Rn vs IJN (1 Viewer)

[Glider]

Defending themselves, to a point maybe. Not enough. Spitfire is good but it's no panacea against an A6M.



The RN carriers got sunk in those convoys. And we have gone into this in great detail. The forces arrayed against the Malta convoys did not compare to the KB and IJN forces in the Pacific.

You again are correct when you say that the Spitfire isn't a panacea against the A6M, but its probably the best alternative in the world to the A6M in late 1941. Plus of course with the sophisticated radar and air direction that would have been a significant advantage tactically.

As has been mentioned the only one to be sunk was the Eagle, but the one big advantage the Axis forces in the Med had, which the Japanese Navy didn't have, was that their bases were immune to attack.

 

[mack8]

I still think, as mentioned by others, we need to know what the ATL scenario in Europe is, to try to "predict" what can happen in the Far East. Perhaps as the OP, Shortround6 can provide his prefered scenario as to events in Europe?

How does the TBD Devastator compares with the Albacore? Judging by the speed figures shown the TBD is a fast aircraft compared to the Albacore! And recall the TBDs were simply slaughtered at Midway. And re british carrier aircraft combat radius (not range) , are there examples as to demonstrated maximum radius (and what those figures are) when operating from carriers? The Skuas might have done 300nm, but from a land base, not quite sure it will be the same from a carrier. Perhaps they were overloaded with fuel when operating from land?

PS: The D3A for examples was airborne for 7 hours at Coral Sea (attack on Neosho), and during the I-Go they operated from Buin which is iirc 300nm from Cactus. The Zero range need not be discussed, it was far in excess of any other carrier fighter in 1942, 500-600nm from landbases and perhaps 300-400nm from a carrier. I'm trying to think of examples showing B5N max radius with a torpedo or a 800kg bomb, i'm certain it's well into 200nm plus, but would be good to have an actual definite example.

 

[Shortround6]

I would note that a 1941 Seafire doesn't have to be a panacea for the A6M2. It just has to shoot down D3A's and B5Ns in sufficient numbers to strongly blunt the Japanese attack.
Add in hold off the A6Ms while the British attack aircraft do their job.
The F4F was not the panacea for the A6M and yet it managed to shoot down a fair number of Japanese attack planes. At Midway the problem was trying to escort a squadron of attack planes with 2-4 escort fighters. You could have used F4Us and that force ratio wouldn't have worked.

 

[Shortround6]

Perhaps as the OP, Shortround6 can provide his prefered scenario as to events in Europe?

My preferred scenario is there is a war in Europe as the butterflies get really out of control otherwise.
Lion class built or not built depending on how great a threat Germany and Italy are for instance. Development of the entire RAF depending on German/Italian threat as in what kind of bombers and how many?
Development of tanks?
Does Japan even seriously consider going to war ( or just escalating things in China) without Germany and Italy pinning down UK and French forces?

My six Lions can beat your 3 Yamato's in 1944

I have tried to outline (very sketchy) earlier. Things go pretty much as historical (maybe the British loose one less carrier to stupidity by May of 1940) and then things go a little bit worse for the Germans. Not a lot, maybe France lasts a few weeks longer? Maybe not. More French ships Join the Free French? French NA joins the Free French?
To me the important part would be kicking Italy out of NA in late winter or spring of 1941. No Greek adventure.
This reduces British losses of all kinds. May or may not open the Med to ship traffic?
It does give the British some combat experience.
It frees up a lot of equipment (and this is relative, the British built somewhere between 5-6000 Hurricanes by the end of 1941, NONE went to the Far East by Dec 7th 1941) to equip Commonwealth forces in Malaya, Burma, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia.

This is against the backdrop of the escalating embargos/trade sanctions that brought Japan to the attack stage.

Again, this is just my idea of what was plausible. Possible and probable may lie on either side.

edit> I will say that the whole idea takes a suspension of disbelieve that the US won't get involved after they lead the trade sanctions and embargos and were building up Army and Air force assets in the Philippines and the Philippines occupying a roughly 1000 mile by 1000 miles area right in the middle of the Japanese supply lines/operational area. I have no explanation for that and simply accept it as given in order to get British Commonwealth vs Japan scenario off the ground.

