Somewhat related here's a video discussing the development of RN naval aviation in the interwar years.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmZMNtxYLxE
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmZMNtxYLxE
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I believe that Ajax had Type 279 radar which was a surface/air surveillance radar early on in the war. Later on in 1942 she was refitted with a much larger suite of more modern radars.A lot of the radar depends on date and type.
British had radar in the summer of 1940 on some ships in the Med, Both the radar and the technique of using it changed.
Japanese Radar of 1942 was unlikely to be equal to British Radar of 1942. British Radar was not instantly upgraded to latest versions. Much like the US had "flag" ships with older generation radar than some of their escorts.
The British was the first navy to set up "plotting" tables/stations in the bridge area of some of their ships, this was in WW I. It was a way for commander to keep track of the movements of his own ships and the enemy's reported positions or bearings. This was especially useful at night well before radar. Just look at some of both the US and Japanese mistakes of identifying enemy ships as friendlies and vice versa. They would loose sight of a friendly and a number of minutes later pick up a ship in roughly the same direction and think it was the friendly reappearing. Plotting last known courses and speeds helps but does not eliminate such confusion. In a night battle it is too much for commander to keep it in his head.
This is part of the night battle "doctrine". Not saying the RN was perfect, but they had been thinking about night battles for over 20 years and practicing from them. There is practice and there is Practice. Conducting an annual night battle practice so they can check off a box on a form doesn't actually do much. Analyzing and changing things that go wrong does.
The Ajax did not have flashless propellent in the Fall of 1940, there is some debate about radar, she may have had air waring radar only. There was light fog/haze. Italians did not concentrate their forces (trying to "scout" at night limits options.) The Ajax got lucky, dodging (by luck or on purpose) numerous torpedoes from the 7 Italian ships involved, She sank two of the three torpedo boats (800 tons, three 3.9in guns, four 18in TT) and crippled the destroyer Artigliere (1850 tons, four 4.7in guns, six 21 in TT) latter sunk by the HMS York. Ranges at times got down to machine gun range. Ajax was operating without any support.
British ships fought many night actions across the North Sea and Channel and many actions in the Med. Not always successful but they probably had more experience than any other navy by the end of 1941.
By 1943-44 some British ships had 3-4 different radar sets doing different jobs. A Japanese ship with 1-2 radar sets is still behind.
Maybe the Japanese in 1941-42 were close in many aspects to the British (radar excepted and that is a big one) but the RN was a long way ahead of the USN in 1942 and 43. Not just in the radar it self but in how to use it (like plotting all available radar contacts at all times to help sort out new from existing) and how to maneuver formations.
Again radar is not infallible or all seeing/all knowing but a number of the early USN disasters might not have occurred to the British. The HMAS Hobart At the Battle of Savo with the transports (miles away form the action) had picked up the Japanese attackers before they opened fire as an indication of the difference between British radar and American radar at the time. One of the 8in gun Australian cruisers also had a better idea of what was going on but the US practice of putting the force commander on the most prestigious ship instead of the one with the best sensors and command facilities played a big part in the outcome.
You maybe correct. I have seen two different accounts and they say different things. I also have no idea how well the Type 279 worked in surface mode in 1940 (or even if the Type 279 on the Ajax was working correctly. Apparently the closest Italian ship got about 2,000 meters away before it opened fire. I don't know if that was deliberate by the Ajax (sounds very very risky indeed if it was true).I believe that Ajax had Type 279 radar which was a surface/air surveillance radar early on in the war. Later on in 1942 she was refitted with a much larger suite of more modern radars.
They did, no question, it is just that other people had thought using aircraft about it and some had practiced it, at least in peace time.I mentioned the Japanese seaplanes and the star shells because the IJN used both in some battles in the war against the USN
An advantage for the British is that they were using radar and coming up with doctrines to use it (or not use it at times). All of which takes time for another navy, Just fitting radar does not the mean the training and doctrine are ready to go. The US was fitting radar in the summer/fall of 1942, Their training/doctrine/procedures still took a number of months to work out.
Again I believe that its where you draw the line. If we take mid 1942 the RN would be far ahead of the USN. They had more radar, better radar and three years of war experience to draw on.The idea that the RN was more advanced or less likely to make mistakes than the USN is ludicrous. They had some advantages, and clearly some disadvantages.
Evidence for this and not feelings?The idea that the RN was more advanced or less likely to make mistakes than the USN is ludicrous.
Introduction of radars to the USN:-Training and doctrine also had to be adjusted, sometimes more than just a little bit, once they had actually been tested against an uncooperative enemy.
