Rn vs IJN

[Admiral Beez]

Longer than it would take to put a folding wing on a Hurricane?

It is noteworthy that from the Nimrod of 1931, Camm's first carrier fighter, it took almost a quarter century before Hawker would field a folding wing fighter, and that the postwar Sea Fury.

To be fair, there was the folding wing Hawker Osprey.

Hawker Osprey

www.baesystems.com

 

[Shortround6]

Once someone in the fleet knows where the enemy is, they can help direct the torpedo launch.

No, they can't.

Late WW I or early 20s they were using these for battleship actions.

to indicate to neighboring ships the distance to the enemy. These were paired with defection scales painted on the turrets.

to at least get the ship/s that can't see the target pointed somewhere close. Reduce response time.

Being able to talk by radio to the ships around you was a very modern innovation in WW II.
Early WW II they needed Morse code to communicate ship to ship. Trying to transmit firing solutions from ship to ship meant the data was out of date when it finally got to the gun directors.
And remember that you did NOT want to be putting out radio transmissions announcing to the enemy your location (bearing) and intentions before you fired at him.

A few times large ships did fire blind, but large ships had 80 to 150 shells per gun. Most ships were lucky to have two shots per torpedo tube (and yes many of those were Japanese) so firing blind in the general direction of the enemy was only going to be done in very rare circumstances.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Indeed. But the Fulmar has mass and heavy armament. The RN has radar that can help the Fulmars remain at high altitude and then dive upon the Zeros. That's their only chance really.

Here's ChatGtp. Ai seems to assume that all Fulmars carry a rear gunner, which is fact was a rarity. I've bolded in Red below where I think ChatGpt may be optimistic.

What are the best tactics for the Fairey Fulmar to beat the A6M Zero?

The Fairey Fulmar versus the A6M Zero, huh? That's a matchup from the history books! The Fulmar was a sturdy but not-so-agile British carrier-based fighter, and the Zero was a nimble and highly maneuverable Japanese aircraft. To beat the Zero in a Fulmar, you'd have to use your strengths and exploit the Zero's weaknesses.

1. Altitude Advantage: The Fulmar wasn't the most agile, but it had decent speed and climb rate. Try to gain altitude before engaging the Zero. Boom-and-zoom tactics could work well, where you dive in, take your shots, and then zoom back up before the Zero can turn on you.
2. Teamwork: If possible, engage Zeros in pairs or groups. The Fulmar's rear gunner could provide additional firepower and cover your six while you make attack runs.
3. Hit and Run: The Zero excelled in dogfights, but it had a weakness in terms of durability. Hit the Zero with quick, accurate bursts of fire, and then use your speed to disengage before it can turn the tables.
4. Avoid Turning Battles: The Zero's strength was in its agility and turning ability. Don't get into prolonged turning engagements; use your speed and try to keep the fight on your terms.
5. Know Your Limits: The Fulmar wasn't as nimble, so trying to out-turn a Zero is generally a bad idea. Stay disciplined and stick to hit-and-run tactics.

Remember, tactics can vary depending on the specific conditions of the engagement, so adapt as needed. Good luck, ace!

AI is no source. Quoting it is no different than quoting Wikipedia without scanning the sources. About as useless as a pinholed condom, given that we cannot review the sources that this or that AI is referencing.

 

[Shortround6]

On a slightly more serious note, one has to admire the British approach to near insurmountable odds with deadpan humour and a stiff upper lip.

British admiral Cunningham said at Crete that it took 3 years to build a ship, it took 300 years to build a tradition.
The RN never left the army behind as long as they could get them aboard the ships. One reason they lost so many cruisers and destroyers off Crete.

 

[RCAFson]

Longer than it would take to put a folding wing on a Hurricane?

RN carriers were capable of carrying fixed wing Hurricanes as a deck park (Victorious during Pedestal), especially if paired with another carrier with larger lifts for quick maintenance (Eagle, G.C.F. and Indomitable).

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

British admiral Cunningham said at Crete that it took 3 years to build a ship, it took 300 years to build a tradition.

