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

Peter Gunn · Jan 6, 2020

Just Schmidt said:
There is a difference to giving every politician a free pass and demanding that they make no mistake at all, that indeed they are to correctly guess (as Shortround has emphasized a decade or two ahead), what EXACT intentions, capabilities and strategies the one out of several possible enemies will employ. And further assuming that the same enemies does not in turn make changes to their production and strategies. We have the benefit of hindsight and far better knowledge of capabilities than anybody at the time, even if we should remeber that we can be wrong too. Of course politicians were sometimes dumb, and certainly mistakes were made. Exactly because of that trying to make do at the lowest possible cost, as opposed to the lowest reasonable or 'safe' cost, is hubris, some room for error should always be included. Don't get me wrong, intellectual excersizes can be both fun and educational, but seventy years after the event there is a limit to how much we on basis of these can demand the original actors to change the way they acted and thought. Indeed a limit to how much of the possible was really Possible.

*SNIP*

I think this is well said Schmidt. I think also we need to remember in all these "What ifs" is the fact that the people of the interwar era (and I'm being generous by including politicians under the guise of "people") did NOT think of it as a between wars time. They were living in what they considered, and rightly so, the Post War world after WWI, and were hoping with all their hearts that they wouldn't have to go through that experience again. As we know, that part didn't work out too well for them.

Kevin J · Jan 6, 2020

Peter Gunn said:
I think this is well said Schmidt. I think also we need to remember in all these "What ifs" is the fact that the people of the interwar era (and I'm being generous by including politicians under the guise of "people") did NOT think of it as a between wars time. They were living in what they considered, and rightly so, the Post War world after WWI, and were hoping with all their hearts that they wouldn't have to go through that experience again. As we know, that part didn't work out too well for them.

I think we needed to dismantle the Empire, find some other fool to become the World's policeman.

Peter Gunn · Jan 7, 2020

Kevin J said:
I think we needed to dismantle the Empire, find some other fool to become the World's policeman.

U.K. "We needed to dismantle the Empire, find some other fool to become the World's policeman."

U.S. "Uuu Uuu... PICK ME... PICK ME!!!"

Kevin J · Jan 7, 2020

Peter Gunn said:
U.K. "We needed to dismantle the Empire, find some other fool to become the World's policeman."

U.S. "Uuu Uuu... PICK ME... PICK ME!!!"

We were totally over extended just like America is today. You need the EU to take over from you so that the business of America goes back to what it used to be, MAKING MONEY.

swampyankee · Jan 7, 2020

Kevin J said:
I think we needed to dismantle the Empire, find some other fool to become the World's policeman.

A major driver of empire may have been economics or, more likely, financial benefit to the people who had the most political influence (who simultaneously made sure that other parts of the population got minimal benefit from empire), but a second driver was perceived power and bragging rights: much as nuclear weapons today, an empire was considered the prime determinant of importance and prestige.

Peter Gunn said:
I think this is well said Schmidt. I think also we need to remember in all these "What ifs" is the fact that the people of the interwar era (and I'm being generous by including politicians under the guise of "people") did NOT think of it as a between wars time. They were living in what they considered, and rightly so, the Post War world after WWI, and were hoping with all their hearts that they wouldn't have to go through that experience again. As we know, that part didn't work out too well for them.

I related issue is that many, a large minority if not a majority thought that their military leaders were ineffective, untrustworthy, and possibly actively bloodthirsty. This was probably worse in France and Italy than in the U.K. Of course, the least truthful were German military leaders, whose acceptance of right-wing violence and encouragement of the "stab in the back" lie led directly to WWII and the Holocaust.

Shortround6 · Jan 7, 2020

Getting back a bit to what ships might have been available when the cost of the HMS Hood is give (by Wiki) as ‎£6,025,000. another source says £5,843,039.

A book on battleships says that £860,000 had been spent on all three of her sisters put together between 1916 and the Armistice (or March of 1917 when worked stopped?).

It appears that there were no real hulls available for conversion. Some of that sum may have gone for materials to be delivered to the building sites (slipways) that were not actually assembled into the ships hulls before worked stopped.

Granted armor, armament and machinery are the three big ticket items in battleship construction (and often have to be ordered before the keel is actually laid down) but there doesn't seem to much to actually build on.

link to a page of estimates for the Hood.
Rather brief but illuminating.

swampyankee · Jan 7, 2020

I saw a stat that the U.K. was spending about 8% of its GDP on defense in the 1950s; it may have been higher in the 1930s. If this was the case, it was coming close to unsustainably high levels of military spending.

Kevin J · Jan 7, 2020

swampyankee said:
I saw a stat that the U.K. was spending about 8% of its GDP on defense in the 1950s; it may have been higher in the 1930s. If this was the case, it was coming close to unsustainably high levels of military spending.

I thought it was 10%. Probably was with our WW2 debt repayments to the USA.

MikeMeech · Jan 7, 2020

swampyankee said:
I saw a stat that the U.K. was spending about 8% of its GDP on defense in the 1950s; it may have been higher in the 1930s. If this was the case, it was coming close to unsustainably high levels of military spending.

