Force Z with HMS Ark Royal waits for HMS Indomitable

[Peter Gunn]

All of which comes no where near touching the Japanese losses of over 20,000 who died either in combat or from disease or starvation, many without known graves. I went to school in the 1970s with the son of a Solomon Islands Govt Official and recall him saying that finding remains of Japanese troops was still a regular occurance 30 years after the campaign ended.

Not my point, any references to the Guadalcanal Campaign usually sees that Marine losses are always listed as are Japanese losses. When total losses for the US side are listed they are almost never broken out to reflect USN or AAF losses (neither in fact are Japanese losses reflected this way either). In the case of Guadalcanal, everyone already knows the Japanese lost over 20,000 to all causes (you have stupid Banzai tactics and dumbass "die to the last man" BS to thank for that, over and over in the Pacific Campaign for that matter). USMC losses are ALWAYS listed but rarely do USN figures total into the equation.

My point was to illustrate that whilst the USMC has the well known 1,600 killed figure easily available, the USN suffered over twice the casualties with 3,500+, a statistic that is usually ignored. I suppose it just illustrates who won the post war PR battle of the late '40's early '50's.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Not my point, any references to the Guadalcanal Campaign usually sees that Marine losses are always listed as are Japanese losses. When total losses for the US side are listed they are almost never broken out to reflect USN or AAF losses (neither in fact are Japanese losses reflected this way either). In the case of Guadalcanal, everyone already knows the Japanese lost over 20,000 to all causes (you have stupid Banzai tactics and dumbass "die to the last man" BS to thank for that, over and over in the Pacific Campaign for that matter). USMC losses are ALWAYS listed but rarely do USN figures total into the equation.

My point was to illustrate that whilst the USMC has the well known 1,600 killed figure easily available, the USN suffered over twice the casualties with 3,500+, a statistic that is usually ignored. I suppose it just illustrates who won the post war PR battle of the late '40's early '50's.

According to this website about 5,000 USN dead.

https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-009.html.

Serving on a USN cruiser or destroyer in 1942 was a very dangerous occupation.

 

[southjn1982]

Considering Ark Royal was specifically designed for Pacific operations its a much more sensible choice

 

[Admiral Beez]

Considering Ark Royal was specifically designed for Pacific operations its a much more sensible choice

I'd like to think that had the RN not temporarily lost the use of HMS Illustrious, Formidable (crippled in Med in early 1941) and HMS Furious (sent for deep refit in US Sept 1941) until early 1942 that HMS Ark Royal would have accompanied Force Z in October 1941. These, and the early losses of HMS Courageous and Glorious really hindered the chances for a fast CV for Force Z.

 

[southjn1982]

RN carrier disposition at the beginning of Sept 1939:-

Argus - Conversion to Queen Bee carrier completed July 1938. Exact location unknown at the start of Sept. Deployed to the Med by early Nov as the deck landing training ship to get better weather i.e. a replacement for Furious.
Furious - deck landing training ship based on east coast of Scotland until Oct when she embarked Swordfish from 816 sqn and a det of 818 to work up as an operational carrier in the Home Fleet.
Eagle - had been on the China Station since Feb 1937 and was completing a refit at Singapore. After that she formed part of Force I in the Indian Ocean with cruisers Cornwall and Dorsetshire. She remained in the IO on these duties and as escort to ANZAC troop convoys until transferred to the eastern Med in May 1940 just ahead of the outbreak of war with Italy.
Hermes - from July 1938 to Aug 1939 she had been employed as an accomodation ship for trainee officers at Devonport. She recommissioned for operational service on 24 Aug and was working up and performing ASW ops in the SW Approaches during Sept. Operated east of 12 degrees W. In Oct she joined French ships out of Dakar hunting raiders.
Courageous - last refit lasted from 1938 31 July 1939 when she recommissioned. Allocated to the Home Fleet and used for ASW operations in SW Approaches until sunk. Operated west of 12 degrees W.
Glorious - she had been the Med fleet carrier for a number of years. With the rest of the Mediteranean fleet based at Alexandria. Moved to IO in Oct until Jan when she returned to Malta to refit then home in April in time for the Norway campaign.
Ark Royal -Home Fleet carrier at Scapa Flow until deployed on ASW operations on 11 Sept in western Atlantic.
Albatross - seaplane carrier recommissioned 24 August 1939. After wwork up deployed to Freetown with 9 Walrus. Note she was the largest concentration of maritime patrol aircraft for over 1,000 miles.