 

[mack8]

1938 Programme
2 Lion class BB - ordered 2/39, laid down 6-7/39. Est completion in Sept 1939 was 8/42. Suspended later in 1939.
Implacable - ordered 10/38, laid down 2/39. Est completion in Sept 1939 was 10/41
3 Dido class cruisers - ordered 8/38, laid down 11/38-4/39. Est completion 1941
4 Colony class cruisers - ordered March 1939, laid down 4-7/39. Est completion 10/41 - 6/42
No destroyers
3 Abdiel class fast minelayers - ordered 12/38, laid down 3-4/39
3 River gunboats
3 T class subs
Unicorn (aircraft maintenance ship) - ordered 4/39, laid down 6/39.
Depot ships Hecla & Adamant

1939 Programme
2 Lion class BB - 1 ordered 8/39, the other to be ordered 11/39. Both suspended on outbreak of WW2
Indefatigable - ordered 6/39, laid down 11/39. Est completion 6/42
2 Colony class- to be built in Royal Dockyards but cancelled at end of Sept 1939
2 Colony class - planned for order in March 1940 but see below in War Programme.
1 Abdiel class minelayer
M & N class destroyers - 16 ships
2 Black Swan class sloops
20 Hunt class destroyers
1 River gunboat - cancelled
54 Flower class corvettes
10 Flower class corvettes built in Canada in exchange for Britain building the first 2 Canadian Tribals.


1939 War Programme ordered 4/9/30 to 1/40
6 Dido class
2 Colony class cruisers - ordered 4/9/39 (brought forward by about 6 months from previous plans)
16 O & P class destroyers
36 Hunt class destroyers (20 in Sept 1939 and another 16 in Dec)
7 T class subs
5 S class subs
12 U class subs
48 Flower class corvettes

When we come to the 1940 Programme it becomes more complicated as war approached. So the final Programme was not what was envisaged when discussions about it began in July 1939. But initially it looked something like this (extracted from Moore "Building for Victory"):-

2 Lion class - talks with industry suggested orders could be placed with Swan Hunter and Harland & Wolff around 7-8/40 with completion 42 months later i.e. early 1944. caveat that assumed delivery of armour, guns and mounts on the required schedule.
New 15" gun BB could be built at VA Tyne in an optimistic 36 months subject to the above caveats. But that depended on the H&W gun factory on the Clyde having the gun pits reinstated before any work on refurbishing the old turrets from Courageous & Glorious could begin.

A maximum programme could include
1 or 2 carriers
7-9 Dido/Colony class cruisers
2 depot ships
2 fast minelayers
2 fleet destroyer flotillas (16 ships) of K class or possibly a new class
4 Hunts
4 Black Swans
The position re subs was unknown at that time.
And there was also a new Royal Yacht in the mix!!!

On 15 Aug 1939 Sir Stanley Goodall noted in his diary that the Controller of the Navy wanted:
4 BB
2 carriers
4 Heavy 8" cruisers
6 Small cruisers
PER YEAR!!!

I've already talked in this and earlier posts about what happened on the outbreak of WW2 so won't repeat it here. But in the latter part of 1939 there is a huge amount of chopping and changing, plans made, plans changed. Even ships already building or planned were being affected with completion dates pushed back.

So in Jan 1940 the 1940 Programme now looked like this as a plan only:-
2 Lion class
New 15" gun BB
2 carriers (a new assessment was that the fleet now needed a total of 14/15)
5 Belfast type cruisers
5 Dido class cruisers

Of that little lot the only survivors as actual orders were the 15" BB in the shape of Vanguard and 1 carrier, tentatively named Irresistible, intended as a modified Implacable. Space for the carrier in the Programme could not be found and its design was further modified in the light of war experience and eventually ordered in March 1942. Then in late 1942 it was decided to build her as the third unit of the Audacious class (Audacious & Eagle had been ordered in May & Aug 1942 respectively). She was finally laid down as Ark Royal iv in May 1943. (In 1945 Eagle was cancelled and in 1946 Audacious became Eagle).

So the final 1940 Programme and its Supplementary partner included:-
4 flotillas (32 ships) of Intermediate destroyers
18 Black Swan class sloops
30 Hunts
9 T class subs
20 S class subs
22 U class subs
3 minelaying subs of a new class cancelled 7/41
30 Flower class corvettes (6 cancelled 1/41)
27 River class frigates (design began around 10-11/40)

Pre WW2 there was a need seen for a trade route carrier and the 1936 tentative building plan incuded 1 per year 1936 -1940. There were also plans drawn up for conversions of fast cargo liners to fill the role (these proved too valuable in other roles in WW2). But beyond some plans set out in Friedman's "British Carrier Aviation" book they came to nothing. RN plans for mid-1939 looking forward to war in either Europe or the Far East in 1942 show Hermes, Courageous & Glorious seemingly in the role (the latter pair with only 24 aircraft).

