 1941, London finally gave Brooke-Popham freedom to act on his own initiative. However, this is a lesson in being careful about what you ask for, because Brooke-Popham essentially now had the power to declare war on Japan and commit Britain to combat on yet another front.

The key challenge for Brooke-Popham was knowing where and when to respond militarily. If he attacked Japanese forces without provocation and before they committed any proven hostile acts, he would be the aggressor. Japan was conducting a strong psyops campaign against countries in the region, and were painting Britain and the US as the ones who were forcing Japan to act. If Brooke-Popham responded to quickly, or attacked a feint by Japanese forces, Tokyo could justifiably play the victim card. Conversely, if Brooke-Popham waited too late to respond, the Japanese could establish a beachhead and his inexperienced, and poorly-equipped defenders would be on the back foot before the real fighting had begun.

As others have noted, any increase in aircraft must be accompanied by improvements to airfield defences, to include more ground troops to prevent the rapid overrunning of airfields near the northeast coast of Malaya. A night-time attack against the troopships is the only viable method to maximize attrition before Japanese soldiers land on the beaches. The problem with a night attack is getting to the right spot without navaids. As it was, the existing aircraft did inflict significant damage on the invasion force...just not enough to prevent the landings.

To the final point above regarding Burma, that was the strategic genius of the attack on northern Malay and southern Thailand. Success there enabled the Japanese forces to drive a wedge between the British forces in Malaya and those in Burma, giving the Japanese interior lines where air assets could mutually support operations to the south and to the northwest. If the British could prevent the landings on the east coast of the Kra Isthmus, it would entirely unhinge the Japanese attack plans.

P.S. Minor note but the Vildebeest was a RAF aircraft, not FAA.

 

[buffnut453]

Against troop ships it would seem ideal to have dive bombers. By 1941 the Skua has been withdrawn from the RN. They'd be deadly against thin and crowded troops ships. Provided they have RAF fighter cover, I imagine if the German had ever been mad enough to try their cross channel invasion the Skuas would played a similar role.

Night-time dive bombing isn't something I'd like to try....and accuracy would likely reduce considerably under such conditions.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Night-time dive bombing isn't something I'd like to try....and accuracy would likely reduce considerably under such conditions.

Agreed, we'd need to keep DB to daylight targets.

 

[Snautzer01]

How about shipping submarines in, in a wulfpack style? Axis and Allies did well specially early war. Use the old carryiers as eyes. Keep them more or less close and provide it with fuel and torps. Japan i think did not have good defence against subs.

 

[Admiral Beez]

How about shipping submarines in, in a wulfpack style? Axis and Allies did well specially early war. Use the old carryiers as eyes. Keep them more or less close and provide it with fuel and torps. Japan i think did not have good defence against subs.

There was a strong RN submarine squadron in Malaya up until I believe 1941, when they were recalled to the Mediterranean.

23 March 1940: The Royal Navy established the Malaya Force of cruisers, destroyers and submarines to stop German merchant ships leaving the Dutch East Indies.

4th Submarine Flotilla, China Station, Royal Navy, 3.09.39
List of Eastern Fleet ships - Wikipedia

It's a shame the submarines weren't kept at Singapore to fight alongside the Dutch submarines. I agree with you Snautzer01 the IJN is weak in ASW - this is where we can hit the invasion fleet in the Gulf of Thailand.

Send some subs and some cruiser tanks, all good.

 

[Fatboy Coxy]

Hi all, this is an interesting little thread

The Fairey Batlle was still in production, and could, with decent air cover, provide ground support vis dive bombing, not at the extreme angles of a Stuka, but easily at a 60 degree angle, so she would get my vote.

The Hurricane must be another candidate, as she was being found out, in the air superiority role during the rhubarbs in Europe over the spring of 1941, and could have come from Canadian production, around about summer of 41, with maybe some sent from the UK earlier.

The replacement for the Vildebeest, the Beaufort, was in limited production in the UK, all of which was used just maintaining the few squadrons there, the Australian version, given they were trying to start up an aircraft industry, was badly delayed, but in summer/autumn 40, it would have seem a reasonable solution.

