Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
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.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.
The RN never had any intention of abandoning any part of the Empire/Commonwealth
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.
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.
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.
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.The RN regularly operated battleships in the Pacific during the interwar period...
Again' I'm referring to interwar RN support of Britain's Pacific territory in reply to...Except the Prince of Wales and the Repulse...
The RN never had any intention of abandoning any part of the Empire/Commonwealth
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".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.
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.
I'm definitely interested, but I see no evidence of any interwar RN battleship or fleet carriers in the Pacific.
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.Battleships also used an incredible amount of fuel, and were expensive (both literally, and in terms of logistics) to move around
When? What ships?The RN regularly operated battleships in the Pacific during the interwar period...
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.
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 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.