Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But you also build up industry, organization and experience, both in building up and handling large air formations.A few points
Building an air force in the early 1930s means building a lot of obsolete by 1940 so nuts to that.
Espeically as the officer being court-martialed wasn't onboard. There was no need to rush.But you also build up industry, organization and experience, both in building up and handling large air formations.
Regarding Singapore, I am not so sure it was a folly to build it up as a fortress. Percival's performance has been heavily criticized, the author of "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" even it used it as a case study for his book. I wonder how things had developed if Singapore had been competently defended.
Regarding the HMS Glorious, something that baffles me, was it really normal procedure to send an entire aircraft carrier away from the front back home because one officer needs to go to court-martial? It seems rather wasteful to me.
It's a good thing that Baldwin's government authorized the construction of HMS Ark Royal and the four Illustrious class. Baldwin and his successor Neville Chamberlain's governments (Implacable class, plus HMS Unicorn) should be seen as the father's of Britain's WW2 naval aviation. Not to mention that both PM's financed radar, the Spitfire, Hurricane, etc.... When Churchill came to power he delayed the last two AFD carriers for years, and didn't lay down a new fast fleet carrier until 1943.I remember reading, in a link from another thread, that Captain D'Oyly-Hughes may have been refitting aircraft for some mission from Winston Churchill. This may have affected the ability to launch a CAP.
It was an interesting article. I'm not saying it's true but it does paint Captain D-H as less of an pompous idiot.
But you also build up industry, organization and experience, both in building up and handling large air formations.
Regarding Singapore, I am not so sure it was a folly to build it up as a fortress. Percival's performance has been heavily criticized, the author of "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" even it used it as a case study for his book. I wonder how things had developed if Singapore had been competently defended.
Regarding the HMS Glorious, something that baffles me, was it really normal procedure to send an entire aircraft carrier away from the front back home because one officer needs to go to court-martial? It seems rather wasteful to me.
So the RN sent out a carrier without sufficient aircraft or fuel oil? This must have been on one of Churchill's ill-fated larks. Yep, covered above but worth repeating.Glorious also needed to refuel.
So the RN sent out a carrier without sufficient aircraft or fuel oil? This must have been on one of Churchill's ill-fated larks. Yep, covered above but worth repeating.
In hindsight it's easy to say this, but in the mid to late 30s the FAA was undergoing a massive state of flux, no one could have successfully predicted just how another conflict was going to evolve and how the FAA as it was would perform, because there were so many unknowns that the FAA faced at that time.Building an air force in the early 1930s means building a lot of obsolete by 1940 so nuts to that.
So in hindsight
Toronto Taranto
I don't want to divert this thread away from FAA pre-war preparedness to something about Glorious. I will say that the only change Glorious needs is to put four of those nine Sea Gladiators on CAP. The RAF aircraft were struck below, so the flight deck was clear. One of the Gladiators would have found Scharnhorst and Gneisenau outside of gun range and in enough time for Glorious to accelerate in the opposite direction and for the five Swordfish to be brought up, fueled and armed, to be launched if needed or perhaps to wait for Ark Royal to launch a strike as well. Anyway, with a simple CAP, Glorious lives. It should be impossible for battleships to come upon enemy unaware and unprepared aircraft carriers in clear weather on the open sea. But that's all I'll say on Glorious.Glorious was sent out to ferry aircraft to Norway, and so had a reduced FAA aircraft complement and upon her fatal return was also ferrying aircraft to the UK from Norway. IIRC, Glorious had 9 Sea Gladiators and 6 Swordfish onboard, and 10 RAF Gladiators and 10 RAF Hurricanes, which given the number of fixed wing aircraft she was carrying meant that her hangars must have been very nearly full. Glorious was engaged in air operations for several days prior to her departure to the UK, and would have burned off somewhat more than 1/2 her fuel.
That's silly talk. An air force is more than its aircraft. By building up the FAA's aircrew, maintenance personnel and yes, aircraft pipelines in the early 1930s you will have more pilots, more navigators, more mechanics, more shipborne aircraft handlers, more flight and ground-crew instructors, and more aircraft designers and manufacturers experienced in naval aircraft design and production. It doesn't matter if your original aircraft are now obsolete and discarded for replacement. All these personnel trained in the early 1930s will be the leaders for the rapid FAA expansion of 1938 into WW2. Hopefully the carriers themselves might see former experienced carrier aviators as their C/Os, rather than the submariner of HMS Glorious.Building an air force in the early 1930s means building a lot of obsolete by 1940 so nuts to that.
I don't want to divert this thread away from FAA pre-war preparedness to something about Glorious. I will say that the only change Glorious needs is to put four of those nine Sea Gladiators on CAP. The RAF aircraft were struck below, so the flight deck was clear. One of the Gladiators would have found Scharnhorst and Gneisenau outside of gun range and in enough time for Glorious to accelerate in the opposite direction and for the five Swordfish to be brought up, fueled and armed, to be launched if needed or perhaps to wait for Ark Royal to launch a strike as well. Anyway, with a simple CAP, Glorious lives. It should be impossible for battleships to come upon enemy unaware and unprepared aircraft carriers in clear weather on the open sea. But that's all I'll say on Glorious.
That's silly talk. An air force is more than its aircraft. By building up the FAA's aircrew, maintenance personnel and yes, aircraft pipelines in the early 1930s you will have more pilots, more navigators, more mechanics, more shipborne aircraft handlers, more flight and ground-crew instructors, and more aircraft designers and manufacturers experienced in naval aircraft design and production. It doesn't matter if your original aircraft are now obsolete and discarded for replacement. All these personnel trained in the early 1930s will be the leaders for the rapid FAA expansion of 1938 into WW2. Hopefully the carriers themselves might see former experienced carrier aviators as their C/Os, rather than the submariner of HMS Glorious.
With the above in place in the early 1930s you can then scale up as needed, but you need to have the foundations. And before someone says that there wasn't money in the late 20s to early 1930s to build up the FAA, we need to recognize that the RN has just commissioned five carriers with Ark Royal ordered and plans for many more, each needing all of the above. You can't build a naval air arm from scratch in a couple of years, just ask the Germans or Italians.
There was a massive build up of carriers. From 1924 to 1930 the RN went from one small carrier (HMS Argus) to six carriers, giving Britain the largest carrier force in the world. All I'm suggesting is that the FAA expand at the same rate as the size of its carrier fleet.A massive build up of the FAA and carriers will have alarm bells ringing all around the world. You could be entering into an arms race with other powers.
I know. The sh#tshow that was Glorious' sinking is covered nicely here.What CV travels in hostile waters without a proper CAP?
There was a massive build up of carriers. From 1924 to 1930 the RN went from one small carrier (HMS Argus) to six carriers
Other powers aren't going to care if the FAA introduces expanded aircrew and maintenance personnel recruitment and training, procures sufficient aircraft for complete CAGs on each carrier, and introduces a design and procurement effort to ensure new aircraft are available in necessary and scalable quality and numbers.
I suppose this is a good place to start on the question of could the FAA be better prepared for WW2. Take the FAA away from the RAF in the 1920s when the fast fleets were coming online.We should remember where and who had to train the FAA personnel, it was the RAF using their facilities until the FAA could build up their own training facilities and instructors.