- Thread starter
- #21
Admiral Beez
Major
What are you talking about? Are you being intentionally abstruse?
Last edited:
Singapore carrier squadron - what aircraft to deploy?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,972
- Mar 26, 2007
No he just stating that that is not possible. Those ships were sunk in the time line of your scenerio Or did you mean none of this happened?
By the way, i for one like a good argument. But agressive anwers like your last do not fall well by me at all.
Looks a bit silly if you want to discuss a what would have happened if, dont you think.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You just got finished stating that the PoW and Repulse would be part of your Malaya campaign - they had been sunk prior to this scenario.
So without trying to sound like a "contrarian" or "abstruse", how would you be able to include them if they no longer existed?
Kevin J
Banned
Argus is needed for training so it's going to need to be based up in the Clyde. Eagle and Hermes were originally in the (Eastern) Mediterranean and Red Sea Fleet, so their out of harms way. Maybe they could be based in Ceylon. It certainly would be nice if neither Courageous nor Glorious were sunk but regrettably they were. If I was to suggest 2 carriers for a Far East Fleet based in Singapore, then I'd chose these. Eagle I'd leave in the Western Mediterranean to escort Malta convoys. Hermes in the Indian ocean for escort duty out of harms way. I'd send Renown and Repulse out to Singapore so that there was a balanced fleet of 2 fast carriers and 2 accompanying 2 fast battlecruisers, but they'd probably all get sunk trying to bombard the landing beaches. You could put 15 Sea Hurricanes, 21 Albacores and Swordfish and 12 Fulmars on each, so a reasonably balanced air group. Alternately, we could have Indomitable, Furious and Hermes to get the same sized air group.
Kevin J
Banned
We ended up with Illustrious, Indomitable and Hermes in the Indian Ocean which was probably right. Your carrier force is too weak. It can't achieve much at all.
Shortround6
Major General
Sending two or even all three of these old carriers to the far east in late 1941 is going to present little more than a speed bump to the Japanese. All 3 are going to carry a total of around 50-60 planes and that number of planes isn't enough to change things whether they are on carrier decks or on shore.
Their AA suites are best described as pathetic so any hope of self defense is a actually self delusion.
They just don't present any great benefit with this plan vs what they did historically. Even aviation transports had value.
Their AA suites are best described as pathetic so any hope of self defense is a actually self delusion.
They just don't present any great benefit with this plan vs what they did historically. Even aviation transports had value.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
A good illustration of what may transpire, is to look at the battle Coral Sea.
The Lexington and Yorktown were a fair match for the Shoho, Shokaku and Zuikaku and yet the IJN was able to get the upper hand. Against obsolete RN carriers, I'm afraid the outcome would not be good.
The Lexington and Yorktown were a fair match for the Shoho, Shokaku and Zuikaku and yet the IJN was able to get the upper hand. Against obsolete RN carriers, I'm afraid the outcome would not be good.
- Thread starter
- #28
Admiral Beez
Major
I'm referring to the fate of the three carriers, if they survived the Malay campaign. I did not state anything about PoW or Repulse, other than to state that the investment in sending them to Malaya suggested sending HMS Eagle, Hermes and Argus would not be a prohibitive expense.
Though I wonder with three CVLs in the Far East if Churchill would have sent PoW and Repulse as a deterrent to Japan at all. Maybe he'd just send some cruisers to bolster the small CBG.
Shortround6
Major General
Sending the 3 carriers would not be prohibitively expensive. It just might not be cost effective.
Again, what will these 3 carriers offer that 3-4 squadrons of land based aircraft will not?
PoW and Repulse were sunk within range of land based air, had their commander bothered to tell the land based air where he was and if he didn't think radio silence was better protection than air cover.
Again, what will these 3 carriers offer that 3-4 squadrons of land based aircraft will not?
PoW and Repulse were sunk within range of land based air, had their commander bothered to tell the land based air where he was and if he didn't think radio silence was better protection than air cover.
- Thread starter
- #30
Admiral Beez
Major
The until now surviving RN carrier(s) might be beneficial for reconnaissance. This vid shows how both the USN and IJN carrier forces we're often unable to determine each other's location.
Put one or two of the RN's obsolete CVLs with a dozen or more Swordfish into to the mix (ideally operating separately from the USN's fast CBG) and you can cover more ocean. But yes, you'll have no argument from me, it's looking grim for any RN carriers sent to Coral Sea.
But let's first return to my original question. What aircraft are the British operating? By spring 1942, would the small British squadron operating now in Australia have folding Martlets?
Last edited:
Play nice everyone
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
They should have been available - 12 December 1940, an FAA Martlet downed a Ju88 over Scapa Flow, so there was plenty of time to get Martlets into theater.
buffnut453
Captain
But if we're talking early Dec 41, then 6 Japanese carriers are engaged in the Pearl Harbor attack. Of the 3 you list only Shoho is uncommitted. Did Japan have the resources to send multiple carriers to Malaya?
