Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The FAA also had an opportunity to expand under near peacetime conditions, theirs was the rearmament period 1936-1939, or beforehand. On top of the old and small HMS Argus from 1918, the RN commissioned five carriers between 1924 and 1930.... that should have been the beginning of a period of significant FAA expansion. Why build a fleet of carriers without any means to ensure each has their complete CAG, along with a scalable pipeline of replacement aircraft, aircrew and maintenance personnel?The FAA was fighting a very hot war from Sept 1939 when the IJNAF was able to expand under near peacetime conditions until Dec 1941.
I've moved this over from the best dive bomber thread because I both hate an OT thread jacking and the topic is interesting itself. I'm not positing this as a What'If, but more a discussion of given the will, what was feasible under the economic, industrial and political circumstances of the time.
The FAA also had an opportunity to expand under near peacetime conditions, theirs was the rearmament period 1936-1939, or beforehand. On top of the old and small HMS Argus from 1918, the RN commissioned five carriers between 1924 and 1930.... that should have been the beginning of a period of significant FAA expansion. Why build a fleet of carriers without any means to ensure each has their complete CAG, along with a scalable pipeline of replacement aircraft, aircrew and maintenance personnel?
As for the later pre-war period, the Japanese get criticized for not having adequate aircraft and flight crew replacement pipelines, but the British were just as bad or worse. Why lay down five new fleet carriers between 1935 and 1937 giving you eleven CVs, but neglect the aircraft and personnel pipeline?
HMS Glorious should have 36 Swordfish onboard, not six when she met Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. And if they had a naval aviation focus, the RN would have aviators as their carrier C/Os, not submariners. They had the aircraft carriers, but I'd argue that the RN could have entered WW2 with a much more prepared carrier force.
We can't count the RAF Hurricanes and Gladiators that were ferried on Glorious after fleeing Norway (and landing without hooks, a first for the Hurricane).Glorious also had two fighter squadrons onboard, including a squadron of fixed wing Hurricanes.
My vote is cancel the Singapore naval base project. From about 1929 to its completion in 1938 the Singapore naval base cost £60 million, equal to £ 4 billion today. HMS Ark Royal cost £3 million, excluding the cost of aircraft (in 1938 each Fairey Swordfish cost £5,500, each Sea Gladiator £3,100).Yes the FAA could have been better prepared but the money has to come from somewhere else in the budget. You have to decide what goes short of money and manpower.
Singapore relied on Malaya. Malaya relied on Britain (from Malaya and Burma) and France from FIC squeezing Thailand into submission on three sides and on the Chinese keeping Japan at bay (was not an issue until 1937). With that in mind, Singapore makes sense, not as your primary or sole base, but certainly as you describe a forward base for the RN.Singapore to me never seemed very defendable as it relied on water from the mainland.
HMS Outrageous.
The FAA did have successes in the first year and half of the War, Toronto and the part in sinking Bismark.
Damn Canadians.The FAA did have successes in the first year and half of the War, Toronto
We're the aircrews Canadian?Damn Canadians.
We're the aircrews Canadian?