Courageous & Hermes were under command of CinC Western Approaches. Ark was under CinC Home Fleet. Their use is often linked with Churchill's return to the Admiralty on 3 Sept and his desire for a more aggressive appoach to naval operations. It all stopped with the loss of Courageous hence Hermes redeployment to Dakar.

So at least one of the carriers is doing what AB wants! Then you need a training carrier or how else do you generate the crews to fill the slots in the expanding FAA. And you just can't abandon British interests in the Med and IO.

It is worth while looking at the state of RAF Coastal Command on the outbreak of war, remembering that CC was the poor cousin of both Bomber Command and Fighter Command at the time. Here is the map of the Group boundaries in 1939.
View attachment 665048

15 Group based at Plymouth - 2 Anson & 3 Sunderland squadrons
16 Group based at Chatham - 3 Anson squadrons plus 2 Vildebeest torpedo bomber squadrons (first Beauforts for them arrived in Nov but conversion was drawn out)
18 Group based at Pitreavie Castle in Fife - 3 Anson, 2 Hudson plus another converting from Anson to Hudson plus 2 squadrons of Saro London and 1 of Saro Stranraer flying boats.

Deliveries of the Hudson had only begun in Feb 1939 and the first squadron formed in May. The Sunderland was another new aircraft in service with only 42 production aircraft having flown before the outbreak of war. Some of these had gone to replace the Short Singapore III of 230 squadron in Singapore

In an ideal world Hermes would have had a few sister ships as at 10,250 tons and 25 knots she would have been ideal as a convoy protection carrier and I'd also have tried to get the French to also create a sub hinting group around Bearn or even better integrate Bearn and a few RN vessels into a joint group this would mean that Bearn is probably in UK waters or a UK port when France falls and thus like the French ships in Alexandria and UK harbours is much less likely to side with Vichy as although vastly unsuitable for front line strike operations she is still more than capable of Convoy protection and sub-hunting roles. If Hermes had had say 2-3 sisters and the French had been on board you could have created a very potent force from the beginning while freeing up the larger carriers for other roles over time these forces could have been added to as by ships like Eagle and Argus and later the Escort carriers and MAC ships.

 

[EwenS]

I'd like to think that had the RN not temporarily lost the use of HMS Illustrious, Formidable (crippled in Med in early 1941) and HMS Furious (sent for deep refit in US Sept 1941) until early 1942 that HMS Ark Royal would have accompanied Force Z in October 1941. These, and the early losses of HMS Courageous and Glorious really hindered the chances for a fast CV for Force Z.

By Nov 1941 when she was sunk, Ark was in need of a major refit as she was experiencing machinery problems having been away from the U.K. for over a year. It was in fact planned that she should get one after completing a second Hurricane delivery run to Malta in Nov 1941. That was scheduled to last until at least April 1942. That was one reason for Indomitable's destination, before she was delayed by running aground and then events in the Far East, being Gibraltar by the end of Nov i.e. as a replacement for Ark in Force H.

AFAIK no one has ever turned up details of what that refit was to consist of. But if other carriers were available, it is conceivable that it would have been longer and more extensive than could be achieved in 5 months. But until that refit was carried out there is no way the Admiralty in Oct 1941 would have been sending her east. That means it would be a minimum of another 2 months before it could begin.

But the point is that when the Admiralty was doing its planning in Aug 1941 it was content not to have a carrier in what became Force Z to provide air cover despite everything that had happened in the Med earlier that year showing the need for it.

 

[southjn1982]

By Nov 1941 when she was sunk, Ark was in need of a major refit as she was experiencing machinery problems having been away from the U.K. for over a year. It was in fact planned that she should get one after completing a second Hurricane delivery run to Malta in Nov 1941. That was scheduled to last until at least April 1942. That was one reason for Indomitable's destination, before she was delayed by running aground and then events in the Far East, being Gibraltar by the end of Nov i.e. as a replacement for Ark in Force H.

