Set a Ceylon trap for Nagumo, March 1942

[RCAFson]

So the bombing of Darwin was not the responsibility of the RN to protect the borders of Australia? Help me out here.

The RN suffered major losses trying to contain the IJN/IJA, and prevent them from reaching Indonesia, where they could pose a threat to Australia. However, after that the Allies divided the world into theatres of operation and it was the RAAF and USAAF that were nominally responsible for the air defence of Australia. As I stated Allied intel knew the general intentions of the IJN/IJA well in advance, and thus the RN was not ordered into Australian waters in 1942.

In 1942 RAF fighter squadrons were ordered to Darwin to help defeat the IJN/IJA aerial attacks.

 

[RCAFson]

Looks like HMS Repulse's Dec 1941 run to Darwin was as close as Australia got to have any heavy RN units since the February 1924 Sydney visit by HMS Hood and Repulse. It's too bad that the entirety of Force Z wasn't at Darwin when the shooting started, as they would have likely have been more diligently employed, including waiting for a carrier (Hermes or Indomitable) to arrive.

HMS Repulse, British battlecruiser, WW2
5th – REPULSE escorted by the destroyers TENEDOS and HMAS VAMPIRE sailed from Singapore for Darwin for a 'showing the flag' visit to Australia.
6th – At 1330 hours en route to Darwin, REPULSE and her escort were recalled to Singapore.

In Feb 1942, HMS Hermes was ordered to Freemantle where the Allies had a regional command centre, but was recalled to Ceylon to join Sommerville's eastern fleet.

Ramilles operated in New Zealand and Australian waters in 1939/40, and Warspite was conducting gunnery exercises whilst briefly based at Sydney NSW, in Feb 1942. The IJN was convinced that she was part of ABDA and Coral Sea operations.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Ramilles operated in New Zealand and Australian waters in 1939/40, and Warspite was conducting gunnery exercises whilst briefly based at Sydney NSW, in Feb 1942. The IJN was convinced that she was part of ABDA and Coral Sea operations.

That would have been something, Warspite, probably the luckiest dreadnought ever to serve in the RN (hit 15 times at Jutland, first aircraft to sink a U-boat in the war, scored a 24 km (26,000 yd) hit at Calabria and survived a direct hit, near miss by Fritz X guided bombs and broke away on her way to the breakers), against Nagato or one of the 14" armed IJN ships. If ever there was a big gun ship that deserved to be preserved alongside Nelson's Victory it was Warspite.

 

[Freebird]

So the bombing of Darwin was not the responsibility of the RN to protect the borders of Australia? Help me out here.

Lord no, never send carriers to defend when you have a land base within range.
(Land based airfields can't be sunk)

Had the Japanese actually decided to attempt a landing in Northern Australia there would likely be a battleship squadron (with escorts) to oppose, but bringing carriers within close range to Darwin makes no sense.

The RN are handicapped by the fact that the expected modern fleet fighter (Firefly) and fleet interceptor (Firebrand) are delayed or cancelled.
Better to just send Spitfires, Hurricanes and P-40s to defend Australia.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Lord no, never send carriers to defend when you have a land base within range.

Bringing back on topic.... that's why I want the Ceylon trap to be mostly an RAF affair. Sommerville can take the sloppy seconds.

 

[Shortround6]

As far as Australia being self defending in 1940-41 goes

Population of Tokyo-Yokohama in 1940................12,740,000
Population of Japan in 1940...................................... 73,114,308
Population of Australia in 1940...................................7,077,586

Were the Japanese using all of their strength against Australia ?......No

Could the Australians have had a better defense?..........................Yes

Would it have made much difference?

Population of the UK in 1941....................................48,216,000

Granted Japan was a somewhat poorer nation but the disparity in size of population means Australia would never be able to defend itself against the Japanese without help and the addition of a few destroyers or a light cruiser or a few dozen airplanes was not going to change that.

See this Wiki page for information on the Wirraway. CAC Wirraway - Wikipedia

If the Australians had started earlier what would they have had?
3-4 dozen Hawker Harts or Harts with radial engines?
Perhaps a "factory" that could build 3-6 Harts per month could have been modified to build the N/A-16 or another plane somewhat faster than was done but you still aren't going to get Spitfires by the score in 1941/42.

I am in no way trying to degrade Australia's contribution to the allied efforts in WW II. Australia punched way above her weight. But her weight was limited.

