Defence of Britain's Asia-Pacific possessions - at the cheapest possible cost of course

[Kevin J]

No, my Iron Dukes are seaplane tenders so not covered by the Washington Treaty. In any case, they're not sat in the mud until they get hit by bombs and or torpedoes.
The Italians reckoned that an aircraft carrier cost the same as 1000 single seat fighters. So Singapore cost us the 4 aircraft carriers and 1000 fighters we needed to defend the damned place.

Maybe we should have sent Tiger out to Singapore instead of spending that £60 million. That could have provided both the heavy anti shipping 13.5 in guns and smaller anti ground invasion 6 in guns that we needed. Stick a SCR-270 radar set and some seaplane handling gear on the back of it halving the armament to demilitarise it and hey presto we have another seaplane tender not covered by the Washington Treaty.
Now we have all 5 critical harbours in the Asia Pacific defended.

 

[Shortround6]

I love (not really) the time travel many of these proposals seem to rely on.
Lets not spend money on defences we know how to build in 1923-1932 because we know we can depend on SCR-720 radar showing up in the nick of time in 1941.
Which it didn't. SCR-720 was the airborne radar used in the P-61 Black widow and in later versions of the Mosquito, it didn't exist in 1941.

Then we have the 9 women making a baby in month theory. Save ALL the money spent on Singapore over 18 years and spend it all in 2 years on the latest and greatest aircraft of 1940-41. Aside from the money spent on the HMS Tiger to turn it into some sort of bastard-hybrid not battlecruiser/not carrier harbor queen.
If you buy aircraft early you are going to get Gloster Gauntlets and Boulton Paul Overstrand's.

Not exactly the antidote to the Zero/Ki 43 and the Japanese twin engine bombers.

And if you don't build a graving dock and fuel storage and repair facilities what is the point of holding on to Singapore in the first place?
PRIDE? Colonial responsibility?
Any fleet operations (in the 1920s/1930s sense) would have to be based out of India/Ceylon or Australia with an investment in repair facilities (including docks) and fuel storage but adding hundreds in not thousands of miles from the "base" to the expected combat zone.

The British did make a lot of mistakes defending Singapore and Malaya but swapping mistakes doesn't solve the problems.

 

[Kevin J]

I love (not really) the time travel many of these proposals seem to rely on.
Lets not spend money on defences we know how to build in 1923-1932 because we know we can depend on SCR-720 radar showing up in the nick of time in 1941.
Which it didn't. SCR-720 was the airborne radar used in the P-61 Black widow and in later versions of the Mosquito, it didn't exist in 1941.

Then we have the 9 women making a baby in month theory. Save ALL the money spent on Singapore over 18 years and spend it all in 2 years on the latest and greatest aircraft of 1940-41. Aside from the money spent on the HMS Tiger to turn it into some sort of bastard-hybrid not battlecruiser/not carrier harbor queen.
If you buy aircraft early you are going to get Gloster Gauntlets and Boulton Paul Overstrand's.
View attachment 565384
Not exactly the antidote to the Zero/Ki 43 and the Japanese twin engine bombers.

And if you don't build a graving dock and fuel storage and repair facilities what is the point of holding on to Singapore in the first place?
PRIDE? Colonial responsibility?
Any fleet operations (in the 1920s/1930s sense) would have to be based out of India/Ceylon or Australia with an investment in repair facilities (including docks) and fuel storage but adding hundreds in not thousands of miles from the "base" to the expected combat zone.

The British did make a lot of mistakes defending Singapore and Malaya but swapping mistakes doesn't solve the problems.

If you read what I said carefully, you will see that I'm proposing harbour defence ships that will also act as seaplane tenders thus getting round the Washington Treaty. The radar gets added when it becomes available. So these seaplane tenders could support say a flight of Catalinas and once radar is installed perhaps we could add a squadron of Hurricane IIa's to the nearest airstrip.

 

[Shortround6]

If you read what I said carefully, you will see that I'm proposing harbour defence ships that will also act as seaplane tenders thus getting round the Washington Treaty. The radar gets added when it becomes available. So these seaplane tenders could support say a flight of Catalinas and once radar is installed perhaps we could add a squadron of Hurricane IIa's to the nearest airstrip.