It was also much easier to make a radar receiver (which can detect the location of the emitter, as well as the presence of radar emissions).
The idea that the RN was more advanced or less likely to make mistakes than the USN is ludicrous. They had some advantages, and clearly some disadvantages.
Hi EwenS, the only exception I know of is HMS Repulse carrying radar sets to the Far EastI almost get the impression from some of the above posts that some think radar appeared British fleet wide almost instantaneously! It didn't. It was a process that took from late 1938 to mid-1943. How quickly older ships got it depended on many factors including when they returned to the UK for refit (very few ships received British radars in overseas dockyards) and the theatres they were operating in. ".
I'd forgotten about that. The one I was thinking about was Warspite at the end of 1941 at Puget Sound NY on the US west coast where a fair bit of the work was carried out by the crew. It doesn't seem to have been a very successful installation given the complaints about her radars in the IO in mid-1942!Hi EwenS, the only exception I know of is HMS Repulse carrying radar sets to the Far East
August 1941
30th – At 1000 hours REPULSE, SHEFFIELD and destroyers LIGHTNING, BADSWORTH and VIVACIOUS arrived at Greenock.
Whilst at Greenock REPULSE embarked 6 type 286P, air warning, radar sets. One of the sets was fitted in REPULSE on the passage to Freetown by the ships staff. The other 5 sets were for the aircraft carrier HERMES and other ships in the Indian Ocean.
See HMS Repulse, British battlecruiser, WW2
HMS Hermes was at Durban undergoing a refit, so her radar must have been installed there, but of the other radar sets, I suspect they went to Singapore.
The RN could certainly make mistakes, they would be less likely to make the same mistake as the US made, in part because the RN had already made some them once.I wasn't referring to radar, but in general.
The RN could certainly make mistakes, they would be less likely to make the same mistake as the US made, in part because the RN had already made some them once.
No Navy (Or other armed force) was immune from making mistakes.
The RN had not only been practicing night combat more in peace time, all of their cruisers had torpedoes (at least as built) . Granted in smaller numbers than the Japanese, but torpedo attack and defense was part and parcel of an RN cruiser captain's (or squadron commander's) thinking and not something to be shuffled off to destroyer captain/commanders to think about. The only US cruisers that had torpedoes were the Omaha class
View attachment 762045
Which, with only a few exceptions, were kept well away from any dangerous areas.
The Pensacola and North Hamptons had them as built but they were taken away, maybe about the time the four 5in AA guns were changed to eight guns.
Next US cruisers with torpedoes were the Atlanta's.
Torpedoes were not a real important part of USN cruiser doctrine.
The RN did suffer in other ways. They lead the way in AA gunnery for most of the 1920s and 30s. This lead them to think that the AA guns were the solution instead of using violent maneuvering (which throw off the guns) as a primary defense. Many commanders could not change thinking in the few years it took for aircraft to change from nuisance to serious threat.
Now please note that the Japanese sort of depended on their own aircraft for AA defense, how much of this was actually planning or how much was being behind the British in regards to AA guns/equipment/thinking I don't know, but Japanese ships without air cover did not fair well at all. The Japanese navy did not want to be anywhere near Guadalcanal in daylight when the Cactus Air force could reach them.
from Wiki, The CAF reached its peak of combat power on 12 November with 47 fighters, 23 tactical bombers, and 12 medium bombers.[56]
Which is not much different than a large carrier.
Things did get a lot better by the end of Dec 1942 with 161 aircraft.
But Japanese naval AA truly sucked, for the entire war, only a few occasional ships were excepted (12 Akitsuki destroyers spread over 3 years?) . British Naval AA ranged from truly sucking to mediocre in the early years (into 1942) and some ships got better. As noted in another thread, British don't really get proximity fuses until just about 1944. In this scenario they may never show up ?
The Japanese 3.9in guns on the Akitsuki class were roughly comparable to the British 4in AA guns, similar rate of fire, Japanese gun had higher velocity but about 83% of the shell weight.
We are getting into planned/wanted and what they got. Two different things.Each force had both advantages and disadvantages. Pre-war planning varied a lot in how well it survived 'contact with the enemy'. Inevitably there needed to be serious adjustments. That's how the FAA ended up starting the war with Sea Gladiatior, Swordfish, Fulmar, Skua, and (as an emergency adjustment) Sea Hurricane. Pre-war planning dictated that these (and AA) would be sufficient to fight the naval war. Reality showed otherwise.