One of the best quotes in naval history, and a big reason why I like the guy. He had his head on straight. There's also his message at the end of Tunis: Sink, burn and destroy. Let nothing pass.

This is a man who understands war.

 

[RCAFson]

Indeed. But the Fulmar has mass and heavy armament. The RN has radar that can help the Fulmars remain at high altitude and then dive upon the Zeros. That's their only chance really.

Here's ChatGtp. Ai seems to assume that all Fulmars carry a rear gunner, which is fact was a rarity. I've bolded in Red below where I think ChatGpt may be optimistic.

What are the best tactics for the Fairey Fulmar to beat the A6M Zero?

The Fairey Fulmar versus the A6M Zero, huh? That's a matchup from the history books! The Fulmar was a sturdy but not-so-agile British carrier-based fighter, and the Zero was a nimble and highly maneuverable Japanese aircraft. To beat the Zero in a Fulmar, you'd have to use your strengths and exploit the Zero's weaknesses.

1. Altitude Advantage: The Fulmar wasn't the most agile, but it had decent speed and climb rate. Try to gain altitude before engaging the Zero. Boom-and-zoom tactics could work well, where you dive in, take your shots, and then zoom back up before the Zero can turn on you.
2. Teamwork: If possible, engage Zeros in pairs or groups. The Fulmar's rear gunner could provide additional firepower and cover your six while you make attack runs.
3. Hit and Run: The Zero excelled in dogfights, but it had a weakness in terms of durability. Hit the Zero with quick, accurate bursts of fire, and then use your speed to disengage before it can turn the tables.
4. Avoid Turning Battles: The Zero's strength was in its agility and turning ability. Don't get into prolonged turning engagements; use your speed and try to keep the fight on your terms.
5. Know Your Limits: The Fulmar wasn't as nimble, so trying to out-turn a Zero is generally a bad idea. Stay disciplined and stick to hit-and-run tactics.

Remember, tactics can vary depending on the specific conditions of the engagement, so adapt as needed. Good luck, ace!

We all know that the ~8000lb F4F-4 was slaughtered by the 5500lb Zero, so heavy fighters had no chance against the Zero...Not!

 

[Greg Boeser]

AI is no source. Quoting it is no different than quoting Wikipedia without scanning the sources. About as useless as a pinholed condom, given that we cannot review the sources that this or that AI is referencing.

Artificial intelligence should really be called simulated intelligence.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Artificial intelligence should really be called simulated intelligence.

Mazactly. And it's sad to say, many humans run on simulated intelligence as well.

 

[Admiral Beez]

British admiral Cunningham said at Crete that it took 3 years to build a ship, it took 300 years to build a tradition.

Nowadays it takes Britain six years to build a Type 45 destroyer. I'm not sure what to think about the tradition. Jackie Fisher, whose revolutionary battleship HMS Dreadnought was completed in about a year (laid down Oct 1905, commissioned Dec 1906) must be turning in his grave at the decline of the RN.

Edit - it took twelve years for postwar Britain from keel laying to commissioning for HMS Ark Royal (R09), so I suppose six years for a destroyer is about on par.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

We all know that the ~8000lb F4F-4 was slaughtered by the 5500lb Zero, so heavy fighters had no chance against the Zero...Not!

How many Fulmars on RN carriers, compared to how many Zeroes on IJN carriers? 12 vs 18 or 27?

Fulmars might manage under good tactical circumstances, but like the Wildcat, when caught out of sorts they might be easy meat ... and carry one more aviator down with it as well. Hope the fighter directors can vector the few Fulmars airborne efficiently.

 

[Alan Stevens]

I never said they were winning overall. They were winning most of the night fighting. The list of warships at the bottom of iron bottom sound is mostly American.

Ironbottom Sound - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Each side has 24 warships at the bottom of Ironbottom Sound.

The chief problem for the IJN is that they could ill afford to lose so many ships, given their limited shipbuilding capacity.

 

[Shortround6]

Nowadays it takes Britain six years to build a Type 45 destroyer. I'm not sure what to think about the tradition. Jackie Fisher, whose revolutionary battleship HMS Dreadnought was completed in about a year (laid down Oct 1905, commissioned Dec 1906) must be turning in his grave at the decline of the RN.