 

[The Basket]

The Eastern fleet was there to protect Ceylon and not Australia.

So....Warspite and the R class were slow by standards of 1942 and had no chance of chasing anything in the Kriegsmarine. So putting them in the Indian Ocean is fair enough.

We talk about loss of Singapore as been a disaster. Not really. It never endangered the existence of the UK.

Loss of the Mediterranean or loss in the U boat war would have been far worse. So I would not put my eggs in one less important secondary basket against what could be a superior opponent.

 

[Kevin J]

The Eastern fleet was there to protect Ceylon and not Australia.

So....Warspite and the R class were slow by standards of 1942 and had no chance of chasing anything in the Kriegsmarine. So putting them in the Indian Ocean is fair enough.

We talk about loss of Singapore as been a disaster. Not really. It never endangered the existence of the UK.

Loss of the Mediterranean or loss in the U boat war would have been far worse. So I would not put my eggs in one less important secondary basket against what could be a superior opponent.

From the perspective of credibility, it is disastrous. The Empire was like a protection racket as well as a free trade zone. Not being able to protect them means they'll go for independence. Insurrections followed post-war in French Vietnam, Dutch Indonesia and British Malaya. Repercussions followed in British Kenya. Wars that lasted for 30 years. Australia and New Zealand turned to America for protection. That's why Australia always sides with America immediately.

 

[The Basket]

Yes.

UK and other allied powers like the Dutch and French were seen as weak and vulnerable and lost all their colonies.

End of the day UK was at war with 3 navies in 3 scenarios in 3 different theatres of war.

The RN had seen Japan as enemy No1 before so had the enemy only been Japan then yeah....send the lot and with the Dutch and French and our dominions then we would have kicked the IJN back to Tokyo. Sorted.

The fall of Gibraltar or Suez would have been far more damaging.

A war of attrition is a better bet than a one off winner takes all rumble.

It's ok if you win but it sucks if you lose.

 

[Kevin J]

Yes.

UK and other allied powers like the Dutch and French were seen as weak and vulnerable and lost all their colonies.

End of the day UK was at war with 3 navies in 3 scenarios in 3 different theatres of war.

The RN had seen Japan as enemy No1 before so had the enemy only been Japan then yeah....send the lot and with the Dutch and French and our dominions then we would have kicked the IJN back to Tokyo. Sorted.

The fall of Gibraltar or Suez would have been far more damaging.

A war of attrition is a better bet than a one off winner takes all rumble.

It's ok if you win but it sucks if you lose.

Yes, Atlantic & Arctic Oceans, Mediterranean & Red Seas and the Indo-Pacific theatres. the Brits can't win.

 

[The Basket]

?

You build a world empire with multiple commitment and the when it all falls down you don't have the capacity or capabilities to save it.

Sometimes your eyes are bigger than your belly.

 

[Admiral Beez]

We talk about loss of Singapore as been a disaster. Not really. It never endangered the existence of the UK.

That's like saying the loss at Yorktown and the entirety of the 13 colonies wasn't a disaster because the existence of the UK wasn't in question.

The fall of Malaya and Singapore is the worst defeat in the history of Britain. With over a hundred and forty-five thousand troops captured or killed, equal to the number of British troops evacuated from Dunkirk and the loss of the Empire's newly finished Far East bastion, thus enabling the Japanese to then invade Burma, seize the DEI, finish off the Phillipies and begin to threaten Australia, India. etc. I'd call it a disaster.

By your book if the inhabitants of the British Isles aren't invaded, there's no disaster. So, no disasters since Hastings in 1066? That's a very good, nearly one thousand year run of not one military disaster.

 

[Kevin J]

?

You build a world empire with multiple commitment and the when it all falls down you don't have the capacity or capabilities to save it.

Sometimes your eyes are bigger than your belly.

The British Empire is dead, long live the American Empire.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Deleted my post, was getting off topic and I hate a threadjacking

 

[swampyankee]

As far as Australia being self defending in 1940-41 goes

Population of Tokyo-Yokohama in 1940................12,740,000
Population of Japan in 1940...................................... 73,114,308
Population of Australia in 1940...................................7,077,586

Were the Japanese using all of their strength against Australia ?......No

Could the Australians have had a better defense?..........................Yes

Would it have made much difference?