Hi

From the figures available from on-line Government expenditure figures, Defence spending was; 1936 - 2.9% of GDP, 1938 - 3.75%, 1939 - 9%, peaking in 1945 at 52% (most of war it was over 40%). It then reduced to 6% in 1950 but peaked again during the Korean War at 11% then back down to 7% in 1959. 1968 - 6%, 1987 - 5% 1997 - 3%, 2013 - 2.5%.

Mike

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 7, 2020

Let's get this back on topic gentlemen.

swampyankee · Jan 7, 2020

MikeMeech said:
Hi

From the figures available from on-line Government expenditure figures, Defence spending was; 1936 - 2.9% of GDP, 1938 - 3.75%, 1939 - 9%, peaking in 1945 at 52% (most of war it was over 40%). It then reduced to 6% in 1950 but peaked again during the Korean War at 11% then back down to 7% in 1959. 1968 - 6%, 1987 - 5% 1997 - 3%, 2013 - 2.5%.

Mike

Thanks for the information

Kevin J · Jan 7, 2020

MikeMeech said:
Hi

From the figures available from on-line Government expenditure figures, Defence spending was; 1936 - 2.9% of GDP, 1938 - 3.75%, 1939 - 9%, peaking in 1945 at 52% (most of war it was over 40%). It then reduced to 6% in 1950 but peaked again during the Korean War at 11% then back down to 7% in 1959. 1968 - 6%, 1987 - 5% 1997 - 3%, 2013 - 2.5%.

Mike

Plus debt repayments to USA and Canada would have added another 3% at least.

Admiral Beez · Jan 8, 2020

Kevin J said:
I think we needed to dismantle the Empire, find some other fool to become the World's policeman.

Looks like in the 21st century that's going to be the Russia, financed by China. The hegemony of the English speaking works seemed to have rapidly declined as of late.

swampyankee · Jan 8, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
Looks like in the 21st century that's going to be the USSR, financed by China. The hegemony of the English speaking works seemed to have rapidly declined as of late.

Do note that the USSR no longer exists.

Kevin J · Jan 8, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
Looks like in the 21st century that's going to be the USSR, financed by China. The hegemony of the English speaking works seemed to have rapidly declined as of late.

At the moment there are 3 Economic Superpowers, China the EU and the USA, but only the USA spends so much on its military. Its all dead money.

Admiral Beez · Jan 8, 2020

swampyankee said:
Do note that the USSR no longer exists.

Thanks. Fixed that, meant the former USSR, Russia.

MiTasol · Jan 9, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
Judging by its importance to the IJN and IJAF as a primary forward base and its ideal location for protecting ANZ (see below), I suggest Britain and ANZ fortify Rabaul and make it a major RAF/RAAF base with a RN submarine base as well, akin to a Pacific Coastal Command. Rabaul already had a working airport in 1939/40, built by the Australians at Lakunai Airfield with a single runway 4,700 ft (1432 m) in length. That's long enough for a fully laden Avro Lancaster to take off and land, so anything the 1939-41 RAAF/RAF is operating can use this air field.

What is not generally well known is that in the early days of the Pacific war the USAAC B-17s travelling from Hawaii to Australia used Lakunai as a staging (rest and fuel) station

Admiral Beez · Jan 9, 2020

I wonder how Japan would have changed its plans for Malaya had Britain deployed 400-500 Buffalo or similar fighters, 200+ light bombers, plus two armoured regiments (about 175 tanks) of Valentines or similar tanks (FYI, a full armoured division has four regiments). We can't assume that Japanese planning remains the same when British opposition changes.

Shortround6 · Jan 9, 2020

They would have just added 400-500 Ki-43s and A6Ms, another few hundred bombers and a few hundred tanks of their own.

If we can conjure up planes that did not exist in the real time line (and the crews) then the Japanese should be able to conjure up equivalent equipment.

The British only ever got around 190-210 Buffaloes. Equivalents would have been Hurricanes, TomaHawks or Mohawks.
Thing is the British only ever got 229 Mohawks.
Take Hurricanes and Tomahawks from the Dessert AIr Force in the summer and fall of 1941?

Then you have the problem of, if you send them to Mayala, who doesn't get them?
the SAAF got 72 of the Mohawks and used them in East Africa.

Kevin J · Jan 10, 2020

Shortround6 said:
They would have just added 400-500 Ki-43s and A6Ms, another few hundred bombers and a few hundred tanks of their own.

If we can conjure up planes that did not exist in the real time line (and the crews) then the Japanese should be able to conjure up equivalent equipment.

The British only ever got around 190-210 Buffaloes. Equivalents would have been Hurricanes, TomaHawks or Mohawks.
Thing is the British only ever got 229 Mohawks.
Take Hurricanes and Tomahawks from the Dessert AIr Force in the summer and fall of 1941?

Then you have the problem of, if you send them to Mayala, who doesn't get them?
the SAAF got 72 of the Mohawks and used them in East Africa.

Mohawks also based on Sierra Leone, West Coast, and South Africa for air defence and training.

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

Master Sergeant

Banned

Master Sergeant

Banned

Chief Master Sergeant

Major General

Chief Master Sergeant

Banned

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Chief Master Sergeant

Banned

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

Banned

Major

1st Lieutenant

Major

Major General

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads