Excluding Spitfires and Hurricanes, best fighter for Malaya 1940-41?

[Kevin J]

It is not about honor or keeping one's word, it is about trying to hang on to ships that were obsolescent in 1922 and totally obsolete in the 1930s.

If the R class (newer ships) only got minor referbs between the wars the chances of these relics getting any real improvements are very slim indeed.

just about all of them, if not all, were coal fired or mixed fired at best (oil sprayed on the coal fires) which makes for very slow refueling. Yes ships were converted to oil firing but that meant new boilers and on battleships that means cutting holes (or taking out the rivets) in multiple decks, some of the armored decks. A major rebuild.
There is only so much money in the budget, if you are spending money on these ships, what aren't you spending it on? new Cruisers or Destroyers? The Nelson or Rodney?

Most of these pre war ships had max elevation on the guns of 15 to 20 degrees, by the end of WW I 30 degrees of elevation was pretty much the standard.
View attachment 559248
HMS Vanguard with old turrets modified to higher elevation. Notice the "eyebrows" in the turret rook needed for the extra elevation.
By the early 1920s new battleships were often being designed with 40 degrees or more of elevation for even more range.

the First two KGVs were laid down Jan 1st 1937 and ordered in mid 1936. Would refurbing these old battleships cut into the KGV class?

Amagi class battlecruiser.
View attachment 559249
10-16 in guns and a speed of 30 kts as planned in 1919. Guns elevate to 30 degrees, 41,200 tons.
they planned 4, due to treaties they scrapped 2 and one was converted to a carrier and the other wrecked on the stocks by an earthquake.

Tosa class battleship
only 39,900 tons. 10-16 in guns only 26.5 kts but thicker armor.

even if only 4 of these ships (or their successors ) are completed it throws the idea of fareast British fleet of pre WW I junkers in the trash bin.

I agree, work would need to be done on them, without a doubt. However, they would have been available sooner. The Eastern Fleet of 1942 consisted of 4 R-class battleships, Warspite and 2 armoured carriers. A fleet doomed to destruction if caught out in open battle as Admiral Somerville well knew. Yes, cash is needed for my idea. Okay, some, maybe all, just like all the Kongo class would have been sunk, but you have a deterrent force of hybrid battleships. It's better than nothing and available. Even the Prince of Wales got sunk and that was modern.

It's like Malaya, you need all the Buffalo's, all the Mohawks and then more. Either fully fitted out Vanguards or preferably Hurricanes.

 

[pinsog]

I agree, work would need to be done on them, without a doubt. However, they would have been available sooner. The Eastern Fleet of 1942 consisted of 4 R-class battleships, Warspite and 2 armoured carriers. A fleet doomed to destruction if caught out in open battle as Admiral Somerville well knew. Yes, cash is needed for my idea. Okay, some, maybe all, just like all the Kongo class would have been sunk, but you have a deterrent force of hybrid battleships. It's better than nothing and available. Even the Prince of Wales got sunk and that was modern.

It's like Malaya, you need all the Buffalo's, all the Mohawks and then more. Either fully fitted out Vanguards or preferably Hurricanes.

If the British weren't fighting the Germans and the British could have deployed their entire fleet to the area and in a match up between the entire British fleet vs the entire Japanese fleet 1 on 1 with no US interference, I think the Japanese would have cleaned their clocks. The 6 Japanese carriers of the Pearl Harbor strike force could have simply stood off out of range of any British carrier aircraft, sunk all the British carriers, probably in 1 or maybe 2 raids, then it would simply be 'how many British ships can we sink before the carrier magazines are empty'. Japanese simply go down the list, 1. All carriers sunk before a single bomb is dropped on any other ship. 2. Battleships next 3. Heavy cruisers 4. Everything that's left. Once the Japanese carriers magazines are empty they either retire the entire fleet to re-arm the carriers or they send in their destroyers and light cruisers with their long lance torpedoes.

I know who I'd put my money on

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's like Malaya, you need all the Buffalo's, all the Mohawks and then more. Either fully fitted out Vanguards or preferably Hurricanes.

I'm going to do my best to wrench us back on topic of aircraft and disregard further matters on Royal Navy surface units.

Let's look at the Vanguard. Is it any better than the Buffalo? It certainly looks better, imo.

Only video of the Vanguard I could find...

 

[PFVA63]

I'd think strictly speaking of the best available fighter here, exclusive of all the problems with early warning or lack thereof etc, the best choice would be one that had at least one distinct advantage to the oposition. I'm thinking Tomahawk or Mohawk for there superior dive speed, preferably the former if posible.
Of course utilizing this advantage would be contingent on having pilots trained in tactics to take advantage of this.