Edit - it took twelve years for postwar Britain from keel laying to commissioning for HMS Ark Royal (R09), so I suppose six years for a destroyer is about on par.

You might want to look up the Lord Nelson class of Pre-Dreadnoughts to see how Fisher pulled off the 1 year building time. Also helped to pile up a few thoussand tons of materiel next to the building slip before construction officially started

 

[don4331]

IJN long lance torpedoes have a wander left/right of 1km @ 32km range - not exactly the most accurate weapon (goes up to 1.5km at the 40km max range)

They are fine when launched en mass against a long line of ships sailing in line - even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut - but too expensive to use on regular basis. You need to be within 5km to regularly hit a single battleship sized target. Which isn't really different from RN torpedoes.

As both UK and Japan are island nations, neither is going to be practicing USW so SS effectiveness is going to be low (on par with IJN historic)

 

[WARSPITER]

IJN long lance torpedoes have a wander left/right of 1km @ 32km range - not exactly the most accurate weapon (goes up to 1.5km at the 40km max range)

They are fine when launched en mass against a long line of ships sailing in line - even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut - but too expensive to use on regular basis. You need to be within 5km to regularly hit a single battleship sized target. Which isn't really different from RN torpedoes.

As both UK and Japan are island nations, neither is going to be practicing USW so SS effectiveness is going to be low (on par with IJN historic)

Bingo !!

 

[Shortround6]

going back to "kit" the British and Japanese have a real disparity in light cruisers.

They both have a bunch of WW I left overs (although the Japanese built many of theirs in the 20s.)
British built a bunch of 6in armed cruisers (22 before 1940) after they build their quota of 8in cruisers, Japanese build 4 and then swap the turrets to twin 8in leaving them with NO light cruisers with 6in guns that use turrets/enclosed gun houses until 1942.

A lot depends on the British war losses in this hypothetical but the Japanese are at a real disadvantage in in the cruiser catagory. Unlike the Americans, all British cruisers have at least some torpedoes early in the war so again, the British are not a plug in replacement for the Americans. Different weapons, different doctrine, different tactics.

BTW just about all British cruisers newer than the E class (1921-22) have four twin 4in AA guns by the time WW II starts. Only the Japanese heavy cruisers have four twin heavy AA guns. (slow firing 5in). All of their light cruisers had crap for heavy AA. Kind of even things up a bit for the British, won't stop the IJN aircraft but the British have better AA to go against the Japanese planes while the Japanese have crap AA to go against the British aircraft. Both are worse than American AA even before proximity fuses.

 

[Glider]

Its also worth remembering that a good number of the early RN light cruisers were being rearmed as AA cruisers with multiple 4in AA guns and modern LAA. A much better use for them than trying to pretend that they could still operate on the front line going toe to toe with other warships. In the Pacific where aircraft were so important this would only have increased their value.
In this role they performed well. IIRC, the RN vessel that was credited with the most aircraft kills during the war, was one of those converted light cruisers.

 

[Glider]

How many Fulmars on RN carriers, compared to how many Zeroes on IJN carriers? 12 vs 18 or 27?

Fulmars might manage under good tactical circumstances, but like the Wildcat, when caught out of sorts they might be easy meat ... and carry one more aviator down with it as well. Hope the fighter directors can vector the few Fulmars airborne efficiently.

A personal view I admit is that anyone who thinks that a Fulmar can even think of going up against a Zero, in combat is smoking something. Its worth pointing out that the RN preferred the Buffalo to the Fulmar.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

We all know that the ~8000lb F4F-4 was slaughtered by the 5500lb Zero, so heavy fighters had no chance against the Zero...Not!

Well we know the Fulmar had a dismal record against the A6M, (albeit, without a large data set) and that it was 40-80 mph slower than an F4F, depending on the versions of each. So there's that.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Longer than it would take to put a folding wing on a Hurricane?

Hurricane has half the range and endurance of a Fulmar (and I mean the real world, two seat Fulmar)