Comparison of Pacific, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and North Atlantic naval combat

[GrauGeist]

Not to diminish the RN/FAA types, but their numbers aren't as high as the "Big three" and this is mostly due to the Western Axis not having the surface fleet numbers as the Japanese did.
The "Stringbag" most certainly proved itself, especially when it counted.

The Ju87, SBD and D3A all operated in a target-rich environment (the Dauntless was most often the one-legged man in an ass kicking contest), so their numbers will be much higher.

 

[Schweik]

Not to diminish the RN/FAA types, but their numbers aren't as high as the "Big three" and this is mostly due to the Western Axis not having the surface fleet numbers as the Japanese did.
The "Stringbag" most certainly proved itself, especially when it counted.

I think it was good in the early war, but I believe it lingered a bit too long, and the Albacore shouldn't have been it's (intended) replacement. It did bring airborne radar to the game very early on, as did the Albacore, and both aircraft could pinch hit as dive bombers. But I think the agonizingly slow speed and extreme vulnerability to fighters (and flak / light AAA, if the enemy has their act together) makes them dangerously obsolete at least for daytime bombing.

The Ju87, SBD and D3A all operated in a target-rich environment (the Dauntless was most often the one-legged man in an ass kicking contest), so their numbers will be much higher.

Well the RN aircraft did too in the Med, at least for a while. The RN Carriers couldn't hold up to land based German strike aircraft or they could have done a lot more. On the other hand it's certainly up for debate if the US Carriers could have held their own. I think prior to 1943 it's debatable. Ranger made it in there a few times, and they had a short but ugly fight with the Vichy French. But I don't think they ever got in a knock-down / drag-out with the Luftwaffe. Once USN has Hellcats and then Corsairs, I think they can handle anything the Luftwaffe had, but that wasn't until the Med had become an Allied lake.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Ranger's SBDs did ravage Vichy ships in Morrocco and then again, up in the Baltic, sending German shipping to the bottom (while hoping the Tirpitz would come out and play) - they did encounter some German aircraft, the F4Fs driving them off.

 

[Stig1207]

Not the Baltic, you probably meant the North Sea.

 

[Schweik]

The Ranger's SBDs did ravage Vichy ships in Morrocco and then again, up in the Baltic, sending German shipping to the bottom (while hoping the Tirpitz would come out and play) - they did encounter some German aircraft, the F4Fs driving them off.

Ranger and the other US Carriers lost I think the majority of their planes in a short but pretty brutal air battle with the Vichy during Torch. The French lost more but not a whole lot more. It was largely US made Hawk 75s vs Wildcats too which is pretty ironic.

 

[Schweik]

Not the Baltic, you probably meant the North Sea.

Getting into the Baltic would have been pretty bold !

 

[GrauGeist]

Yes, my bad, the Tirpitz was holed up on the North Sea side of Norway, however, the Ranger's compliment still gave the Germans hell during Operation Leader.

In regards to the Ranger's operation off Morocco, her F4Fs downed quite a few Vichy fighters and caught scores more on the ground. The SBDs holed the Jean Bart and sank several other ships and in the process, lost very few aircraft.
If I recall right, the score was 15 aerial victories for zero losses.

 

[Schweik]

No, it was a lot more bloody than that. I have the battle in MAW, I'll look it up and transcribe it

 

[SaparotRob]

Nope. Just the SBD, JU-87 and D3A. The rest are just noise. Sorry.

 

[Admiral Beez]

IMO the results of that engagement prove that the Japanese were a more formidable opponent for the Royal Navy than the combined Italian and German forces

Well sure, the combined German and Italy navies were tiny compared to the RN, and both played into the three areas of RN expertise: battleships, ASW, and small sized night/all weather carrier strikes by slow, yet robust biplane bombers.

