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

[swampyankee]

Many nations which are primarily agricultural are net importers of food because of decisions made by the government or by the economic elites; the former is the case in several sub-Saharan countries. Prior to the US Civil War, the Southern US was a net importer of food from the North due to the emphasis on production of cash crops for the latter reason. Of course, some non-industrial countries are net importers because of population density or poor croplands, however without a valuable export commodity, they'll not be able to afford importing food for long.

There are many things more profitable to do with land than growing crops, especially staple crops.

 

[Shortround6]

I believe somewhere in an old thread Parsifal went over the tonnages needed for shipping and where the tonnages were being used. It has been a lot of years so I don't what to rely on memory too much.

 

[Admiral Beez]

There's no way the Japanese would allow any food from their captured territories to make it to the Allies.

What? I'm referring to a rail link prewar. Once Malaya was taken, the grain would have come from Canada and Australia. Apologies if I was not clear, but no, I'm not expecting Japan to feed the Allies.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I always thougt the Miles M.20 was a nifty looking plane but UGH... Dose Landing Gears Yo...

I have to agree with you there. Does retractable undercarriage add so much more weight, expense or complexity? Can we just stick the Miles Master wing on?

More great pics here Forums / RAF Library / Miles Master - Axis and Allies Paintworks

 

[MikeMeech]

The Defiant might have done well. Its faster than the Ki-27 and it's firepower should rip apart the unprotected IJAF and IJN twin-engined bombers. The Ki-43 Oscar will be a tricky opponent, one that was thankfully (from the Defiant's perspective) in the early versions only armed with two .303 machine guns. Skua, depending on the condition of those available might be useful as CAS. IMO the best feasible reinforcment for the sixty odd active Buffaloes is another 200 Buffaloes, or Mohawks, or a mix of both.

And now we must consider the worst contenders to serve alongside the Buffaloes. Canada produced the Grumman Goblin. Any of those laying about to build up two squadrons? Any other total rubbish to send? Bulldogs, Nimrods, etc? If there were no Buffaloes at all, so has to be sent.

Hi

Canada had 15 Goblins.

In 1940 Canada produced 10 Hampdens, 1941 they produced 94 although only 29 by the end of June 1941, in 1942 they produced 56.

Production of Hurricanes in Canada was a bit better with 76 built in 1940 and 511 in 1941, 336 by end of June 1941.

Only 200 Henleys were produced by Gloster before, they started building Hurricanes before the completion of the Henley contract, with 32 built in 1939, 1,211 in 1940 and 1,359 in 1941.

Total production of Skua 190, of Roc 136.

Not that many aircraft of these types available in mid-1941.

Mike

 

[Shortround6]

from the numbers built you have to subtract the numbers lost in operational accidents and also figure ones counted on strength but are actually on their last legs (only kind of bent from that last hard landing,) Sending airframes and engines with several hundred hours on them and nearly due for overhaul doesn't really help anything.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Production of Hurricanes in Canada was a bit better with 76 built in 1940 and 511 in 1941, 336 by end of June 1941.

In these days before Barbarossa and British aid to Russia (and given that Russia also violated the Anglo-Polish alliance - the very reason Britain is at war) I would have liked to have shipped all of those 336 Canadian Hurricanes to Malaya. They could have been easily railed from Fort William to Vancouver and shipped, without escort through peacetime waters to Singapore.

I'd still want all 160-odd Buffaloes, for a total of about five hundred fighters, or twenty squadrons with 50% spares.

 

[RCAFson]

In these days before Barbarossa and British aid to Russia (and given that Russia also violated the Anglo-Polish alliance - the very reason Britain is at war) I would have liked to have shipped all of those 336 Canadian Hurricanes to Malaya. They could have been easily railed from Fort William to Vancouver and shipped, without escort through peacetime waters to Singapore.

I'd still want all 160-odd Buffaloes, for a total of about five hundred fighters, or twenty squadrons with 50% spares.

In the Grand Scheme of things, aid to the USSR was far more important than Malaya.

Canada also built the Bristol Bolingbroke (Bleinheim IV).