A 1938 a policy document set out the RN carrier requirement and it was revised in Jan 1940. The numbers of carriers required in each case was 14 but there was a change in emphasis. Figures are for 1938 and 1940:-

Home waters - 4 / 2 (minimum, or 3)
Med & Far East - 4 / 4
Trade routes - 5 / 7
Gunnery co-operation training - 1 / 1 (Argus)
Total - 14 / 14 (or 15)

And in Jan 1940 the carrier fleet consisted of:-

Argus (training carrier)
Furious
Eagle
Hermes
Glorious
Ark Royal
Building - 6 armoured carriers (3 expected in 1940, 2 in 1941 & 1 in 1942)

So at that stage the fleet was considered to be 2 short. Of course it would only have been 1 short but for the loss of Courageous. This may be how the 1940 Programme was originally being looked at. IIRC the next time this exercise was carried out it was 1942 and the number of carriers had reached huge numbers, leading to the large numbers of the Colossus / Majestic classes being ordered in 1942 as well as 3 Audacious class (2 light fleet carriers being deemed the equivalent of 1 fleet carrier). But that was with 3 years of war experience off Norway & in the Med.

Unicorn's intended role has been much misunderstood. She was designed as an aircraft maintenance ship ( a depot ship for aircraft if you like) with the ability to be used as a training carrier. She had much more in the way of workshop spaces than any normal carrier would require. But it was the shortage of carriers that caused her initial use in 1943 to be as an operational carrier, for which role she was not ideal (Seafire pilots on her at Salerno have described the experience of landing on her as like dropping off a cliff due to the poor airflow around the aft end of her flight deck). By the end of the year she had been refitted to fulfil her original role and sailed to the Indian Ocean to support Illustrious and her air group in the IO. AFAIK there were never any planned follow ons for her. When more aircraft maintenance ships were seen as being needed to support IO/Pacific operations in 1943, 2 of the Colossus class hulls were converted to emerge 1945/46 as Pioneer & Perseus.

By 1941 the trade protection threat had evolved from chasing raiders to protecting convoys in the Atlantic against submarines and aircraft. The soluion to that was then seen as the escort carrier. The first, Audacity, was converted 1-6/1941 and was lost before the year was out. 6 were ordered from the USA in 1941 under Lend Lease. And from there the fleet expanded.

Fascinating insight, many thanks for the info. I've read bits and pieces in various places re the cruisers, and it seems in 1940 there was capacity for 10 but none were orderd due to other priorities. Similarly for 1941 and 1942 there was a desire (capacity?) for 7 each, including at least 4 of the 8 inch designs. I have found in Conways some good sumaries as to the wartime programs, but frustratingly it seems to only include ships that were only laid down, not planned but cancelled. Do you have by any chance some short summary of the complete wartime programs including ships by class and including planned but never laid down ships?

It seems there was cruiser planning for 12 Minotaurs and 5 Neptunes as well as 8 inch CAs (Admiral class?). So in this ATL, we can assume that the cruisers OTL delayed by the war (Didos and Fijis) could probably be finished one year early at least, and the subsequent classes/hulls be brought forward a similar amount? Also, likely the Minotaurs might be a 12 gun design.

Anyway i'm probably harping too much about these blimming cruisers, though it's interesting to ponder what the japanese could have faced in 1944-45, also because it seems the british built an obscene amount of cruisers compared to Japan. Though the americans i guess were just as "obscene" in OTL.

Back to the bigger combatants, so we probably expect another 2 Implacables to be laid down in 1940-41 ready in 1943, and another 2 Implacables or perhaps Irresistibles in 1941-42 (ready 1944-45 at best). There will be probably 6 Lions building by 1942 plus Vanguard, though the war will almost certainly result in delaying/cancelling the last 2 Lions, as well as many of the 20 plus cruisers building under the ATL 1940, 1941 and 1942 programs, or on order.