AFAIK no one has ever turned up details of what that refit was to consist of. But if other carriers were available, it is conceivable that it would have been longer and more extensive than could be achieved in 5 months. But until that refit was carried out there is no way the Admiralty in Oct 1941 would have been sending her east. That means it would be a minimum of another 2 months before it could begin.

But the point is that when the Admiralty was doing its planning in Aug 1941 it was content not to have a carrier in what became Force Z to provide air cover despite everything that had happened in the Med earlier that year showing the need for it.

By Nov 1941 when she was sunk, Ark was in need of a major refit as she was experiencing machinery problems having been away from the U.K. for over a year. It was in fact planned that she should get one after completing a second Hurricane delivery run to Malta in Nov 1941. That was scheduled to last until at least April 1942. That was one reason for Indomitable's destination, before she was delayed by running aground and then events in the Far East, being Gibraltar by the end of Nov i.e. as a replacement for Ark in Force H.

AFAIK no one has ever turned up details of what that refit was to consist of. But if other carriers were available, it is conceivable that it would have been longer and more extensive than could be achieved in 5 months. But until that refit was carried out there is no way the Admiralty in Oct 1941 would have been sending her east. That means it would be a minimum of another 2 months before it could begin.

But the point is that when the Admiralty was doing its planning in Aug 1941 it was content not to have a carrier in what became Force Z to provide air cover despite everything that had happened in the Med earlier that year showing the need for it.

One of the big issues was Churchills decision in 1939 to suspend carrier construction when he returned to the Admiralty (it was literally the first order he gave) as it was almost a year before the suspension was lifted, even with the losses of Glorious and Courageous etc if the pause hadn't happened the UK would have had at least 1 probably 2 or 3 more carriers completed by December 1940 thus giving the fleet a lot more options with the whole myriad of other effects caused by simply having more decks available for example it would be likely that a Carrier would have sailed with Hood and POW to intercept the Bismarck completely changing that engagement and it's also likely that Indomitable would have been commissioned in early 41 not October thus giving her a lot more time to work up, hell If Indomitable came on-line in March 41 and Ark Royal immediately went into refit she would not only have enough time for the 5 months refit she would have an additional 2 months to work up before Force Z goes to the Pacific

 

[EwenS]

One of the big issues was Churchills decision in 1939 to suspend carrier construction when he returned to the Admiralty (it was literally the first order he gave) as it was almost a year before the suspension was lifted, even with the losses of Glorious and Courageous etc if the pause hadn't happened the UK would have had at least 1 probably 2 or 3 more carriers completed by December 1940 thus giving the fleet a lot more options with the whole myriad of other effects caused by simply having more decks available for example it would be likely that a Carrier would have sailed with Hood and POW to intercept the Bismarck completely changing that engagement and it's also likely that Indomitable would have been commissioned in early 41 not October thus giving her a lot more time to work up, hell If Indomitable came on-line in March 41 and Ark Royal immediately went into refit she would not only have enough time for the 5 months refit she would have an additional 2 months to work up before Force Z goes to the Pacific

That is simply not true.

The emergency plans drawn up by the Admiralty immediately prior to the outbreak of war (before Churchill's return as First Lord of the Admiralty) and implemented on its outbreak suspended many vessels, and ordered others, but it did not suspend ANY carrier construction or future planning for them. Proof of that lies with carrier in the 1939 Programme, Indefatigable, having been ordered in June 1939 being laid down on 3 Nov 1939 at the John Brown yard on the Clyde. That followed Implacable at the Fairfield yard on 21 Feb 1939. In Sept 1939 their completion dates were still estimated to be Oct 1941 (Implacable) and June 1942 (Indefatigable).

There were delays with some of the Illustrious class as much of their armour was ordered from Czechoslovakia. Those predicted delays allowed the redesign of Indomitable in 1938. Indomitable's completion slipped by 6 months after the outbreak of war. But 4 months of that was after Barrow was heavily bombed in April/May 1941. In mid 1939 the RN expected 3 Illustrious class completed in 1940 and one in 1941. They got 2 and 2. I've never found an explanation for the delays in completing Victorious, but it wasn't due to suspension of work.