Hi,
To be honest I think that any reasonably modern aircraft would do, and would end up performing just about the same as what historically occurred. Looking at a brochure recently posted on these boards for the Hawk 75 (export version of the P-36) shows very similar capabilities to the B339 Buffalos that were flown in this area historically, when both fitted with Wright Cyclone export engines.

If you could get the Hawks with P&W engines your performance could go up a little, but as I understand it engines in general were in very short supply at the time due in part to the French having bought up a large number for spares, with Brewster & the RAF having to resort to the use of refurbished commercial engines for at least some of their Buffalo order. I would strongly suspect that any other western builder would experience similar shortages at this time, unless perhaps you could get your hands on some surplus French Hawks that didn't get delivered to France prior to its fall.

Part of the trade-off with engines though will be maintenance requirements, with a 14-cylinder radial potentially requiring more maintenance hours per engine due to its larger number of cylinders, valves and such. A 12 cylinder inline would likely also have a higher maintenance impact than a 9 cylinder radial, but its not fully clear how it would compare to a 14 cylinder radial, since the 12 cylinder engine would have fewer cylinders and valves etc to maintain, but it would have an added maintenance load for the liquid cooling system (and all those parts).

Additionally, there could be some trade-offs between weights and maintenance loads between the fitting of 6 to 8 rifle calibre machine guns vs 4 x 50 cal weapons.

However, ultimately in the end I would greatly suspect the any potential differences between the engines, armament, and basic performance of any reasonably modern plane available would not likely play an overall large impact in the outcome of the battle.

As such, if either D520s, MS406s, Reggiane 2000s, Seversky P-35s, Curtiss Hawk 75s, Vultee P-66s, Grumman F4F/G36s, Hawker Hurricanes, Supermarine Spitfires, were available, I would suggest any of the above would probably be acceptable, with each offering some potential advantages and/or disadvantages, but none likely with any real potential to change the outcome of the battle on their own.

As a side note the few planes that I think may be poorly suited for use by the Allies at this time would be any modern Japanese single engine plane (and not just because it would make target identification difficult if both sides were using the same aircraft). I say this because after having read "Bloody Shambles" and "Buffalos Over Singapore" it appears that in many encounters the Buffalos that returned to base frequently had survived numerous hits that may have felled the lighter built, and less protected Japanese planes.

I guess these are just some additional thoughts to consider.

Pat

 

[Admiral Beez]

I've read that the IJAF had a poor operational rate due to the lack of spares and unlike SOP in RAF and USAAF, An unwillingness to pull parts off of damaged planes to keep others running.

 

[michael rauls]

Hi,
To be honest I think that any reasonably modern aircraft would do, and would end up performing just about the same as what historically occurred. Looking at a brochure recently posted on these boards for the Hawk 75 (export version of the P-36) shows very similar capabilities to the B339 Buffalos that were flown in this area historically, when both fitted with Wright Cyclone export engines.

If you could get the Hawks with P&W engines your performance could go up a little, but as I understand it engines in general were in very short supply at the time due in part to the French having bought up a large number for spares, with Brewster & the RAF having to resort to the use of refurbished commercial engines for at least some of their Buffalo order. I would strongly suspect that any other western builder would experience similar shortages at this time, unless perhaps you could get your hands on some surplus French Hawks that didn't get delivered to France prior to its fall.

Part of the trade-off with engines though will be maintenance requirements, with a 14-cylinder radial potentially requiring more maintenance hours per engine due to its larger number of cylinders, valves and such. A 12 cylinder inline would likely also have a higher maintenance impact than a 9 cylinder radial, but its not fully clear how it would compare to a 14 cylinder radial, since the 12 cylinder engine would have fewer cylinders and valves etc to maintain, but it would have an added maintenance load for the liquid cooling system (and all those parts).

Additionally, there could be some trade-offs between weights and maintenance loads between the fitting of 6 to 8 rifle calibre machine guns vs 4 x 50 cal weapons.

However, ultimately in the end I would greatly suspect the any potential differences between the engines, armament, and basic performance of any reasonably modern plane available would not likely play an overall large impact in the outcome of the battle.

As such, if either D520s, MS406s, Reggiane 2000s, Seversky P-35s, Curtiss Hawk 75s, Vultee P-66s, Grumman F4F/G36s, Hawker Hurricanes, Supermarine Spitfires, were available, I would suggest any of the above would probably be acceptable, with each offering some potential advantages and/or disadvantages, but none likely with any real potential to change the outcome of the battle on their own.