So it seems in the all important CV matchup, at best RN would have 10 fleet carriers in 1942 (Ark, 3 Follies, 6 armoured), plus Eagle and Hermes with roughly 450-475 planes on board at best, faced with the 6 KB carriers, 2 Junyos, Ryujo, 2 Zuihos with something like 550 planes. The RN will only add another 4 Implacabels or Irresistibles by 1944-45, plus whatever emergency CVL would be ready under a 1942-43 wartime program. Still to me it seems the RN on it's own will have nothing like the USN crushing fleet carrier superiority in 1944-45, not to mention many tens of CVEs.

 

[MikeMeech]

My preferred scenario is there is a war in Europe as the butterflies get really out of control otherwise.
Lion class built or not built depending on how great a threat Germany and Italy are for instance. Development of the entire RAF depending on German/Italian threat as in what kind of bombers and how many?
Development of tanks?
Does Japan even seriously consider going to war ( or just escalating things in China) without Germany and Italy pinning down UK and French forces?

My six Lions can beat your 3 Yamato's in 1944

I have tried to outline (very sketchy) earlier. Things go pretty much as historical (maybe the British loose one less carrier to stupidity by May of 1940) and then things go a little bit worse for the Germans. Not a lot, maybe France lasts a few weeks longer? Maybe not. More French ships Join the Free French? French NA joins the Free French?
To me the important part would be kicking Italy out of NA in late winter or spring of 1941. No Greek adventure.
This reduces British losses of all kinds. May or may not open the Med to ship traffic?
It does give the British some combat experience.
It frees up a lot of equipment (and this is relative, the British built somewhere between 5-6000 Hurricanes by the end of 1941, NONE went to the Far East by Dec 7th 1941) to equip Commonwealth forces in Malaya, Burma, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia.

This is against the backdrop of the escalating embargos/trade sanctions that brought Japan to the attack stage.

Again, this is just my idea of what was plausible. Possible and probable may lie on either side.

Hi
Yes as soon as the "butterflies" turn up there are all sorts of problems. If the USA is not getting involved then tensions with Japan in the theatre are decreased, it was the USA pushing for increasing sanctions and the British and European powers trying to balance keeping on side with the USA (sanctions as far as the USA but no further). Without the USA this would not happen and Japan would be able to get resources from the DEI etc. (and also from the USA presumably as they are "not involved", although the USA appear to have no problem selling and licensing aviation technology to Japan in the 1930s, eg. from Douglas, Lockheed, North American and Hamilton Standard.) There is also no Burma road supply route to China or AVG, as the USA is not involved, so less tension between the UK and Japan there.
If there is no European War there will not be a war in South-East Asia as the Japanese were not stupid as they would have had a hostile USSR to the north who would not be engaged with the Germans and who were supporting the Chinese.
Also we know the British knew that they could not fight a maritime war alone against Germany, Italy and Japan (indeed the USN would not have been able to at the time either) they had spent the 1930s thinking about it, so the situation would have been worse for the British without the USA (with the caveat, as mentioned, that politically the situation may have improved with Japan without the USA involvement).
Then the problem arises what happens after Japan has defeated the European colonies? The Philippines are now basically surrounded by the Japanese who after getting rid of white European colonists for the Greater Asian Prosperity Sphere the next target would call for Philippine independence and for the white US colonial power to leave. Does the US give up its hold on the Philippines? Does it send the Pacific Fleet (which may well be defeated by the Japanese Fleet while it is on the way)? Does the USA, now without any 'friends' in the region suffer other consequences, eg. loss of the Panama Canal? Presumably the European Empires collapse totally after an even bigger defeat by the Japanese in the Far East? And so on. I shall stop before falling into the Black Hole of alternative history!

Mike

 

[mack8]

My preferred scenario is there is a war in Europe as the butterflies get really out of control otherwise.
Lion class built or not built depending on how great a threat Germany and Italy are for instance. Development of the entire RAF depending on German/Italian threat as in what kind of bombers and how many?
Development of tanks?
Does Japan even seriously consider going to war ( or just escalating things in China) without Germany and Italy pinning down UK and French forces?

My six Lions can beat your 3 Yamato's in 1944

I have tried to outline (very sketchy) earlier. Things go pretty much as historical (maybe the British loose one less carrier to stupidity by May of 1940) and then things go a little bit worse for the Germans. Not a lot, maybe France lasts a few weeks longer? Maybe not. More French ships Join the Free French? French NA joins the Free French?
To me the important part would be kicking Italy out of NA in late winter or spring of 1941. No Greek adventure.
This reduces British losses of all kinds. May or may not open the Med to ship traffic?
It does give the British some combat experience.
It frees up a lot of equipment (and this is relative, the British built somewhere between 5-6000 Hurricanes by the end of 1941, NONE went to the Far East by Dec 7th 1941) to equip Commonwealth forces in Malaya, Burma, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia.