At the beginning of 1940 the Admiralty planning included a request for funding for two more carriers as the total carrier requirement per their assessments had risen to 14 (4 in the Far East, 4 at Home, 5 on the trade routes and 1 for training). And when looking at the longer term another pair were being sought in each of the 1941 and 1942 build Programmes. Ultimately the 1940 War Programme, agreed in Sept/Oct 1940, included another carrier which it was hoped to lay down in March 1941. That ship, tentatively named Irresistible, underwent a number of postponements and redesigns during 1940-42 to take account of war experience, before being ordered in March 1942. Before work began on it, it was finally decided to build it as an Audacious class which emerged as HMS Ark Royal (IV).

On 10 May 1940 following the start of the German offensive in France, Indefatigable, along with a significant number of other ships was suspended, but not Implacable. By Sept/Oct 1940 the suspension was lifted. By March 1941 the expected completion dates were end 1943 (Implacable) and mid1943 (Indefatigable).

Both ships suffered from many delays due to a variety of reasons:-
1. Repair and conversion work in the two yards in 1940/41
2. Changing priorities with an emphasis on destroyer and escort production. So at John Brown it was late 1941 before the workforce allocated to Indefatigable by the yard really began to ramp up.
3. Redesign of the ships in 1941 to provide a larger forward lift and incorporate lessons learned from the war to date.
4. Certain named ships were given a higher priority that, with hindsight, seem bizarre. At John Brown the monitor Roberts was ordered in March 1940, laid down in April on the slip alongside Indefatigable just vacated by Duke of York, launched in Feb 1941 and completed in Oct that year. And at the same time work on Indefatigable was either subject to suspension or a lack of priority.
5. Over at Fairfield they had too much work in the yard for the size of the workforce. So 2 destroyers ordered in April 1940 and not started were re-ordered from John Brown in Feb 1941. As a result there was a period in 1941 when no work was carried out on Implacable. She wasn't the only vessel affected. Work on the cruiser Bellona was at a standstill for 10 months even after her initial suspension was lifted.
6. And of course the effects of enemy action. Clydebank, along with much of Clydeside, was very heavily bombed. In March 1941 the Clydebank Blitz destroyed much of the town and caused some damage to the John Brown yard. Most of the population had to be relocated with causing significant disruption at the yard and other key war industry factories in the town.
7. The blackout restricted the working hours in winter months (Glasgow only gets 7 hours of daylight in mid-winter and the weather is often such that it feels like daylight never comes!)
8. The final delays to the Implacables related to machinery faults discovered when they left the yards. Indefatigable left the shipyard in Dec 1943, but wasn't completed until 3 May 1944. Implacable had a three month delay before completing at the end of Aug 1944.

The build time for a carrier at that time was a minimum of about 3 years (Ark Royal 39 months. Illustrious 37 months both under largely peacetime conditions. An Admiralty study in late 1941 estimated the build time for a carrier at 46 months.

So your idea that there could have been another 2-3 carriers in service by the end of 1940 is pure fantasy unless you firstly increase U.K. armour production or change the design to a repeat Ark Royal AND order more carriers, over and above the 4 Illustrious class historically laid down, to begin construction in 1937.

If you want to really understand the wartime pressures on the RN building programmes I recommend that you get hold of a copy of "Building for Victory. The Warship Building Programmes of the Royal Navy 1939-1945" by George Moore and published by the World Ship Society.

 

[southjn1982]

That is simply not true.

The emergency plans drawn up by the Admiralty immediately prior to the outbreak of war (before Churchill's return as First Lord of the Admiralty) and implemented on its outbreak suspended many vessels, and ordered others, but it did not suspend ANY carrier construction or future planning for them. Proof of that lies with carrier in the 1939 Programme, Indefatigable, having been ordered in June 1939 being laid down on 3 Nov 1939 at the John Brown yard on the Clyde. That followed Implacable at the Fairfield yard on 21 Feb 1939. In Sept 1939 their completion dates were still estimated to be Oct 1941 (Implacable) and June 1942 (Indefatigable).

There were delays with some of the Illustrious class as much of their armour was ordered from Czechoslovakia. Those predicted delays allowed the redesign of Indomitable in 1938. Indomitable's completion slipped by 6 months after the outbreak of war. But 4 months of that was after Barrow was heavily bombed in April/May 1941. In mid 1939 the RN expected 3 Illustrious class completed in 1940 and one in 1941. They got 2 and 2. I've never found an explanation for the delays in completing Victorious, but it wasn't due to suspension of work.

