After 1936, the RN had no lack of funding and the UK was building ships to the absolute limit of it's ship building capacity, which even in the mid 1930s was greater than all the Axis powers combined. With no war, the RN would have had a navy by Jan 1942, that was larger than all the Axis navies combined plus the RN was modernizing it's older ships as well, with Renown, Warspite, QE and Valiant being completely rebuilt, with more planned (including Hood), but cancelled due to war.
Comparison of Pacific, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and North Atlantic naval combat (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Schweik
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Major
Agreed. But my suggestion on a large RN deployment to the Pacific was for the 1920s and early 1930s, when Japan was rapidly rearming, when the Anglo-Japan alliance was over, when ANZ was feeling vulnerable and before 1936-38 when war in Europe became inevitable and thus requiring the fleet to be recalled to home waters. Throughout the 1920s and early 30s the China Station was a backwater, with perhaps Hermes or Eagle making a tour, combined with a few cruisers, destroyers and perhaps a submarine squadron. It's noteworthy that HMS Prince of Wales in Dec 1941, twenty years after the alliance with Japan ended and after 30 years of rapid IJN expansion, was the very first time a British dreadnought battleship entered the Pacific. A British fast fleet carrier never once entered the Pacific in the interwar peace, whilst Japan was building a squadron of these same fast fleet carriers. Considering that the British Empire depended on its Indian, SEA and ANZ territories for so much of its strategic resources and manpower, its neglect of the area's defence, especially during the European peace is almost criminal.
It was to the absolute statement below that I was replying. Never, includes the period or relative European peace above.
Last edited:
???? What! The RN regularly operated battleships in the Pacific during the interwar period, and even after Sept 1939 and the RN always maintained carriers and battleships in the IO with Glorious operating in the IO in Oct 1939.
The Naval limitation treaties ensured that the IJN was much smaller than the RN (and IJ economic strength was a fraction of the British Empire/Commonwealth) so the threat from the IJN was really non-existent until tensions in Europe became acute after 1936, and then the UK opened the doors to the treasury to strengthen the RN, to match and exceed the combined Axis build-up.
- Thread starter
- #44
As promised, I posted all the losses from Torch Allies vs. Vichy Nov 7 -12 and the air combat comes out to 25 lost by the French and 56 by the Americans and British
Operation Torch Air Battle
Next will be Pedestal
- Thread starter
- #45
Not saying they lacked funding (modern US Navy doesn't either) saying there were too many ships to modernize and they obviously struggled bureaucratically in managing the whole mess.
Admiral Beez
Major
When, which ones? You might get a battleship visit to Ceylon, Aden, Singapore or other Indian Ocean bases, like HMS Ramillies shown here at Freemantle, I/O (not interwar, ETO at least) but into the Pacific? Not in anything I've seen.
I'm definitely interested, but I see no evidence of any interwar RN battleship or fleet carriers in the Pacific.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #47
Admiral Beez
Major
Again' I'm referring to interwar RN support of Britain's Pacific territory in reply to...
Once hostilities commenced, many British battleships entered Pacific waters. HMS Prince of Wales arrives at Singapore on Dec 4th, but did not venture in the Pacific (and only just, by entering the Gulf of Thailand) until hostilities commenced. Others got further into the Pacific, including HMS Anson arriving at Hong Kong in August 1945 to oversee Japan's surrender, and I believe the first RN battleship to visit Hong Kong since before the First World War. Which is my point, even during the European peace before Munich in 1938 or even the Remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, Britain failed to deploy any of its battleships or fast fleet carriers to remind Japan that Britain cares about the Pacific.
While I can't can't find any British battleships or fleet carriers in the Pacific, the PTO did get two RN battlecruisers in 1923-24, but when you look at the map you see that Britain took great care not to come anywhere close to Japanese territory. HMS Hood and Repulse stayed in the Indian Ocean, heading dead south from Singapore, around Australia, to enter the Pacific near Adelaide on Australia's south coast. Then they headed northeast straight for Hawaii and Vancouver, avoiding any notion of waving the flag to Japan. HMS Hood and Repulse should have gone to Hong Kong after Singapore, then the British concession in Shanghai, and then sailed south to PNG and Australia. Britain spent the 1920s afraid to offend Japan, and declined to forward deploy its battleships or fast fleet carriers to the Pacific (i.e. Japan's backyard, not the I/O) when European circumstances allowed for it.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Major
It's not unlike the circumstances that FSL Admiral Fisher found in the early 1900s, a Royal Navy filled with bad ships scattered everywhere, or as Jackie Fisher put it, "Too weak to fight, and too slow to run away".
Memories by Admiral Fisher
There was no war in the far east that called for RN attention and there was a defacto alliance between the UK and USA regarding Japan. HMS Hood's most important 'flag waving' in the Pacific occurred in places like San Francisco where she arrived to an enthusiastic welcome.
The RN chose to deploy it's main units in well defended bases, rather than scatter the fleet where it could be destroyed in detail, by smaller navies that achieved local superiority in numbers.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
RE: post 48.
During the '20's, wasn't it still customary for nations to pay curtesy calls to other nations? I have the impression that it wasn't considered sabre rattling at all but appreciated.