This is against the backdrop of the escalating embargos/trade sanctions that brought Japan to the attack stage.

Again, this is just my idea of what was plausible. Possible and probable may lie on either side.

edit> I will say that the whole idea takes a suspension of disbelieve that the US won't get involved after they lead the trade sanctions and embargos and were building up Army and Air force assets in the Philippines and the Philippines occupying a roughly 1000 mile by 1000 miles area right in the middle of the Japanese supply lines/operational area. I have no explanation for that and simply accept it as given in order to get British Commonwealth vs Japan scenario off the ground.

Well, it's your scenario, but imo it's much more unfavourable to the british than even the OTL situation, because they will fight against ALL the IJN (since the US is no part of this war) while still being involved in an european war. Even if the european war goes better, imo there is no way they'll have 6 Lions ready in 1944, look at the building program disruption caused by just entering the war 1939, BEFORE France was defeated and the situation looked far grimmer.

You can have a France fights on scenario, which means they don't surrender, a significant portion of their land forces are evacuated to North Africa and continue fighting from there, and their navy still fights alongside RN, thus reducing significantly the pressure on RN, which may mean more ships to FE, but like i said this is more than nullified by having to fight against ALL IJN. And even if France still fight, i still think there will be a protracted NA campaign, as the germans will send help to the italians against the french/british forces. However, perhaps reinforcements can be flown directly from Tunisia to Malta, thus reducing the need for all those carrier ferrying aircraft missions, thus reducing losses/damage, though they still need protected convoys for other supplies.

At best, if the war goes a bit better if they'll have couple of Lions, Vanguard and the 2 Implacables ready in 1943-44, and some of the delayed cruisers ready a bit earlier. But there will still be a battle of the Atlantic even if France still fights, causing many shipping losses and the need for escorts, there will still be a protracted NA campaign, and the need to help USSR. And since in our scenario the US isn't involved, what are they doing, just sitting on the sidelines, or just involved in Europe gainst the germans in 1942?

So to create a reasonable believable scenario for a near as plausible one-on-one IJN vs RN, we have to acount for US/Phillipines in a reasonable way, HOW Japan gets it's oil, and HOW to get RN only fighting in FE. My scenario which i probably mentioned earlier is France and UK do no DOW Germany in 1939, and in 1940 Hitler attack USSR then gets bogged down there, and then we have our FE war in 1941, i'm sure we can find a reasonable way to start one, maybe over Indochina, maybe something else. This means than indeed RN has not learned yet the war lessons, BUT they also not lost any ships, and they are building a lot more ships up to 1942 at least, and they could have sent a lot more troops and planes in the FE compared to OTL.

As to the oil for Japan, well i kinda doubt the DEI will still supply oil to Japan once a war starts, maybe we can go for the scenario of the manchurian oil, so Japan has at least as much oil as OTL. And the US, well this looks like a fight over colonies, so they might just sit and watch? Though the japanese will be nervous over the US troops in the Phillipines, but then the british also have to keep forces behind to keep an eye on the germans and italians (alongside the french). Or maybe we can go further in time and don't have Philippines as a US colony (but then what, it's independent, or japanese, or british, or split two or 3-ways etc.?) so they are not having anything to do with it.

 

[Shortround6]

Even if the US and Japan do not go to actual war we go back to the Historic reason that that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
It was to reduce/eliminate the avenue's for US action during the time of the Japanese take-over of Indo-China and the DEI.
If the US does not declare war the Japanese have to tie up a fair amount of assets guarding against such a move. Unless our "what if" Pixie dust magically erases the US Fleet and air assets in the Philippines
The British, Free French and Dutch have to keep an eye on Germany and fight the U-boat fight while beefing up the forces in Far East.
The Japanese have to keep some of their fleet (and carriers) in reserve in case the US joins the fight.
So neither force is going to be up to full strength.

It is about 3400 miles from Singapore to a little east of New Guinea.
About 4000 miles from the Andaman Sea to east of New Guinea.
It is about 1550 miles from Singapore to the Middle of Burma.