As a side note the few planes that I think may be poorly suited for use by the Allies at this time would be any modern Japanese single engine plane (and not just because it would make target identification difficult if both sides were using the same aircraft). I say this because after having read "Bloody Shambles" and "Buffalos Over Singapore" it appears that in many encounters the Buffalos that returned to base frequently had survived numerous hits that may have felled the lighter built, and less protected Japanese planes.

I guess these are just some additional thoughts to consider.

Pat

Agreed. Without a big increase in numbers it probably isn't going to change the ultimate outcome no matter what you have. I do think strictly as a matter of comparison either of the Hawks would be the best choice though.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If not Hawks, is there a likelihood that no fighter whatsoever is sent? There were no fighters in Hong Kong, for example.

 

[Kevin J]

If the British weren't fighting the Germans and the British could have deployed their entire fleet to the area and in a match up between the entire British fleet vs the entire Japanese fleet 1 on 1 with no US interference, I think the Japanese would have cleaned their clocks. The 6 Japanese carriers of the Pearl Harbor strike force could have simply stood off out of range of any British carrier aircraft, sunk all the British carriers, probably in 1 or maybe 2 raids, then it would simply be 'how many British ships can we sink before the carrier magazines are empty'. Japanese simply go down the list, 1. All carriers sunk before a single bomb is dropped on any other ship. 2. Battleships next 3. Heavy cruisers 4. Everything that's left. Once the Japanese carriers magazines are empty they either retire the entire fleet to re-arm the carriers or they send in their destroyers and light cruisers with their long lance torpedoes.

I know who I'd put my money on

None of our armoured carriers got sunk in WW2.

 

[pinsog]

None of our armoured carriers got sunk in WW2.

Those armored carriers stood up very well to German bombs. I would agree with you 100% that Val's alone would have a very tough time sinking an armored British carrier. BUT, torpedo bombers are a whole different story. If the British and Japanese fleets met on December 7, 1941, with no American interference and there was no war in Europe, the Japanese would mop the floor with the British. No American interference, no Wildcat. Zeros would sweep aside any token air resistance, dive bombers pummel the carriers helping reduce AA fire, then the Kate's come in with a totally unapposed (by fighters) hammer and anvil attack on the carriers. It would be the same outcome as Prince of Wales & Repulse. Early war Kate's, Japanese pilots and Japanese torpedoes were the finest anti shipping weapon on planet earth through all of 1942 and into 1943.

When did the first armored British carrier begin service?

 

[Kevin J]

Those armored carriers stood up very well to German bombs. I would agree with you 100% that Val's alone would have a very tough time sinking an armored British carrier. BUT, torpedo bombers are a whole different story. If the British and Japanese fleets met on December 7, 1941, with no American interference and there was no war in Europe, the Japanese would mop the floor with the British. No American interference, no Wildcat. Zeros would sweep aside any token air resistance, dive bombers pummel the carriers helping reduce AA fire, then the Kate's come in with a totally unapposed (by fighters) hammer and anvil attack on the carriers. It would be the same outcome as Prince of Wales & Repulse. Early war Kate's, Japanese pilots and Japanese torpedoes were the finest anti shipping weapon on planet earth through all of 1942 and into 1943.

When did the first armored British carrier begin service?

The 1938 Ark Royal was the first armoured carrier, but with two hangers. The Illustrious class made the single hanger an armoured box. Ark Royal was torpedoed but lost through poor damage control. Indomitable was torpedoed but limped home.

 

[buffnut453]

Those armored carriers stood up very well to German bombs. I would agree with you 100% that Val's alone would have a very tough time sinking an armored British carrier. BUT, torpedo bombers are a whole different story. If the British and Japanese fleets met on December 7, 1941, with no American interference and there was no war in Europe, the Japanese would mop the floor with the British. No American interference, no Wildcat. Zeros would sweep aside any token air resistance, dive bombers pummel the carriers helping reduce AA fire, then the Kate's come in with a totally unapposed (by fighters) hammer and anvil attack on the carriers. It would be the same outcome as Prince of Wales & Repulse. Early war Kate's, Japanese pilots and Japanese torpedoes were the finest anti shipping weapon on planet earth through all of 1942 and into 1943.

When did the first armored British carrier begin service?

Hmmm...rather depends what you mean by "American interference" given that the UK bought the Wildcat before the US placed any orders. The first Wildcat kill in FAA service came in December 1940. I think it therefore highly likely that the FAA could have had the Wildcat aboard enough armoured carriers for operations in the Far East if there was no war in Europe.