I'm not sure what would be a better replacement for the Blenheim, I'd just have more of them, unless we want to increase the range, but the Wellington was still front line for Europe and the RAF HAD to put something forward as the best attempt at a second front against Germany.

Recon was also an issue, a few more Catalina's would have been nice too

But just getting a working radar network functioning, and better ground support in maintenance, along with some airfield AA would go a long way to improving things. I don't see a single game changer, more a incremental improvement all around as the way forward.

Regards
Fatboy Coxy

 

[buffnut453]

The replacement for the Vildebeest, the Beaufort, was in limited production in the UK, all of which was used just maintaining the few squadrons there, the Australian version, given they were trying to start up an aircraft industry, was badly delayed, but in summer/autumn 40, it would have seem a reasonable solution.

The problem is that the Aussie Beauforts weren't ready by late 1941 per the historical schedule. It had been the plan for Aussie Beauforts to replace the Vildebeests but only 6 airframes had arrived before the Japanese invasion and they were plagued with problems. Only one ever flew operations in the PR role and it was destroyed on the ground on 9 Dec 1941. The other 5 airframes were evacuated to Australia in early Dec 1941.

But just getting a working radar network functioning, and better ground support in maintenance, along with some airfield AA would go a long way to improving things. I don't see a single game changer, more a incremental improvement all around as the way forward.

Agree with everything you said here. Frankly, it needs more than just aircraft-related resources for all this to work. It needs more and stronger ground forces in northern Malaya to defend the airfields. It also needs a different leadership mindset in Singapore.

 

[pgf_666]

200 x Fairey Battles
200 x H. Hurricanes
100 x Skuas/Rocs


with ~30% of the above in reserve for 10 x FB squadrons, 10 x HH squadrons and 5 x Skua/Roc squadrons

Hmmm...from what I've read, t he Hurri was the only allied fighter still in production that could turn insidr a Zeke....so, wouldn't THAT have come as a nasty surprise?

And COC? both Trnchard and Leigh-Mallory had shown a good understanding of air warfai8r in the moth prior....

 

[Shortround6]

I know everyone wants to find some use for the Fairey Battle but let's face it. If the Blenheim can't survive in combat against enemy X then the Battle has about zero chance.
How many Battles had self-sealing tanks, or armor ? Not to mention the Blenheim by late 1941 had two high rate of fire machine guns in a powered mount compared to a single high rate of fire machine gun (assuming the Vickers K gun) but aimed with the gunners muscles.

 

[pinsog]

Hmmm...from what I've read, t he Hurri was the only allied fighter still in production that could turn insidr a Zeke....so, wouldn't THAT have come as a nasty surprise?

And COC? both Trnchard and Leigh-Mallory had shown a good understanding of air warfai8r in the moth prior....

A Hurricane won't turn inside a Zero, those who tried died swiftly. The only allied fighter that could outturn a Zero at low speed was a Gladiator.

 

[pgf_666]

A Hurricane won't turn inside a Zero, those who tried died swiftly. The only allied fighter that could outturn a Zero at low speed was a Gladiator.

Ah, that's why my prologue...

Also, apparently the P-26 could--I was told by a Japanese colleague that his father's unit of the IJAAF had to bring in so Ki-27's to eliminate the PAF's Peashooters...

 

[Shortround6]

This who can out turn who is a race to the bottom.

Maybe the Zero can't follow and shoot down the Gladiator but then the Gladiator can't out run, out climb or out dive the Zero, Meaning that while the Gladiator can keep it self from being shot down, it cannot dictate the terms of the engagement the maojorit of the time to shoot down the Zeros or Ki-43s and more importantly, the bombers they are protecting.

The Russians proved this at one point in WW II when they found the I-16 had a lower loss rate per sortie than the Laggs, Migs and Yaks. Trouble was they also did much less damage to the Germans than any of those 3 fighters per sortie.

 

[pinsog]

This who can out turn who is a race to the bottom.

Maybe the Zero can't follow and shoot down the Gladiator but then the Gladiator can't out run, out climb or out dive the Zero, Meaning that while the Gladiator can keep it self from being shot down, it cannot dictate the terms of the engagement the maojorit of the time to shoot down the Zeros or Ki-43s and more importantly, the bombers they are protecting.