 

[Admiral Beez]

In the Grand Scheme of things, aid to the USSR was far more important than Malaya.

Canada also built the Bristol Bolingbroke (Bleinheim IV).

True, especially as hindsight shows us Britain had no intention of holding onto Malaya or Singapore post-war. In 2018 as I walked through the Commonwealth cemeteries in Hong Kong and Singapore I wondered to myself, looking at row upon row of ANZ, Canadian, Brits, Indians, etc. in these foreign lands where the flag was taken down soon after it went back up in 1945, what was the point?

But I don't know if those pre-Barbarossa Hurricanes went to Russia or just to RAF spares. Canada sent all its Valentine tank production to the USSR and a lot of grain, etc. I just want some Hurricanes....

Bristol Bolingbroke would be interesting.

 

[buffnut453]

Britain had every intention of holding onto its empire postwar. It just wasn't able to do so for a whole host of reasons: it couldn't afford it, nations wanted (entirely reasonably) self-determination; the US was staunchly against imperial powers, and deliberately undermined the UK in its efforts to retain its grip.

I would suggest the UK's efforts to counter the Malayan Insurgency provide a rather powerful example of the country's continued effort to help ensure stability in the region (arguably, it was the best and most comprehensive anti-Communist campaign conducted by any Western power). To this day, the UK is part of the Five Powers Defence Agreement with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore. Granted, engagement for the past 9 years has been pretty negligible but the Agreement is still in force so, in theory, the UK is committed to support the military defence of the other signatories.

 

[MikeMeech]

In the Grand Scheme of things, aid to the USSR was far more important than Malaya.

Canada also built the Bristol Bolingbroke (Bleinheim IV).

Hi

Bolingbroke deliveries are; 1 in 1939, 17 in 1940, 79 in 1941 although only 8 before end of June 1941.

Mike

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hi

Bolingbroke deliveries are; 1 in 1939, 17 in 1940, 79 in 1941 although only 8 before end of June 1941.

Mike

"A total of 626 Bristol Bolingbrokes were manufactured in Canada between 1939 and 1943."

I've been watching the restoration of one in Hamilton, ON. Given those low production numbers, It's amazing any survived.

Aircraft Details - Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum

 

[slaterat]

The genius of Sydney Camms Hurricane, is that it was available in large numbers early in the war. If the will was there 300 to 500 Hurricanes could of been sent to SE Asia, but where are you going to get everything needed to fly and operate them? Where are you going to get fuel, ground crews, EWS, and AAA to protect the airfields, that you also have to build? Perhaps the hardest part is where are you going to get 500 trained fighter pilots in 41-42? The Commonwealth Air training program was just spooling up in 41. By 1943, logistically, its a different story, but in 1942 the RAF couldn't properly support the 100 Hurricanes they did get there.

 

[Big Jake]

P-40s and Blenheims. In early 1941 the RAF gave up 100 P-40s that went to the AVG in China. Would have made more good in Malaya than in China (with all due respect.) More P-40s would have been even better. The Blenheim was useless for the European theatre as a light bomber but could have been very useful in the Far East.

 

[Admiral Beez]

P-40s and Blenheims. In early 1941 the RAF gave up 100 P-40s that went to the AVG in China. Would have made more good in Malaya than in China (with all due respect.) More P-40s would have been even better. The Blenheim was useless for the European theatre as a light bomber but could have been very useful in the Far East.

Yes, those P-40s will make a difference. Provided as mentioned above that pilots and supporting players could be had.

We have fighters and medium bombers in Malaya, but save for two squadrons of obsolete Vilderbeests there's no maritime-strike component. We must sent some twin engined torpedo-bomber; Beauforts, Hampdens or even (if only to bolster the appearance of deterrence) Bothas.

 

[ssnider]

As has been stated before. it does not matter what is sent. Without a proper early warning system or radar they are just more burning wrecks on the air strip. The infrastructure could not handle what was already there so more will just make it worse. What could have been sent at least 6 months before the Buffalos to get better ground organizational systems in place so that the defenders could at least be semi prepared for the Japamese attack?

