Could the FAA have been better prepared for WW2? (1 Viewer)

[Acheron]

A few points

Building an air force in the early 1930s means building a lot of obsolete by 1940 so nuts to that.

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.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

Espeically as the officer being court-martialed wasn't onboard. There was no need to rush.

And if you're rushing, then rush! Don't run through hostile waters with half your boilers cold.

 

[SaparotRob]

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.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

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.

 

[RCAFson]

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.

Glorious also needed to refuel.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

 

[RCAFson]

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 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.

 

[Shortround6]

For operation Paul to have the slightest chance of working one has to assume that the Swedish navy had absolute zero mine sweeping capability.

The Swedish navy had a very high interest in mines. most of their larger ships were fitted to lay mines, some minesweepers were built between the wars and fishing boats/trawlers are often easily converted. Putting six to 18 mines into a harbor mouth for the almost certain loss of every aircraft does not seem like a good trade. You are only going to delay ore shipments for a few days or a couple of weeks.

Mine fields work well when they can be replenished and ships/ shore batteries/ aircraft can stop or severely hamper the work of minesweepers.

 

[nuuumannn]

Building an air force in the early 1930s means building a lot of obsolete by 1940 so nuts to that.

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.

So in hindsight

We can safely say, no it wasn't prepared, not at all, but hindsight is great in hindsight.

Toronto Taranto

Separated by a mere vowel...

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

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.

Building an air force in the early 1930s means building a lot of obsolete by 1940 so nuts to that.

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.

 

[The Basket]

It doesn't work like that.

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.

There was not enough threat in the early 1930s to justify a massive military build up and aircraft available was not good. So it would have been a very tough sell. Especially in a treaty era when a build up could mean going against the Treaty era which UK was keen to be seen supporting. The aircraft themselves didn't justify themselves by their capabilities and who are you aiming them at? A Kriegsmarine full of Pre-Dreadnaugts?

Building up the FAA makes sense knowing that war would be start in 1939 but makes no sense in 1930.

If you had clairvoyance to see war in 1940 on 1st January 1930, it would be far cheaper to shoot Hitler than build up the FAA.

A navy is full of different demand. So do we need carriers when the u boat war is at its height? Maybe Flower class is a better bet in that bit of naval war.

 

[MikeMeech]

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.

Hi

The British were not planning on a war with Germany in September 1939, or with Italy in mid 1940, let alone a war with Japan in December 1941, their expansion plans were based on modernisation and growth gradually so it was affordable, within the Treaty Limits that they had agreed to and try to minimise tension. All pre-war discussion appears to agree that going to war with all three countries was not a good option. The problem between 1935 and 1939 was that the plans kept changing due to the various changes in the political situation, in the mid-1930s Italy became the 'biggest' problem and assets both air and sea had to be moved to the Med., then Germany became the more serious problem. The RN worried about Japan continuously.

The carrier construction plans changed during the period under the Washington and London Naval Treaties from 1930, the policy was for a total of 5 large aircraft carriers which could accommodate 360 aircraft, laying down one ship every three years. (only the Ark Royal was in fact laid down by 1935). This was later changed 8 aircraft carriers, then in 1938 with the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis, the Admiralty estimated it would require 4 Carriers for Home Waters, 4 for the Far East and 5 for Trade Protection by 1942. The aircraft and personnel (regular) requirements were stated by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Stanhope, and put to Cabinet in January 1939 as by 31.3.42 1,954 aircraft and 8,700 pers. 31.3.39 1,400, 4,530, however, resources for 31.3.39 were 885 and 2,600!

Other things also happened in early 1939, the Government decided they would send a 'large' expeditionary force to France, which needed air assets that caused problems for the air defence of Britain as home defence fighters would have to be sent as part of it thereby weakening Fighter Command. This command then had the RN tell them they were now going to use Scapa Flow as a major base and FC would have to find fighters and radar to defend it. (info from OH 'Grand Strategy' Volume 1)

So a lot of balls were being juggled which meant a lot of plans were changed to meet the new 'political' decisions.

Mike

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

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.

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. The USN are already doing this, the Lexington class have up to one hundred aircraft each.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Re: Glorious, as a quick aside, I always thought it was a hell of a thing for the Hurricane pilots to have gotten away, landed on a carrier without tail hooks and then get sunk because said carrier had no CAP up. What CV travels in hostile waters without a proper CAP?

Don't want to derail the thread, just something that always bothered me about that incident.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What CV travels in hostile waters without a proper CAP?

I know. The sh#tshow that was Glorious' sinking is covered nicely here.

Too bad the RAF Hurricanes weren't just refueled and sent on their way. Here's the location where Glorious sank, 487 nautical miles from RAF Scatsta on Shetland, UK, within the 520 nmi range of the Hawker Hurricane on internal fuel. Send a Swordfish to guide them. The RAF Gladiators will have to stay behind. But clearly the idiot ex-submariner in command thought there was no threat, so why fly off your RAF Hurricanes.

Which brings me back to this thread, and preparedness of the RN's carrier force. Since 1917, every RN submarine commander must pass the Perisher, weeding out any candidates who can't make the grade. Perhaps something similar was needed for the RN carrier force? First of all, the C/O should be a former aviator, or must prove that he understands naval aviation, such as the need for a CAP and boiler readiness when you're sailing though hostile waters. Next, the admiral or vice admiral in charge of carriers needs to understand that you don't use your fleet carriers for ASW. These two moves alone save HMS Glorious and Courageous.

 

[Shortround6]

There was a massive build up of carriers. From 1924 to 1930 the RN went from one small carrier (HMS Argus) to six carriers

This massive build up was agreed to by treaty.
BTW the HMS Eagle was commissioned in Feb 1924, so pick your dates carefully.
The Argus was allowed to kept by Treaty as an "experimental" as was the Hermes and perhaps the Eagle?
The Furious and sisters were allowed as a counterpoint to the US Lexington and Saratoga and two converted Japanese carriers.
All countries were trying to get carriers without the cost of building from the keel up.

Basically all carrier construction. retention in the 20s was agreed to by the 1922 Washington Naval treaty.
Whatever plans different nations had in the early 30s were also affected by the world wide depression which affect budgets.

Having more trained/experienced pilots and support crew would have helped in 1939-42 but against what cost?
Lets remember that the British weren't even testing (let alone ordering) new anti sub bombs or GP bombs or armor piercing bombs for most of the 30s.

One would think that making sure your weapons actually worked before ordering them by thousands might have been a priority?

 

[MikeMeech]

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.

Hi

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. For example RAF Halton No. 1 School of Technical Training from 1938 to 1942 were training aircraft apprentices as well as transferring RAF apprentices to the FAA (169 between January and June 1939 were transferred). The RN also called for volunteers from within the RN to transfer to the FAA in aircraft trades these were trained at RAF camps Henlow, St. Athan and Eastchurch also RAF Locking, training taking about a year. Pilots were also trained by the RAF (RAF pilots also transferred) establishments, again to about 1942.
Until 1942 the FAA was short of its own training facilities so a lot was being put through the same system expanding both the FAA and the RAF.

Mike

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

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.

 

[The Basket]

The carriers were agreed under treaty.

Building up your carrier force is going to get noticed. Especially if you're in violation of said treaty.

Also who is paying for this?

I doubt the RAF is going to.

 

[RCAFson]

Obviously a prewar increased aircrew and pilot training plan would have helped. Also scrapping the Roc in favour of more (perhaps improved) Skuas would have helped as well. I would have also increased the order for Sea Gladiators.