There wouldn't be a great climatic battle between to max size fleets.
There would be a crap load of small scale battles, just like what happened historically, with a cruiser squadron here and there and destroyer flotilla or two and perhaps 1-2 heavies.
Japanese would have an advantage in Aircraft Range. With the NA campaign ended the Allies might have an advantage in local numbers.
In land warfare the commonwealth would be better in numbers, maybe not a lot in actual troop numbers, (getting ready for to attack German) but more equipment and better ammo supply. Again not a wholesale transfer of NA assets (even if Italy sues for peace) but amount of stuff used up in combat over 6 months or more.

 

[Shortround6]

Even if the european war goes better, imo there is no way they'll have 6 Lions ready in 1944,

Sorry, that was joke to show how wild the "what If" could get.

I am trying to stick with the historical ship construction, at least for major units, otherwise things just get too unmanageable after 1942.

The big change point for me is the Greek campaign. 50,000 more men, 100 more tanks and the extra stuff (artillery and AA and aircraft) in NA either before or with only 1 German division landing and the British might have been able to push the Italians out of Libya.
Once you have kicked the Italians out (or captured them). they are not going to get back easily.
Different diplomacy with the French may have resulted in different results at Mers-el-Kébir and the Italians needing to reserve ships incase the French did join Britain.
You do need about 6 months (or more) to get stuff to the far east and actually use it and not have it sitting on the docks so there wasn't a lot of time to actually get on the curve and not behind it.

 

[Ovod]

How does the TBD Devastator compares with the Albacore? Judging by the speed figures shown the TBD is a fast aircraft compared to the Albacore! And recall the TBDs were simply slaughtered at Midway. And re british carrier aircraft combat radius (not range) , are there examples as to demonstrated maximum radius (and what those figures are) when operating from carriers? The Skuas might have done 300nm, but from a land base, not quite sure it will be the same from a carrier. Perhaps they were overloaded with fuel when operating from land?

One has to remember that all three torpedo bombers: Swordfish, albacore and TBD Devastator had a 3-member crew. I don't think there is much difference in the combat radius or range between the Swordfish and the TBD. However, the range of the Swordfish was often extended by removing one of the crew members and replacing him with an auxiliary fuel tank. The USN never saw fit to try to improve the range of the TBD in the same way.
The Blackburn Skuas which sank the cruiser Königsburg in 1940 were carrying 500 lb bombloads – not quite the same as carrying a 1700 lb torpedo.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well King George is a class, I really just mentioned it to note that the British had some modern battleships.

Okay. Like I said, given how detailed your listing was otherwise, I just thought it odd that that wasn't specified.

I mean, sometimes. It didn't seem to be a huge problem for the Japanese in most of their surface engagements, including against British ships although I think the big one with the British was in the day. The Japanese did very well during night surface actions, generally. I think I made that pretty clear already.

Right, I didn't say optics were useless; I simply pointed out that as a targeting system they're more vulnerable to environmental interference..

Kongos may be battlecruisers but they can kill battleships, and what happened to the Hiei at the first naval battle of Guadalcanal could have happened to any ship. The armor protects to a point but at very close range even the light AA guns can cause serious damage.

They'd have to get pretty lucky, I think.

I think you are grossly overestimating the size and power of the British fleet here, especially in terms of what they would likely have in the Pacific. I certainly don't have any problem understanding your claim, I just don't buy it. I think the RN will have a very hard time against the IJN in a surface battle, though I don't know that for sure and I'd love to see an accurate simulation of it done I'm sure I'd learn something.

Yes, and I hold a different opinion. I think it could go either way. Both navies were very skilled. Both sides had some technical edges. And for what the Brits might bring to the Pac, you'd have to equally wonder which ships the Japanese retain in home/mandated waters due to an unfriendly America.

What I do know is you are grossly oversimplifying the matchup here. SR is too a little, by focusing kind of exclusively on 1941, but he's close to reality.

That's nice. For my part, I think you're overlooking a lot of factors as well.

Well they did have a little fight in the IO. It did not go well for the British.

And that raid -- which is precisely what it was -- had no capacity for putting long-term pressure on British SLoCs. This is not a real answer to my point.

I don't know if you are biased or not, I have carefully gone through the details and for example, I wasn't sure of all the details when I looked them up (I was basically going by the operational history) but the numbers are pretty stark you seem to be rather casually dismissing the Japanese torpedoes here. I would not be so confident if I was in a warship at night, sailing toward their possible vicinity... Ever read Neptune's Inferno?

