Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
Not the Baltic, you probably meant the North Sea.
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.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
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.In 1944 the IJN was broken
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?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...
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.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.
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.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.
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.