 

[Kevin J]

Hmmm...rather depends what you mean by "American interference" given that the UK bought the Wildcat before the US placed any orders. The first Wildcat kill in FAA service came in December 1940. I think it therefore highly likely that the FAA could have had the Wildcat aboard enough armoured carriers for operations in the Far East if there was no war in Europe.

We only had 90 Wildcat II's with folding wings delivered in 1941, enough to equip each Illustrious class carrier with a single squadron, a few spares and a shadow land based squadron for training purposes. The Wildcat IV didn't arrive until 1942, 220 being delivered, so enough for six months of intensive action plus 20 spares. So that's all four Illustrious class carriers you can operate off in 1942.

 

[buffnut453]

We only had 90 Wildcat II's with folding wings delivered in 1941, enough to equip each Illustrious class carrier with a single squadron, a few spares and a shadow land based squadron for training purposes. The Wildcat IV didn't arrive until 1942, 220 being delivered, so enough for six months of intensive action plus 20 spares. So that's all four Illustrious class carriers you can operate off in 1942.

But, with no war in Europe, the threat calculus changes and if the UK was solely faced with a war against Japan, then it's entirely feasible that production for the FAA could have been prioritized...after all, the UK would be paying cash with no lend-lease in place.

 

[Shortround6]

Let's look at the Vanguard. Is it any better than the Buffalo? It certainly looks better, imo.

It looks better, it was faster. But nobody seemed to want them once they tested them, Granted they show up a bit late.

"Wing area: 196.8 sq ft

• Empty weight: 5,237 lb (2,375 kg)
• Gross weight: 7,100 lb (3,221 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 7,384 lb (3,349 kg)"

from WIki so..................


See...Vultee P-66

for a bit different take. You sort of have a radial P-40C as regards armament and some aspects of performance ( and some other aspects are below the P-40).
But you can't over boost the engine, some people think the plane is not "robust" and it ground loops.

It shares a common ancestry with the B-13

Which used a wing a bout 6 ft longer, However the tail was only held on by 3 bolts and after several inflight failures "the Navy restricted the aircraft from aerobatic and violent maneuvers."
Not quite what you want when using a brother/cousin as a fighter plane. The BT-13 used a 450hp engine.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Some good info and pics here Vultee XP-66 Vanguard

 

[Admiral Beez]

It looks better, it was faster. But nobody seemed to want them once they tested them, Granted they show up a bit late.

"Wing area: 196.8 sq ft

• Empty weight: 5,237 lb (2,375 kg)
• Gross weight: 7,100 lb (3,221 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 7,384 lb (3,349 kg)"

from WIki so..................


See...Vultee P-66

for a bit different take. You sort of have a radial P-40C as regards armament and some aspects of performance ( and some other aspects are below the P-40).
But you can't over boost the engine, some people think the plane is not "robust" and it ground loops.

It shares a common ancestry with the B-13
View attachment 559482
Which used a wing a bout 6 ft longer, However the tail was only held on by 3 bolts and after several inflight failures "the Navy restricted the aircraft from aerobatic and violent maneuvers."
Not quite what you want when using a brother/cousin as a fighter plane. The BT-13 used a 450hp engine.

Are these BT-13s beside the Vanguard prototype?

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,
Just from a quick look at stats from Wikipedia, for the P-66, and "America's 100,000" for the Buffalo:

Pat

 

[pinsog]

The 1938 Ark Royal was the first armoured carrier, but with two hangers. The Illustrious class made the single hanger an armoured box. Ark Royal was torpedoed but lost through poor damage control. Indomitable was torpedoed but limped home.

Everyone please understand, I don't mean to disrespect the Royal Navy. But let's face it, they were not in the same league as the Japanese in carrier warfare. Neither was the US for a while. List out what aircraft would be on board each Royal Navy carrier and their capabilities. If you leave out the Wildcat, you have Fulmars and Swordfish. If the Japanese are using all 6 carriers from The Pearl Harbor attack plus some of the smaller carriers merely to carry Zeroes as CAP for the fleet, then they could put up even more planes than they did at Pearl. First wave at Pearl Harbor was 89 Kate's, 51 Val's and 43 Zeroes. If Britain doesn't have Wildcats then 43 Zeros will clear the sky of anything resembling a CAP(might do it anyway). Then you have 51 of the finest dive bomber pilots in the world, quickly followed by 89 of the absolute best torpedo pilots, planes and torpedoes until well into 1943. 89 Kate's opposed by nothing but AA will decimate any fleet on the water, British, USA doesn't matter. That is only the first wave. The second wave was 54 Kate's, 78 Val's and 35 Zeros. They held 48 Zeros back for fleet CAP. If they brought their smaller carrier with Zeros only to fly CAP then those 48 Zeros could accompany the first strike to make sure there was no air opposition. From then on it is simply target practice like Prince of Wales and Repulse

 

[Admiral Beez]

Everyone please understand, I don't mean to disrespect the Royal Navy. But let's face it, they were not in the same league as the Japanese in carrier warfare.