Population of the UK in 1941....................................48,216,000

Granted Japan was a somewhat poorer nation but the disparity in size of population means Australia would never be able to defend itself against the Japanese without help and the addition of a few destroyers or a light cruiser or a few dozen airplanes was not going to change that.

See this Wiki page for information on the Wirraway. CAC Wirraway - Wikipedia

If the Australians had started earlier what would they have had?
3-4 dozen Hawker Harts or Harts with radial engines?
Perhaps a "factory" that could build 3-6 Harts per month could have been modified to build the N/A-16 or another plane somewhat faster than was done but you still aren't going to get Spitfires by the score in 1941/42.

I am in no way trying to degrade Australia's contribution to the allied efforts in WW II. Australia punched way above her weight. But her weight was limited.

I wasn't thinking of a completely self-sufficient industrial base; globalization wasn't invented in the 1980s. What I was talking about was generalized industrial development, such as the ability to produce complete cars and trucks (the first completely Australian car wasn't produced until 1948), rails and rolling stock, coastal trading vessels, general products of light industry, and general aviation and light commercial aircraft. For the defense industry, small arms and ammunition for them.

Australia isn't the only dominion I was referring to, either. I was including India, South Africa*, and the African colonies. Just for the sake of argument: how would the CBI campaign have been affected had India the same industrial production as Clydeside? Not the entire UK, just Clydeside.


You also missed a question: Could Japan have used its full strength against Australia? The answer is clearly "No." Much of its strength (and the bulk of its army) was tied up in China. To a great extent, the advance of Japan in much of the Pacific, the DEI, and South and Southeast Asia was into an area that was poorly defended, because of lack of resources (DEI, Portuguese territories), more urgent priorities elsewhere (UK, likely the US), and possible inattention or poor planning on the part of local military leaders(Malaya, Philippines).
---
* India wasn't alone in having significant conflict with London. There were some South Africans -- enough to worry about -- who would have preferred alliance with Berlin to London. I wonder how much effort the South African government had to expend on internal security operations. I'm sure it was much greater than that in any other Commonwealth country except India, which had a hugely larger population.

 

[The Basket]

That's like saying the loss at Yorktown and the entirety of the 13 colonies wasn't a disaster because the existence of the UK wasn't in question.

By your book if the inhabitants of the British Isles aren't invaded, there's no disaster. So, no disasters since Hastings in 1066? That's a very good, nearly one thousand year run of not one military disaster.

Look at Gallipoli....total disaster of the first order.
Did it affect the empire? Did it lose the war? Did London collapse?

Not even a flicker. Be under zero illusion about anything.

Battle of Stalingrad may have been a bad show for Germany but it was ice cream and butterscotch in comparison to the Battle of Berlin.

 

[michaelmaltby]

" ... it was ice cream and butterscotch in comparison to the Battle of Berlin."
Berlin was better weather ... but in sheer scale you are spot on

 

[swampyankee]

Loss of Singapore was certainly damaging to Commonwealth/Imperial interests, but there was really only one imperial possession the loss of which would be disastrous: India, which was a major supplier of trained manpower to the British Army in both World Wars. It was probably also the only one which was profitable to the Empire as a whole, as opposed to profitable for British colonists. By this time, of course, the white dominions were independent entities, so couldn't really count in the financial accounting for the Colonial Office.

On the other hand, the UK was in an existential fight against the European Axis. Losing SIngapore would be a disaster; losing London would be terminal.

 

[RCAFson]

The Eastern fleet was there to protect Ceylon and not Australia.

So....Warspite and the R class were slow by standards of 1942 and had no chance of chasing anything in the Kriegsmarine. So putting them in the Indian Ocean is fair enough.

We talk about loss of Singapore as been a disaster. Not really. It never endangered the existence of the UK.

Loss of the Mediterranean or loss in the U boat war would have been far worse. So I would not put my eggs in one less important secondary basket against what could be a superior opponent.

The Eastern fleet had 3 modern fleet carriers by May 1942, and was there to do what it was told to do. Since Australia was never threatened with invasion, it was never told to deploy against it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Look at Gallipoli....total disaster of the first order.

You refer to Galipoli as a disaster, but not the loss of Malaya and Singapore. Your criteria for disaster labeling makes no sense. I had a longer rebuttal drafted but there's no point, and we'd be threadjacking the thread off topic. Back to Ceylon I go.....