Indeed I have. And I don't dismiss the Type 93s, I only pointed out that they didn't always represent the silver bullet. Of course they can be lethal. They could also miss.

As for my state of bias, I struggle to take an equitable look at these historical discussions and consider all sides. I have already said I think it would be a close-run thing dependent upon when this war happens. That said, it's still possible that I'm biased. That's possible of anyone, after all.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The only RN carrier sunk in convoys to Malta was the older HMS Eagle. That went down to a submarine.
The only RN carrier sunk by air attack during the entire war was HMS Hermes.

The Eagle was sunk during Pedestal and the Indomitable was hit by two 500 kg bombs from Stukas and heavily damaged, forcing her to go back to the ship yard for a year. Point being, they didn't 'protect themselves' that well from even a motley assortment of largely antique land based aircraft. They would be doomed against the Kidō Butai

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The only RN carrier sunk in convoys to Malta was the older HMS Eagle. That went down to a submarine.
The only RN carrier sunk by air attack during the entire war was HMS Hermes.

Sunk and crippled, sorry. By modified airliners and stukas.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

RAF torpedo bombers.
Pre-war the Beaufort was intended to be the RAF's new torpedo bomber and it entered service from early 1940.

The Wellington became a stopgap TB in the Med from the very end of 1941 (first operations early 1942) due to a lack of Beauforts. These were conversions of bomber aircraft. The Mk.VIII for Coastal Command which appeared in both Leigh Light and TB versions didn't start to come off the production line until around March 1942.

The Hampden was also used as a stopgap TB with UK based squadrons due to a shortage of Beauforts from April 1942.

The requirement for a torpedo carrying Beaufighter as a successor to the Beaufort didn't arise until Dec 1941. A prototype was flying in May 1942 and it was Nov 1942 before the first started flying operationally.

Thanks for the timeline on that. I think Beaufort had some potential but the British had a lot of trouble with them in the Med (heavy casualties). The Aussies did much better with them in the Pacific when they had sufficient escort. So it could have been useful probably. Hampden was not really viable for combat, apparently.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

As for what might have beens, the RN sought information from Supermarine on 15 Dec 1939 for production of 50 Spitfires with folding wings. Supermarine responded on 2 Jan 1940 with a drawing of the Type 338 with folding wings and a Griffon engine. Then by various machinations that became a proposal for an initial 50 hooked Spitfires with folding wings. The whole project was cancelled at the end of March 1940 by no less a person than Churchill then First Lord of the Admiralty. (See Spitfire The History by Morgan & Shacklady)

Now, with no war in Europe maybe Churchill doesn't become First Lord (he was reppointed to the post on 3 Sept 1939 the day war was declared). Then what happens to the Griffon Spitfire with folding wings concept?

Interesting, but I think too speculative for the purposes of the thread. Too many 'butterflies' there to really be able to predict.

However, I would concede that a griffon engined Spitfire which was stable and strongly built (etc.) enough to operate on carriers, with folding wings no less, would have been a formidable carrier aircraft, especially assuming they could fit a decent amount of fuel in it.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The cancellations and restarts for the Seafire were ongoing due to different ministries and different ideas on requirements.
The Fulmar was thought at first to be the better option as it had good air time and the second seat would take pressure
off the pilot. Didn't work out perfectly as the opposition in the Med was land based with high performance.

The Battle of Britain was the next fly in the ointment. The RAF got priority of Spitfire production and R&D for the type.

From early 1942 build priority shifted again towards aircraft for bomber command.

By August 1942 it became obvious that a higher performing carrier fighter was needed. The supplies of Martlet's from
the U.S. were not as high as required due to the USN's needs in the Pacific so the Seafire finally got its chance.

The first versions were shoved into service far too soon with any possible changes to the under carriage etc not being
given any time.

War priorities can be a bloody nuisance sometimes.

One thing I have learned from all these discussions is that the Martlet and Wildcat variants that the British did get were always lagging in terms of features and always came fewer and later than needed. Same with Hellcats I think when they did finally become available, and Corsairs too.

 

[Shortround6]

They would be doomed against the Kidō Butai

How well would the Kido Butai fair against 300-400 land based aircraft?
Wiki, terrible source, corrections welcome.