You can't be the leader in everything. The Japanese were rubbish at ASW and CV damage control, two factors that were to contribute to much of their downfall. And for a naval so obsessed with aviation, maybe they could develop some useful radar, or ask the Germans for some? This seems like a ridiculous omission on Japan's part. With radar the high altitude Dauntless strike that destroyed the Combined Fleet at Midway would have been detected miles out.

In the early to mid 1930s the RN was about equal to the IJN on carrier warfare capability. The IJN chose their pony and invested in carrier forces, to their benefit in the first six months of the Pacific War. The RN invested in ASW, and after six years of warfare never lost the lead. The IJN's carrier forces were a paltry threat to the RN compared to the German and Italian navies.

Outside of one obsolete CVL, two cruisers and five escorts lost off Ceylon in April 1942, the IJN carrier force didn't touch the RN. In return, by October 1944 the RN had sunk a cruiser, three submarines, six small naval vessels, 40,000 long tons of merchant ships, and nearly 100 small vessels. And look at all the IJN aircraft carriers, capital ships and cruisers sunk by the USN's submarines. IMO, the Japanese would have been better off focusing on ASW, not exclusively carriers. Submarines were the kings of the Pacific War, not carriers.

As an academic exercise it would be interesting to compare a four AFD carrier RN CBG of 1945 with Sea Fury and Griffon-powered Barracuda vs. four hypothetical IJN carriers with A7M, B7A and D4Y. The Japanese still did not have useable radar by 1945, and the Brits are now utilizing deck parks to field large CAGs and have expertly trained and experienced damage control, AA and air crews, so I'm not giving the Japanese an easy win.

 

[pinsog]

You can't be the leader in everything. The Japanese were rubbish at ASW and CV damage control, two factors that were to contribute to much of their downfall. And for a naval so obsessed with aviation, maybe they could develop some useful radar, or ask the Germans for some? This seems like a ridiculous omission on Japan's part. With radar the Dauntless attack that destroyed the Combined Fleet at Midway would have been detected miles out.

In the early to mid 1930s the RN was about equal to the IJN on carrier warfare capability. The IJN chose their pony and invested in carrier forces, to their benefit in the first six months of the Pacific War. The RN invested in ASW, and after six years of warfare never lost the lead. The IJN's carrier forces were a paltry threat to the RN compared to the German and Italian navies.

Outside of one obsolete CVL, two cruisers and five escorts lost off Ceylon in April 1942, the IJN carrier force didn't touch the RN. In return, by October 1944 the RN had sunk a cruiser, three submarines, six small naval vessels, 40,000 long tons of merchant ships, and nearly 100 small vessels. And look at all the IJN aircraft carriers, capital ships and cruisers sunk by the USN. IMO, the Japanese would have been better off focusing on ASW, not exclusively carriers.

As an academic exercise it would be interesting to compare a four AFD carrier RN CBG of 1945 with Sea Fury and Griffon-powered Barracuda vs. four hypothetical IJN carriers with A7M, B6N and B7A. The Japanese still did not have useable radar by 1945, so I'm not giving them an easy win.

1945 isn't 1941. The reason we went off on this tangent was someone said the British should have added a few old battleships and other ships to the Far East fleet. My point is in 1941, no one in the world could have handled the Japanese in a huge Jutland type battle. So the Japanese don't have radar in 1941, what kind of attack can British carriers launch? A big group of Swordfish? The Japanese can remain outside the range of any British carrier borne aircraft and simply pummel them at will. So the British see a huge Japanese raid coming on radar, what are they going to do about it? Fulmars vs 40-90 Zeros? How many planes did Prince of Wales and Repulse shoot down? And those were big twin engine planes that should be easier to hit than a Val. Or a Kate after Val's have plastered your ship several times and reduced your AA ability.

Think about the Bismarck fight. Epic battle in British history. Any Japanese carrier with 12-18 Kate's would have dispatched Bismarck without breaking a sweat.