During the '20's, wasn't it still customary for nations to pay curtesy calls to other nations? I have the impression that it wasn't considered sabre rattling at all but appreciated.
Admiral Beez
Major
If I was allocating British warships to the Pacific through 1941 it wouldn't be carriers or battleships, as this plays into the IJN strengths in surface and air to surface warfare. No, I want submarines.
You need to look harder. The battleships were old and slow, the PR team was the Battle cruisers, who made multiple trips to the Pacific, including Honk Kong and Japan in the 1920s. Check out this website for some information on this matter. There is also a shot of the Cornwall and Hermes in Singapore in 1935.
https://world-war.co.uk/
In the early 1930s the big ships were showing their age and lining up for expensive rebuilds, and the Flag waving was largely passed on to the County Class cruisers, with many stationed in the Far East.
- Thread starter
- #54
Admiral Beez
Major
Yes, deploying fleet CVs and BBs to the Pacific would represent a significant and overt investment in Britain's defence of its Pacific empire. That's sort of the point.
The reasons listed in posts above for why Britain did not deploy battleships to the Pacific seem accurate. I would also add that Britain saw the Pacific as a back water, not worthy of the expense. That's why I was surprised to see this claim, and asked for specifics.
When? What ships?
The only example I can find of a British battleship in the Pacific between the wars is HMS Nelson, shown here transiting the Panama Canal in 1931 enroute to visit the Panama Pacific port of Balboa and USN ships based there. After which she turned around went back to the Atlantic.
Here's HMS Malaya's trip in 1921, note she went to Singapore and then declining to enter the Pacific turned right for home, HMS Malaya, battleship - British warships of World War 1
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #56
The thread is good (Thanks, Schweik).
The premise is confusing, however. (Sorry, Schweik). Is it knocking at the open door, as we say in Russian?
An impartial analysis of different theaters is always welcome, of course.
It's interesting to compare such aspects as the effectiveness of weapons systems, tactics, etc. Not the "volumes", where Pacific wins hands-down.
The premise is confusing, however. (Sorry, Schweik). Is it knocking at the open door, as we say in Russian?
An impartial analysis of different theaters is always welcome, of course.
It's interesting to compare such aspects as the effectiveness of weapons systems, tactics, etc. Not the "volumes", where Pacific wins hands-down.
- Thread starter
- #58
- Thread starter
- #59
The tipping point of the war was clearly somewhere between mid 1942 and early 1943. The closest we have was Ceylon, but I think the specific kit of the British fleet and FAA were part of what makes the comparison. Clearly the British had very good pilots or you wouldn't see ships being sunk by Swordfish and Albacores or enemy planes being downed by Gladiators, Sea Hurricanes, Skuas and Fulmars.
And we can see the difference skill makes not just in the late war performance decline of the Japanese, but also within the US - the very highly trained USN pilots had a very good record with the SBD, while the Marines and Army pilots, who had much less training on the type particularly in true high-angle dive bombing, had a fairly dismal record with exactly the same aircraft - sometimes in the same place like off the coast of Guadalcanal. So clearly the quality of the plane alone is not enough to make all the difference.
That said, I definitely agree with your proposed re-arming of the FAA, (I posted roughly the same myself) but that is actually precisely what we were arguing about in the other thread (Swordfish vs Devastator) which spawned this one. Certain people felt very strongly that the FAA aircraft like the Swordfish were just as good as anything else flying and that they faced down tougher opposition than the IJN in the Malta convoys for example specifically at Pedestal, where the claim was made that the RN was fighting 600 enemy aircraft. I pointed out that most of those planes were obsolete Italian types many of which were just Spanish Civil War era biplanes and trimotor bombers, seaplanes and liaison planes and so forth, and that due to the very limited range of the best available planes like the Stuka and Bf 109 it's unrealistic to claim that the Pedestal convoy was up against anything like the IJN / IJA forces in the big Pacific showdowns, but my point was dismissed and the debate just got more heated. That's why I opened this thread so we could further explore some of the (to me) ludicrous claims made about the Fulmar and Sea Hurricane having outstanding combat records etc., without continuing to derail that one, as many other people were complaining about the thread drift.
Last edited:
How is an SM79/82 or other trimotor strike aircraft any more obsolete than a Nell or Betty? What were the comparative weapon loads? What were the primary IJN recon aircraft and how do they compare to RMI recon aircraft?
" Certain people felt very strongly that the FAA aircraft like the Swordfish were just as good as anything else flying..." This statement is a bit over the top, especially after we've just had an in depth discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the Swordfish. We've also discussed in some detail how the RN's carriers had no choice but to close to within range of the Luftwaffe's superior strike aircraft, and that the JU-87R could carry a heavier bomb load than the Val and could carry a 250kg bomb at least as far as any realistically feasible Val strike range.
Which Allied carrier had the largest IJN strike directed against it in 1942? Which allied navy carrier force faced the strongest assembly of IJN carriers?
What was the largest IJN strike endured by USN carriers prior to Philippine Sea?
How many IJN strike sorties did USN carriers endure in 1942? How does the total of all IJN strikes directed against USN carriers in 1942 compare to total Axis strike sorties directed against Pedestal alone?
What was the heaviest bomb to strike a USN carrier in 1942?
Please support your last statement with some facts and sources.