At the beginning of 1940 the Admiralty planning included a request for funding for two more carriers as the total carrier requirement per their assessments had risen to 14 (4 in the Far East, 4 at Home, 5 on the trade routes and 1 for training). And when looking at the longer term another pair were being sought in each of the 1941 and 1942 build Programmes. Ultimately the 1940 War Programme, agreed in Sept/Oct 1940, included another carrier which it was hoped to lay down in March 1941. That ship, tentatively named Irresistible, underwent a number of postponements and redesigns during 1940-42 to take account of war experience, before being ordered in March 1942. Before work began on it, it was finally decided to build it as an Audacious class which emerged as HMS Ark Royal (IV).

On 10 May 1940 following the start of the German offensive in France, Indefatigable, along with a significant number of other ships was suspended, but not Implacable. By Sept/Oct 1940 the suspension was lifted. By March 1941 the expected completion dates were end 1943 (Implacable) and mid1943 (Indefatigable).

Both ships suffered from many delays due to a variety of reasons:-
1. Repair and conversion work in the two yards in 1940/41
2. Changing priorities with an emphasis on destroyer and escort production. So at John Brown it was late 1941 before the workforce allocated to Indefatigable by the yard really began to ramp up.
3. Redesign of the ships in 1941 to provide a larger forward lift and incorporate lessons learned from the war to date.
4. Certain named ships were given a higher priority that, with hindsight, seem bizarre. At John Brown the monitor Roberts was ordered in March 1940, laid down in April on the slip alongside Indefatigable just vacated by Duke of York, launched in Feb 1941 and completed in Oct that year. And at the same time work on Indefatigable was either subject to suspension or a lack of priority.
5. Over at Fairfield they had too much work in the yard for the size of the workforce. So 2 destroyers ordered in April 1940 and not started were re-ordered from John Brown in Feb 1941. As a result there was a period in 1941 when no work was carried out on Implacable. She wasn't the only vessel affected. Work on the cruiser Bellona was at a standstill for 10 months even after her initial suspension was lifted.
6. And of course the effects of enemy action. Clydebank, along with much of Clydeside, was very heavily bombed. In March 1941 the Clydebank Blitz destroyed much of the town and caused some damage to the John Brown yard. Most of the population had to be relocated with causing significant disruption at the yard and other key war industry factories in the town.
7. The blackout restricted the working hours in winter months (Glasgow only gets 7 hours of daylight in mid-winter and the weather is often such that it feels like daylight never comes!)
8. The final delays to the Implacables related to machinery faults discovered when they left the yards. Indefatigable left the shipyard in Dec 1943, but wasn't completed until 3 May 1944. Implacable had a three month delay before completing at the end of Aug 1944.

The build time for a carrier at that time was a minimum of about 3 years (Ark Royal 39 months. Illustrious 37 months both under largely peacetime conditions. An Admiralty study in late 1941 estimated the build time for a carrier at 46 months.

So your idea that there could have been another 2-3 carriers in service by the end of 1940 is pure fantasy unless you firstly increase U.K. armour production or change the design to a repeat Ark Royal AND order more carriers, over and above the 4 Illustrious class historically laid down, to begin construction in 1937.

If you want to really understand the wartime pressures on the RN building programmes I recommend that you get hold of a copy of "Building for Victory. The Warship Building Programmes of the Royal Navy 1939-1945" by George Moore and published by the World Ship Society.

I'm sorry but you are simply wrong rather than go through point by point I would direct you to the work of Dr Alexander Clark on the subject he has many lectures publicly available on the subject and in addition he will gladly answer any questions you have he is very good at answering people and does it in a timely fashion he also has a wonderful discord channel as well as having multiple public lectures a month on Naval history as well as having an enjoyable podcast. In addition as a Glaswegian I can assure you that you are massively overstating the issues of the climate and the 7 hours of daylight is simply bullshit even on the winter solstice we normally get at least 10 and in December to January the average temperature in Glasgow is above freezing we even have a few natural palm trees outside that have been there for over 100 years due to the mildness of the winters. Since nobody ever believes me that Glasgow has real palm trees in several parks here is a photo one of my friends took from outside my mums window (albeit she does live on the outskirts of the city). and the second one of the winter gardens even has my auntie in it

 

[SaparotRob]

That is simply not true.