What is the point?
1. The Catalina won't become available until around 1938 or so, we need the time machine again, and since Britain didn't order any catalinas of their own until around 1940/41 the time machine really gets a work out. A 1/2 dozen to a dozen biplane flying boats just suck up some of the money you are trying to save.
2. As coastal/harbor defence unless a lot of money is spent on upgrades the WW I ships have short ranged guns due lack of elevation and poor fire control so enemy battleships (and some heavy cruisers) can standoff out of range and pound them. Tiger with only it's forward turrets (4 guns) vs a Kongo with 8 guns? Tiger with under 24,000 yd guns vs 8in cruisers with over 31,000yd guns?
3. In 1923 (or even 1933) how do you KNOW you are going to get radar? of any sort?
4. If you are going to get radar why put it on the ship?
Just stick it on land and add your airstrip and fighters, Save hundreds of crewmen stuck in the iron hull. And tons of paint over 15 years

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

We need to get rid of this "dumb" rating. It is ignorant and childish. It also adds nothing to the discussion. Maybe we need to rate those that use it "dumb".

Wurger , Marcel is it possible to get rid of the "dumb" rating?

 

[Wurger]

Generally or personally...?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Generally or personally...?

Actually remove it, so that it is no longer an option.

 

[Wurger]

So just the permanent deleting of the option. It may require a changing of the forum settings or editing of the forum templates . Not sure if we can do that. Perhaps Horse could do that. As memo serves I just had been looking for that eariler but nothing found for that in the ACP.

 

[Admiral Beez]

We need to get rid of this "dumb" rating. It is ignorant and childish. It also adds nothing to the discussion. Maybe we need to rate those that use it "dumb".

Wurger , Marcel is it possible to get rid of the "dumb" rating?

One of the first things I did upon opening my account preferences was to disable signatures and then look how to disable ratings.

 

[Kevin J]

What is the point?
1. The Catalina won't become available until around 1938 or so, we need the time machine again, and since Britain didn't order any catalinas of their own until around 1940/41 the time machine really gets a work out. A 1/2 dozen to a dozen biplane flying boats just suck up some of the money you are trying to save.
2. As coastal/harbor defence unless a lot of money is spent on upgrades the WW I ships have short ranged guns due lack of elevation and poor fire control so enemy battleships (and some heavy cruisers) can standoff out of range and pound them. Tiger with only it's forward turrets (4 guns) vs a Kongo with 8 guns? Tiger with under 24,000 yd guns vs 8in cruisers with over 31,000yd guns?
3. In 1923 (or even 1933) how do you KNOW you are going to get radar? of any sort?
4. If you are going to get radar why put it on the ship?
Just stick it on land and add your airstrip and fighters, Save hundreds of crewmen stuck in the iron hull. And tons of paint over 15 years

My harbour defence ships won't be available until 1934/35 and hopefully at a much lower cost than the 60 million spent on Singapore which turned out to be a complete waste of money. My seaplane tenders will be good for use up until 1943. Us Brits had shed loads of crap flying boats to deploy in the 1930's but the Catalina first flown 1935 was ace. So by 1941 that's my first choice. Scrapping the Iron Duke class and Tiger, and also the 3 ocean navy sent the wrong signal to the Japanese.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So just the permanent deleting of the option. It may require a changing of the forum settings or editing of the forum templates . Not sure if we can do that. Perhaps Horse could do that. As memo serves I just had been looking for that eariler but nothing found for that in the ACP.

Ok thx

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

One of the first things I did upon opening my account preferences was to disable signatures and then look how to disable ratings.

I don't want to disable all ratings. I want to get rid of the stupid childish "dumb" rating for everyone.

 

[swampyankee]

A trouble with a lot of these ideas is that the actions have to start by 1936, so the planning and funding needs to be in place even earlier. British defense planning in the 1930s seems to have been quite Eurocentric, and overly concerned with everyone except the main threats in both Europe and Asia, letting historical antipathy to France and Russia, the latter exacerbated by their Red Menace, and racism cloud their collective judgment.