• 285 bombers
• 304 fighters

Used against Pedestal.

The Japanese are trying to attack large Islands, not atolls. This is not a deep sea fight, it is a fight to get a number of small invasions ashore in areas hundreds of miles apart.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

One aircraft that conspicuously missing from the above is the TBD...




The USN statistical Digest gives the data for SBD carrier based bomb loads and max was 1000lb.

SBDs at Midway:

"The Hornet's dive bombing force comprised thirty-four SBD-3 Dauntlesses, apparently half of them armed with 500-lb. bombs and the rest with thousand-pounders. First to take off were fifteen SBDs from Scouting Eight led by Lt. Cdr. Walter F. Rodee. Next came the "Sea Hag," Cdr. Ring, and two wingmen from Bombing Eight, and finally the sixteen SBDs of Bombing Eight proper under Lt. Cdr. Robert R. Johnson...

Notice the part highlighted in red. Look back and read my earlier reply. In the early Pacific War US fleet carriers carried two types of SBD units - scout bombers and dive bombers. The scouts had different combat training including for evasion and air to air combat and, as I previously noted, carried the 500 lb bombs. Which they occasionally used to quite good effect, even when attacking in pairs all on their own, they hit ships.

The US Navy however changed this policy in 1942 and eliminated the scout units in favor of more fighters and more dedicated dive bombers, while relying more on the increasing numbers of Catalina flying boats and various other land based recon planes to spot enemy fleets.

The Enterprise's launch did not proceed as smoothly as that of her sister Hornet. At 0706, the fifteen SBDs of Earl Gallaher's Scouting Six began taking off. The initial six carried only a single 500-lb. bomb apiece, but the last nine added one 100-lb. bomb under each wing. Then came the group leader, Wade McClusky, and his pair of VS-6 wingmen. Finally Dick Best's fifteen VB-6 SBDs took off, laden by the far more potent thousand-pounders..." (First Team V.1)

All of the above SBDs were carrying the maximum bomb load possible given the wind and the position of the aircraft on the flight deck. All the SBD squadrons were tasked with a strike mission against the KB; none were tasked with recon.

Those were scout units

 

[Shortround6]

modified airliners

Ok, I'll bite, Just how many airliners did the Italians and Germans modify?
You know, strip the seats and lunch trolley out of and cut a hole in the floor for the bombsight and hatch out the top for a gun?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

How well would the Kido Butai fair against 300-400 land based aircraft?
Wiki, terrible source, corrections welcome.

• 285 bombers
• 304 fighters

Used against Pedestal.

The Japanese are trying to attack large Islands, not atolls. This is not a deep sea fight, it is a fight to get a number of small invasions ashore in areas hundreds of miles apart.

We went through this in great detail in another thread, which you participated in so should remember, and which I don't care to do again, but both the bomber and fighter forces were actually considerably less than that in terms of modern fighters and aircraft that actually went on strikes. Most of the much vaunted numbers (with claims even higher than the above) added up to flying boats (Z.506 etc.) and various Italian antiques most of which didn't even fly strikes during the battle. Most of the fighters were not also in range to make strikes during most of the battle and only flew, in relatively small numbers i.e. less than 10% of your figure above, on one day of the fight.

This is my quote from that thread:

"...instead of 72 badly outnumbered FAA fighters fending off an astonishing armada of 600 enemy planes, we actually see 245 British fighters (72 navy planes assisted by over 137 Spitfires and 36 Beaufighters) supported by about 100 modern bombers and recon planes, against ~75 front line Axis fighters and 182 modern bombers plus a mish-mash of mostly obsolete types. Some very obsolete."

I broke down all of the actual raids of Pedestal in this post here. As you can see, the largest raids were from 30-40 bombers with no escorts. Most of the raids were actually more like 10-20 bombers or less, again usually with no escort. The largest escort on any particular raid was by 21 Bf 109s. Second largest was 16 Bf 109s.

By comparison, in the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, the Japanese had 177 navy strike aircraft including 78 x A6M3s. Both sides also had some land based fighters and bombers. In the Battle of Santa Cruz Islands the Japanese had 245 carrier aircraft (including 101 x A6M3) plus 117 more aircraft on Rabaul, including 25 G4M and 15 more A6M. The US had 161 carrier planes and 71 aircraft on Guadalcanal.

It is a delusional fantasy that this in any way compares with the fighting in the Pacific.