Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.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.
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.
Agreed, we'd need to keep DB to daylight targets.Night-time dive bombing isn't something I'd like to try....and accuracy would likely reduce considerably under such conditions.
There was a strong RN submarine squadron in Malaya up until I believe 1941, when they were recalled to the Mediterranean.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.
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.
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.
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
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.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.
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.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.
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 190A 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.
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.
A nice list, thank you.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