The emergency plans drawn up by the Admiralty immediately prior to the outbreak of war (before Churchill's return as First Lord of the Admiralty) and implemented on its outbreak suspended many vessels, and ordered others, but it did not suspend ANY carrier construction or future planning for them. Proof of that lies with carrier in the 1939 Programme, Indefatigable, having been ordered in June 1939 being laid down on 3 Nov 1939 at the John Brown yard on the Clyde. That followed Implacable at the Fairfield yard on 21 Feb 1939. In Sept 1939 their completion dates were still estimated to be Oct 1941 (Implacable) and June 1942 (Indefatigable).

There were delays with some of the Illustrious class as much of their armour was ordered from Czechoslovakia. Those predicted delays allowed the redesign of Indomitable in 1938. Indomitable's completion slipped by 6 months after the outbreak of war. But 4 months of that was after Barrow was heavily bombed in April/May 1941. In mid 1939 the RN expected 3 Illustrious class completed in 1940 and one in 1941. They got 2 and 2. I've never found an explanation for the delays in completing Victorious, but it wasn't due to suspension of work.

At the beginning of 1940 the Admiralty planning included a request for funding for two more carriers as the total carrier requirement per their assessments had risen to 14 (4 in the Far East, 4 at Home, 5 on the trade routes and 1 for training). And when looking at the longer term another pair were being sought in each of the 1941 and 1942 build Programmes. Ultimately the 1940 War Programme, agreed in Sept/Oct 1940, included another carrier which it was hoped to lay down in March 1941. That ship, tentatively named Irresistible, underwent a number of postponements and redesigns during 1940-42 to take account of war experience, before being ordered in March 1942. Before work began on it, it was finally decided to build it as an Audacious class which emerged as HMS Ark Royal (IV).

On 10 May 1940 following the start of the German offensive in France, Indefatigable, along with a significant number of other ships was suspended, but not Implacable. By Sept/Oct 1940 the suspension was lifted. By March 1941 the expected completion dates were end 1943 (Implacable) and mid1943 (Indefatigable).

Both ships suffered from many delays due to a variety of reasons:-
1. Repair and conversion work in the two yards in 1940/41
2. Changing priorities with an emphasis on destroyer and escort production. So at John Brown it was late 1941 before the workforce allocated to Indefatigable by the yard really began to ramp up.
3. Redesign of the ships in 1941 to provide a larger forward lift and incorporate lessons learned from the war to date.
4. Certain named ships were given a higher priority that, with hindsight, seem bizarre. At John Brown the monitor Roberts was ordered in March 1940, laid down in April on the slip alongside Indefatigable just vacated by Duke of York, launched in Feb 1941 and completed in Oct that year. And at the same time work on Indefatigable was either subject to suspension or a lack of priority.
5. Over at Fairfield they had too much work in the yard for the size of the workforce. So 2 destroyers ordered in April 1940 and not started were re-ordered from John Brown in Feb 1941. As a result there was a period in 1941 when no work was carried out on Implacable. She wasn't the only vessel affected. Work on the cruiser Bellona was at a standstill for 10 months even after her initial suspension was lifted.
6. And of course the effects of enemy action. Clydebank, along with much of Clydeside, was very heavily bombed. In March 1941 the Clydebank Blitz destroyed much of the town and caused some damage to the John Brown yard. Most of the population had to be relocated with causing significant disruption at the yard and other key war industry factories in the town.
7. The blackout restricted the working hours in winter months (Glasgow only gets 7 hours of daylight in mid-winter and the weather is often such that it feels like daylight never comes!)
8. The final delays to the Implacables related to machinery faults discovered when they left the yards. Indefatigable left the shipyard in Dec 1943, but wasn't completed until 3 May 1944. Implacable had a three month delay before completing at the end of Aug 1944.

The build time for a carrier at that time was a minimum of about 3 years (Ark Royal 39 months. Illustrious 37 months both under largely peacetime conditions. An Admiralty study in late 1941 estimated the build time for a carrier at 46 months.