The Japanese were a different foe that the RN was not trained or optimized to fight. Had the Japanese played the British game, that of sending submarines and penny packets of surface ships without carriers against the RN the Japanese would be in trouble. Had the British played the Japanese game, that of sending one or two carriers with biplane bombers against the Kido Butai, the British are toast. The RN has one primary role, defend the home islands and its supply routes, projecting power or flag waving in the far east is a secondary affair at best. By the 1930s the Australians realized Britain didn't care about their defence and started reaching out to Washington.

Mind you, take the RN and the FAA of late 1944 against the IJN and I'd say both sides are closer to each others areas of expertise. The RN would be bringing five to six radar-equipped armoured fleet carriers with 50+ aircraft CAGs of Corsairs, Hellcats, Seafires, Tarpons and Barracudas, along with fast KGV class battleships, strong ASW and a reasonable fleet train.

 

[Schweik]

In 1944 the IJN was broken

 

[Admiral Beez]

In 1944 the IJN was broken

IDK, they still had the fight in them at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, fielding three carriers, nine battleships, 20 cruisers and over 300 aircraft. This force was met and destroyed by massively superior USN forces (including 34 aircraft carriers!), and yet still the IJN managed to kill three USN carriers and over 200 US aircraft.

Swap out the USN forces at Leyte Gulf with a purely British force of 5-6 Illustrious/Implacable class carriers, 4-5 KGV battleships and a dozen cruisers, and I'd give the Japanese good odds against the British.

 

[Schweik]

Fair points! But they were pretty much out of competent pilots by then, I think the three CVEs they got were hit by kamikazes. Those were dangerous but ultimately not a winning strategy...

 

[Admiral Beez]

Fair points! But they were pretty much out of competent pilots by then, I think the three CVEs they got were hit by kamikazes. Those were dangerous but ultimately not a winning strategy...

Good point. But did the BPF have competent pilots, I expect there was a lot of new, green aircrew in the rapidly expanding FAA. At what stage can we say the British and Japanese were on equal terms as far as ships, aircraft and pilots?

Basically at what point has the USN knocked down the IJN and the Germans/Italians and time itself improved the RN? IMO, we need the RN to replace its Swordfish, Albacores, Sea Hurricanes and Fulmars with folding wing Martlets, Seafires, Barracudas and Tarpons. At the same time we need the Japanese to have carriers with full CAGs with the latest A6M variants and experienced pilots. That's our starting point of a fair fight.

 

[RCAFson]

Well sure, the combined German and Italy navies were tiny compared to the RN, and both played into the three areas of RN expertise: battleships, ASW, and small sized night/all weather carrier strikes by slow, yet robust biplane bombers.

The Japanese were a different foe that the RN was not trained or optimized to fight. Had the Japanese played the British game, that of sending submarines and penny packets of surface ships without carriers against the RN the Japanese would be in trouble. Had the British played the Japanese game, that of sending one or two carriers with biplane bombers against the Kido Butai, the British are toast. The RN has one primary role, defend the home islands and its supply routes, projecting power or flag waving in the far east is a secondary affair at best. By the 1930s the Australians realized Britain didn't care about their defence and started reaching out to Washington.

Mind you, take the RN and the FAA of late 1944 against the IJN and I'd say both sides are closer to each others areas of expertise. The RN would be bringing five to six radar-equipped armoured fleet carriers with 50+ aircraft CAGs of Corsairs, Hellcats, Seafires, Tarpons and Barracudas, along with fast KGV class battleships, strong ASW and a reasonable fleet train.

The combined KM and RMI equalled about 1/2 to 2/3 of RN strength but they also had their land based AFs that the RN was also forced to fight and the result was grinding attrition for the RN, with losses equalling new construction, so that the RN could not expand as planned to meet the IJN. OTOH, the IJN (and USN) was able to expand rapidly from Sept 1939 so that by Dec 1941 the RN no longer had the planned equality or, with the French navy, superiority over the 3 main Axis navies.