The Russians proved this at one point in WW II when they found the I-16 had a lower loss rate per sortie than the Laggs, Migs and Yaks. Trouble was they also did much less damage to the Germans than any of those 3 fighters per sortie.

I agree 100%. I certainly wasn't saying the Gladiator could fight a Zero, I was just saying that it's the only thing the Allies had that could outturn a Zero at slow speed. The only early war Allied plane I would want to be in if I had to fight a Zero 1 on 1 is a B17 at about 25,000 feet. The only person I'd want to see try to out turn a Zero at slow speed in a Hurricane is someone I don't like that had a big life insurance policy with my name on it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A Hurricane won't turn inside a Zero, those who tried died swiftly. The only allied fighter that could outturn a Zero at low speed was a Gladiator.

There were other light weight ( >4 ton empty) allied fighters. Do any of them stand a chance? List of lightweights here Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

Of particular note, the Curtiss-Wright CW-21 - Wikipedia

With its light construction, radial engine, low wing loading, limited pilot protection and lack of self-sealing fuel tanks, the CW-21B was the Allied fighter most similar to the opposing Japanese fighters. It had a rate of climb superior to the Nakajima Ki-43-I ("Oscar") and Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero. The CW-21B had similar firepower to the "Oscar", but worse than the cannon-armed Zero.

The Japanese captured a CW-21 below. I wonder what they thought of it.

 

[Flatlander]

In May 1940, the RAF had roughly 134 squadrons.
The most common plane types were:
Bristol Blenheim 24
Fairey Battle 12
Hawker Hurricane 27
Supermarine Spitfire 16
Vickers Wellington 10

but at the time these others were also available:
Avro Anson 6
Armstrong Whitley 6
Bristol Beaufort 4
Boulton-Paul Defiant 2
Gloster Gladiator 1
Lockheed Hudson 4
Saunders-Roe London 1
Saunders-Roe Lerwick 1
Short Sunderland 4
Supermarine Stranraer 1
Westland Lysander 6

Given the watery nature of Malasya I would suggest sending Sunderlands.
Also Lysanders and Hudsons (or Ansons).

Given the wish for modern planes, I would suggest Spitfires, Hurricanes and Wellington Bombers.

Hope this helps.
~Flatlander

 

[buffnut453]

AHQFE already had 2 squadrons of Hudson's. Not sure what Lysanders would have done. I can agree that a few more Hudson squadrons certainly wouldn't hurt.

 

[Shortround6]

AHQFE already had 2 squadrons of Hudson's. Not sure what Lysanders would have done. I can agree that a few more Hudson squadrons certainly wouldn't hurt.

Provided target practice for the Japanese at little cost to the Japanese. They don't have to pay for the fuel and crews.

 

[Shortround6]

In May 1940, the RAF had roughly 134 squadrons.
The most common plane types were:
Bristol Blenheim 24
Fairey Battle 12
Hawker Hurricane 27
Supermarine Spitfire 16
Vickers Wellington 10

but at the time these others were also available:
Avro Anson 6
Armstrong Whitley 6
Bristol Beaufort 4
Boulton-Paul Defiant 2
Gloster Gladiator 1
Lockheed Hudson 4
Saunders-Roe London 1
Saunders-Roe Lerwick 1
Short Sunderland 4
Supermarine Stranraer 1
Westland Lysander 6

Given the watery nature of Malasya I would suggest sending Sunderlands.
Also Lysanders and Hudsons (or Ansons).

Given the wish for modern planes, I would suggest Spitfires, Hurricanes and Wellington Bombers.

Hope this helps.
~Flatlander

A nice list, thank you.

However a few notes, most of the flying boat squadrons were not full strength. Some of them only had 8 or so planes compared to the large number of planes in most land based squadrons. The Lerwick was a turkey and soon taken out of service despite the desperation of the times. The Stranraer and London were only useful if you could keep them away form any enemy aircraft (or much of anything with AA guns).
Hudson's were being delivered at a pretty good pace and the numbers changed almost by the month.
I would note that of the Wellingtons all that were available at this time were powered by the Pegasus engine and many had powered gun mounts fore and aft but not the turrets the later versions had. Range and payload are rather different than the Hercules powered versions.
Ansons also have no business flying where enemy fighters might be encountered.