So your idea that there could have been another 2-3 carriers in service by the end of 1940 is pure fantasy unless you firstly increase U.K. armour production or change the design to a repeat Ark Royal AND order more carriers, over and above the 4 Illustrious class historically laid down, to begin construction in 1937.

If you want to really understand the wartime pressures on the RN building programmes I recommend that you get hold of a copy of "Building for Victory. The Warship Building Programmes of the Royal Navy 1939-1945" by George Moore and published by the World Ship Society.

Very informative post, EwenS.

 

[southjn1982]

Pity he is wrong on almost every point. The comment about Glasgow is hilarious in it's inaccuracy I recommend you look at the work of Dr Alexander Clark on the subject

 

[Admiral Beez]

Pity he is wrong on almost every point.

I don't know about accuracy, but you can depend on the default contrarianism. If you want to know why you're apparently wrong, there's no surer way.

 

[EwenS]

I'm sorry but you are simply wrong rather than go through point by point I would direct you to the work of Dr Alexander Clark on the subject he has many lectures publicly available on the subject and in addition he will gladly answer any questions you have he is very good at answering people and does it in a timely fashion he also has a wonderful discord channel as well as having multiple public lectures a month on Naval history as well as having an enjoyable podcast. In addition as a Glaswegian I can assure you that you are massively overstating the issues of the climate and the 7 hours of daylight is simply bullshit even on the winter solstice we normally get at least 10 and in December to January the average temperature in Glasgow is above freezing we even have a few natural palm trees outside that have been there for over 100 years due to the mildness of the winters. Since nobody ever believes me that Glasgow has real palm trees in several parks here is a photo one of my friends took from outside my mums window (albeit she does live on the outskirts of the city). and the second one of the winter gardens even has my auntie in it

I can see by the vehemence of your initial post and subsequent reaction that there is no chance of you changing your views, so I won't further waste my time trying.

And please don't try to lecture me about the weather and daylight hours in Glasgow. I have lived and / or worked there for nearly 30 years. Turn up at the office at 8am in the dark. Dark again around 4pm.

Winter Solstice sunrise 0846. Sunset 1545.

 

[Admiral Beez]

By Nov 1941 when she was sunk, Ark was in need of a major refit as she was experiencing machinery problems having been away from the U.K. for over a year.

Could the Singapore shipyard conduct the deep refit? Whilst the yard and drydock is brand new, I don't know if the necessary experienced personnel, tools and parts are available. Of course there's every chance that Ark gets caught like HMS Mauritius.

 

[EwenS]

Could the Singapore shipyard conduct the deep refit? Whilst the yard and drydock is brand new, I don't know if the necessary experienced personnel, tools and parts are available. Of course there's every chance that Ark gets caught like HMS Mauritius.

Undoubtedly some of the work could be carried out in Singapore but not necessarily all. In particular the biggest upgrade she needed was Radar and all the fighter direction facilities that went with it by the end of 1941. Ark had no radars when sunk. Both Formidable & Illustrious, and for that matter other ships refitting in the USA, returned to the U.K. to have their radars upgraded in this time period and indeed through to the end of the war in many cases. And as Ark was finding in the Med fighter direction was becoming more and more important.

To get that kit, Ark would have needed a new mast to carry the Type 281b aerial that couldn't be fitted to her existing mast due to the Type 72 homing beacon on it. She was like Furious in that regard. From Illustrious on there was a different set up for that kit. Her bridge space would probably have needed enlarged.

The only exception I can think of was Warspite which refitted at the USN Puget Sound NY between Aug 1941 and Jan 1942. At least part of the first set of radars sent out for her were lost at sea and a second set sent. But come summer 1942, there were stories that her radars were next to useless. Now how much of that was down to lack of expertise in installing it, and how much to the operation of it I don't think we will ever know. Most likely a combination of both.

The other reason for a U.K. refit is that it would allow replacement of her air group. Swordfish replaced by Albacores (by late 1941 now being fitted with radar) and Fulmars replaced with Martlets. Only question is would there have been enough of the latter to go round in mid-1942. Probably not until Lend lease deliveries began later in the year. And fresh aircrew for her tired squadrons.