The RN never had any intention of abandoning any part of the Empire/Commonwealth or allowing the combined Axis naval strength to exceed the RN's - it took 2 and 1/3 years of war to allow the IJN, in combination with the KM and RMI to gain the upper hand.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The RN never had any intention of abandoning any part of the Empire/Commonwealth

Maybe the RN didn't, but their overseers in Westminster and Whitehall made it so. For starters, canceling the Anglo-Japanese alliance in 1921 whilst not increasing RN forces in the Pacific beyond sailing HMS Hood and Repulse through the area once in the mid 1920s demonstrated to all the lack of interest in defence of ANZ. Britain had the largest navy in the world throughout the interwar period until surpassed by the USN during the Second World War, but posted hardly any first rate or large warships east of Suez.

There's no reason that three Courageous class carriers couldn't be stationed at Singapore or Hong Kong in the 1920s and early 1930s as a show of force to Japan and anyone else, such as Thailand. The British had the money, since they were spending billions on the Singapore base.

 

[RCAFson]

Maybe the RN didn't, but their overseers in Westminster and Whitehall made it so. For starters, canceling the Anglo-Japanese alliance in 1921 whilst not increasing RN forces in the Pacific beyond sailing HMS Hood and Repulse through the area once in the mid 1920s demonstrated to all the lack of interest in defence of ANZ. Britain had the largest navy in the world throughout the interwar period until surpassed by the USN during the Second World War, but posted hardly any first rate or large warships east of Suez.

There's no reason that three Courageous class carriers couldn't be stationed at Singapore or Hong Kong in the 1920s and early 1930s as a show of force to Japan and anyone else, such as Thailand. The British had the money, since they were spending billions on the Singapore base.

The USN based a very large part of it's navy at PH. How'd that work out for them? Placing a large part of the RN in the far east would have created a very tempting target for a surprise IJN attack and would not have been a strategically or tactically sound idea. OTOH, Singapore was strengthened as far as possible, and the RN maintained a very large proportion of it's submarines in the far east.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I don't think you'd get much argument that Whitehall and Westminster rather left ANZ hanging after 1919.

Suppose though, the RN had stationed three carriers at Singapore or Hong Kong. Combined with the shift from California to Pearl Harbor for the USN, Imperial Japan would definitely be feeling the pressure from the Western fleets, perhaps pushing them to attack sooner or driving them to the diplomatic table instead.

Although by late 1941 I'm sure it would be hard for the RN to justify keeping such valuable resources tied up outside of the theater of war the they were actively engaged in, at least until Pearl Harbor.

Also for the Pearl Harbor attack the IJN was blessed with some pretty good fortune to pull off total surprise.

 

[Schweik]

RN n the 1930s was in a similar position to the US today - huge expensive navy, too big to keep modernizing to the rapidly evolving standard, spread all over the world and teetering closer to obsolescence with the technology of the previous era.

 

[RCAFson]

I don't think you'd get much argument that Whitehall and Westminster rather left ANZ hanging after 1919.

Suppose though, the RN had stationed three carriers at Singapore or Hong Kong. Combined with the shift from California to Pearl Harbor for the USN, Imperial Japan would definitely be feeling the pressure from the Western fleets, perhaps pushing them to attack sooner or driving them to the diplomatic table instead.

Although by late 1941 I'm sure it would be hard for the RN to justify keeping such valuable resources tied up outside of the theater of war the they were actively engaged in, at least until Pearl Harbor.

Also for the Pearl Harbor attack the IJN was blessed with some pretty good fortune to pull off total surprise.

All they had to do was add up the number of RN carriers and battleships in service in Dec 1941, then subtract the minimum that the RN had to allocate to the ETO/MTO and they could calculate pretty easily the combined RN/USN strength that could be allocated to the Pacific. The RN started the war with 4 fleet carriers and had added 4 more by Dec 1941 but then lost 3 from Sept 1939 to Nov 1941. With no war the RN alone would have had carrier superiority over the IJN.

The IJN KB had 6 fleet carriers in Dec 1941, but 3 of these were added after 1939. The IJN had planned to knock out at least two USN fleet carriers at PH.