 

[Admiral Beez]

As has been stated before. it does not matter what is sent. Without a proper early warning system or radar they are just more burning wrecks on the air strip. The infrastructure could not handle what was already there so more will just make it worse. What could have been sent at least 6 months before the Buffalos to get better ground organizational systems in place so that the defenders could at least be semi prepared for the Japamese attack?

The Japanese didn't have radar or AIUI much airfield defence, and, if Britain fielded sufficient first rate aircraft, would been hard pressed to counter RAF preemptive strikes to their bases in Thailand.

What the Japanese did have was more planes and most importantly a political and military willingness to take the initiative. There's no point in building up RAF units, adding radar, sending anything really if all the Brits are going to do is wait behind their lines for the Japanese to come. As soon as it was clear the Japanese were building up forces in FIC the Brits should have executed Operation Matador and invaded Thailand.

 

[MikeMeech]

The Japanese didn't have radar or AIUI much airfield defence, and, if Britain fielded sufficient first rate aircraft, would been hard pressed to counter RAF preemptive strikes to their bases in Thailand.

What the Japanese did have was more planes and most importantly a political and military willingness to take the initiative. There's no point in building up RAF units, adding radar, sending anything really if all the Brits are going to do is wait behind their lines for the Japanese to come. As soon as it was clear the Japanese were building up forces in FIC the Brits should have executed Operation Matador and invaded Thailand.

Hi

There have been mentions that the Brits should have preemptively occupied French Indo-China and attacked Thailand etc. despite being heavily involved in fighting in the Middle-East and North-West Europe, despite the pre-war analysis that the worse case scenario was fighting the Germans, Italians and Japanese at the same time (the British Government had decided it could not be done successfully). So why should Britain decide to make this happen earlier than it did? Meanwhile the USA with its anti-Japanese policies and support for China just sits and does nothing. Surely if the USA was going to follow its rhetoric on Japan it was they who should have occupied FIC, made preemptive strike on Japanese forces, put more forces into the Philippines etc. But they didn't despite not being involved in the fighting the UK and Commonwealth were already involved in, why? Probably because they did not want to start a war then either. Britain was following US policy on Japan in the late 1930s, one reason the Japanese attacked Burma was that it was the route the USA was using to supply China in their fighting the Japanese invaders and the Japanese wanted to cut it off. The question is not why Britain should have done all these things (despite being hard pressed at the time) suggested but why the USA is not being mentioned in their failure (if it is) in their policy on Japan and not doing these thing itself?

Mike

 

[Kevin J]

Hi

There have been mentions that the Brits should have preemptively occupied French Indo-China and attacked Thailand etc. despite being heavily involved in fighting in the Middle-East and North-West Europe, despite the pre-war analysis that the worse case scenario was fighting the Germans, Italians and Japanese at the same time (the British Government had decided it could not be done successfully). So why should Britain decide to make this happen earlier than it did? Meanwhile the USA with its anti-Japanese policies and support for China just sits and does nothing. Surely if the USA was going to follow its rhetoric on Japan it was they who should have occupied FIC, made preemptive strike on Japanese forces, put more forces into the Philippines etc. But they didn't despite not being involved in the fighting the UK and Commonwealth were already involved in, why? Probably because they did not want to start a war then either. Britain was following US policy on Japan in the late 1930s, one reason the Japanese attacked Burma was that it was the route the USA was using to supply China in their fighting the Japanese invaders and the Japanese wanted to cut it off. The question is not why Britain should have done all these things (despite being hard pressed at the time) suggested but why the USA is not being mentioned in their failure (if it is) in their policy on Japan and not doing these thing itself?

Mike

I think the case for American intervention in FIC is strong, but the American public would never have stood for it. It makes the Gulf of Tonkin incident in the 1960's make sound military sense, but alas the CIA doesn't exist in 1940/41.

 

[ssnider]

Roosevelt pushed American involvement in the war as far as he politically could before pearl Harbor. The AVG is as much help as can be gotten and not any sooner.