But more fundamentally, what good would any carrier be to Force Z if, on arrival, it needs 5+ months in dock before becoming fully operational. As you say that simply puts her in dry dock in place of Mauritius on 8 Dec.

Edit. Fitting Radar is not just an aerial issue. Space needs to be found below decks for the wardrobe sized cabinets containing the electronics and then it all needs to be wired together. Plus cramming in the extra crew to operate them all. I would expect that a planned refit for Ark would have included at least 12 sets:- 6x Type 282 (for the Pom-Pom directors), 4x Type 285 (for the HACS), 1x Type 281b (AIr warning and fighter direction) and 1x Type 271/272 (centimetric set for surface warning). Then add IFF and early radar detectors etc etc.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But more fundamentally, what good would any carrier be to Force Z if, on arrival, it needs 5+ months in dock before becoming fully operational. As you say that simply puts her in dry dock in place of Mauritius on 8 Dec.

In hindsight, not much. But we can't have known. If there's any carrier that might have been considered for a refit at Singapore it must be HMS Hermes, who was in the Indian Ocean throughout 1941, as shown.

6 Nov 1941 - HMS Hermes departed Colombo for Simonstown Dockyard to refit there.
18 Nov 1941 - HMS Hermes dropped anchor in False Bay off Simonstown.
21 Nov 1941 - HMS Hermes is taken in hand for refit at the Simonstown Dockyard.
6 Dec 1941 - HMS Hermes is docked in the Selborne Dry Dock at the Simonstown Dockyard.
25 Jan 1942 - HMS Hermes is undocked.
1 Feb 1942 - HMS Hermes departed Simonstown for Colombo via Mauritius.

I wonder if a Singapore refit was considered too risky due to the situation with Japan. I expect the westbound HMS Hermes must have passed HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse on their eastward passage.

 

[EwenS]

The IO is a huge bit of ocean. Simonstown was also a Royal Navy Dockyard and had a perfectly adequately cruiser sized dry dock to take Hermes. She had refitted and repaired there from Aug-Nov 1940 after her collision with the AMC Corfu off Dakar in July that year. When you look at her activities in 1940/41 they are mainly in the South Atlantic and then patrolling the shipping lanes on the centre / west side of the IO with an excursion up the Persian Gulf. Colombo, Seychelles, Mauritius, South Africa. So a refit at Simonstown makes much more sense than diverting her away to the eastern side of the IO to Singapore.

As I've noted before in other threads, PoW and Repulse arrived in the IO at different times. Repulse left Britain on 31 Aug to escort convoy WS11 to the Middle East. By early Oct she is at Durban. She spent Nov on convoy escort along the African coast before arriving at Colombo at the end of Nov to join PoW to become Force Z. PoW didn't leave Britain until the end of Oct routing via Capetown and Mauritius.

So Hermes and PoW would theoretically have passed each other somewhere between South Africa and Mauritius. As for how close, you would need the ships' logs for their daily positions.

Movements here

HMS Prince of Wales, British battleship, WW2

HMS Repulse, British battlecruiser, WW2

 

[Admiral Beez]

The IO is a huge bit of ocean. Simonstown was also a Royal Navy Dockyard and had a perfectly adequately cruiser sized dry dock to take Hermes. She had refitted and repaired there from Aug-Nov 1940 after her collision with the AMC Corfu off Dakar in July that year. When you look at her activities in 1940/41 they are mainly in the South Atlantic and then patrolling the shipping lanes on the centre / west side of the IO with an excursion up the Persian Gulf. Colombo, Seychelles, Mauritius, South Africa. So a refit at Simonstown makes much more sense than diverting her away to the eastern side of the IO to Singapore.

The Aug-Nov 1940 refit could have been done at Singapore. In Aug 1940 the Japanese were making moves on FIC as a precursor to their Sept 1940 occupation. Having Hermes refitted and then stationed locally would not have been a waste of a resource, since she could (without the benefit of hindsight showing us otherwise) add to the deterrent to the Japanese.

 

[EwenS]

A deterrent with 9 Swordfish as an air group?

 

[Shortround6]

A deterrent with 9 Swordfish as an air group?

You are being too harsh.

with full compliment and a mix of aircraft she might have had 12 aircraft, maybe even 13.
That would have had the Imperial Japanese Navy quaking in their sandals.