Of course, my suggestions, for industrial development in the Commonwealth outside of Great Britain is the least likely, as no Parliament, Labour, Conservative, or Liberal, is going to promote self-sufficiency, especially in India, and many viewed the main threat to the non-white dominions to be independence movements, not invasion.

 

[Kevin J]

A trouble with a lot of these ideas is that the actions have to start by 1936, so the planning and funding needs to be in place even earlier. British defense planning in the 1930s seems to have been quite Eurocentric, and overly concerned with everyone except the main threats in both Europe and Asia, letting historical antipathy to France and Russia, the latter exacerbated by their Red Menace, and racism cloud their collective judgment.

Of course, my suggestions, for industrial development in the Commonwealth outside of Great Britain is the least likely, as no Parliament, Labour, Conservative, or Liberal, is going to promote self-sufficiency, especially in India, and many viewed the main threat to the non-white dominions to be independence movements, not invasion.

Unfortunately, you are correct.

 

[Admiral Beez]

many viewed the main threat to the non-white dominions to be independence movements, not invasion.

It was the correct assessment, since much of the territory fought for and regained by the British and allies went independent soon after the war. I imagine many a British, Canadian and ANZ solider wondered why they bothered fighting for India, Ceylon, Malaya, Burma, Hong King, PNG, Malta, Suez, etc, etc. if the politicians were just going to give it away once won. From a Briton's POV, who cares who owns Malaya? Our Briton likely has a stronger grudge with the wealthy elites in the UK and their riches from Malayan rubber plantations than he does with the common Japanese.

 

[Marcel]

So just the permanent deleting of the option. It may require a changing of the forum settings or editing of the forum templates . Not sure if we can do that. Perhaps Horse could do that. As memo serves I just had been looking for that eariler but nothing found for that in the ACP.

Yeah, same for me. I've tried to find the option, I know where it should be but don't seem to have the privileges. We need Horse for that.

 

[swampyankee]

It was the correct assessment, since much of the territory fought for and regained by the British and allies went independent soon after the war. I imagine many a British, Canadian and ANZ solider wondered why they bothered fighting for India, Ceylon, Malaya, Burma, Hong King, PNG, Malta, Suez, etc, etc. if the politicians were just going to give it away once won. From a Briton's POV, who cares who owns Malaya? Our Briton likely has a stronger grudge with the wealthy elites in the UK and their riches from Malayan rubber plantations than he does with the common Japanese.

One wonders what the typical Briton thought about the fighting in the 13 colonies during the French & Indian War (part of the Seven Years War, but this is not mentioned in most US school history), where those 13 colonies (plus Vermont) started pushing for independence within a few years after.

I don't know whether the UK made a net profit on its imperial possessions; some Britons gained great wealth, but that's not the same thing as the nation as a whole profiting.

 

[Just Schmidt]

It is of course always an interesting intellectual excersise to count backwards and determine what the absolute minimal cost of changing the outcome of past battles and campaigns might have been, but not really fair to those making the decisions at the time. Everybody makes mistakes, but I'm pretty sure the historical defense was what was considered affordable, even at the risk of some serious if ultimately temporary setbacks.

And to cite Napoleon Bonaparte: He who defends everything defends nothing.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It is of course always an interesting intellectual excersise to count backwards and determine what the absolute minimal cost of changing the outcome of past battles and campaigns might have been, but not really fair to those making the decisions at the time. Everybody makes mistakes, but I'm pretty sure the historical defense was what was considered affordable, even at the risk of some serious if ultimately temporary setbacks.

IDK, do we give every politician a free pass, assuming they made the best decisions at the time based on their information and understanding of the situation and competing priorities? Is that how we're supposed to remember Colin Powell and his WMD claims?

Is Britain losing the entire empire a temporary set back?

 

[Admiral Beez]

One wonders what the typical Briton thought about the fighting in the 13 colonies during the French & Indian War (part of the Seven Years War, but this is not mentioned in most US school history), where those 13 colonies (plus Vermont) started pushing for independence within a few years after.

As a side note, I was listening to BBC History Extra podcast and it said the movement of troops to reinforce Britain's armies North American constitued the largest sealift of manpower in history, more than D-Day, etc., but that seems unlikely, perhaps they meant up to that point. Considering many were Germans, I wonder what they thought they were fighting for, money I suppose.