Kevin J
Banned
Would anyone with any sense send any carriers into the South China Sea where you'd be at the mercy of land based attack aircraft? The best RN carrier to send there would have been Furious as it led a charmed life. None of the bombs or torpedoes aimed at it ever hit. Indomitable, I'm not no sure as it proved to be a magnet for bombs and torpedoes.
buffnut453
Captain
Force Z was originally supposed to include a carrier so presumably there was some reason for having one?
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
Quite so. In the context of Malaya the land is one gigantic aircraft carrier from Singapore to Thailand. It would be a better, and lesser, investment and risk to upgrade the land based air defence with a particular eye to maritime strike and it's cover and Intelligence and oversight of Japanese presence within reach of Malaya. You can't sink Malaya. At it's crudest one needs something that will be aware of the Japanese convoys, something that can sink them from the air and something that can drive off Japanese fighters. All in a context of decent airfields with decent staffing and resources. A good start would be a 1937 POD of a proper Intelligence system that can give a genuine assessment of the true scale of the potential threat with the intestinal fortitude to maintain their assessment against gainsayers and an operational side that will reasonably assess a proper response to those threats. The last is easy to say but the pressures of OTL campaigns is a huge drag on the Far East investment and the government was taking a known risk in keeping resources for the defence of the UK and prosecuting an active war.
On a more limited and direct response to the POD; the two battleships could dispose of the Japanese forces used with comparative ease at a ship level. If there a couple of carriers their best task, in the context of the whole Force, would have been to ship as many fighters as possible for air defence and leave the offensive task to the ship borne armaments. So what can you choose from?
Sea Gladiator
Martlet
Buffalo(?)
Sea Hurricane
Fulmar
Possibly a few Fulmars for reconnaissance and the rest Fleet Fighters.
Kevin J
Banned
Using Fleet carriers to transport aircraft. We need more aircraft transports.
Glider
Captain
We need more of everything, carriers, aircraft, modern designs, transports, trained pilots, I could go on but I think everyone gets the picture
- Thread starter
- #39
Admiral Beez
Major
Only the non-folding ones, I believe. This site is a great resource. Regardless, the Martlet is the best FAA fighter to send in Dec. 1940, so we'll take them. When the folding variety was available the FAA retrofitted folding wings onto existing non-folding Martlets, so we can ship the wing kits from the US west coast to wherever the still active/surviving units of HMS Eagle, Hermes and Argus are located.
In Dec. 1940, I'm hoping the three carriers were used as ferries, with decks packed with non-folding Martlets. Hermes' lifts are too narrow, but Eagle and Argus can operate them. I like your plan. Let's stuff Eagle and Argus with Martlets and Hermes with everyone's Swordfish for recon and strike. Sea Hurricane and I beleive Fulmar were not available when the ships sailed from Britain in Dec. 1940, and Gladiator is taking up space better used for TSR. Of course by early 1941 crated Fulmars, Sea Hurricanes and naval-equipped Buffaloes could all be shipped out and on the carriers by summer 1941. My hope for our little CBG is folding-wing Martlets and Albacores.
As for post-Malayan ops. Coral Sea is out of the question, but what about sailing to Esquimalt and countering the light IJN carriers Junyō and Ryūjō in the Aleutian campaign? That might be a carrier battle worthy of mention.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
There may have been only 90 Martlet IIs with folding wings. Are they sent to the far East on old-obsolete carriers or are they used in European-Mediterranean theaters?
as a further comment on the aviation fuel situation. A Swordfish carried about 167 imp gallons of fuel in it's standard tanks, long range tanks could be fitted, a 60imp gallon tank in the cockpit when carrying a torpedo if range was needed or a larger (69imp G?) tank in place of the torpedo for recconasance duties.
If we assume a fuel capacity of 236imp gallons per plane and using an 8 plane search pattern twice a day we are using 3776imp gallons a day. The old carrier with a bit over 17,000 gallons is good for about 4 days worth of searches and bit more, but is conducting no other air activities.
Adjust searches and fuel use as you see fit but obviously not all carriers have the same capabilities even if they have same nominal number of aircraft.
The HMS Eagle had a crew of just under 800 men.
as a further comment on the aviation fuel situation. A Swordfish carried about 167 imp gallons of fuel in it's standard tanks, long range tanks could be fitted, a 60imp gallon tank in the cockpit when carrying a torpedo if range was needed or a larger (69imp G?) tank in place of the torpedo for recconasance duties.
If we assume a fuel capacity of 236imp gallons per plane and using an 8 plane search pattern twice a day we are using 3776imp gallons a day. The old carrier with a bit over 17,000 gallons is good for about 4 days worth of searches and bit more, but is conducting no other air activities.
Adjust searches and fuel use as you see fit but obviously not all carriers have the same capabilities even if they have same nominal number of aircraft.
The HMS Eagle had a crew of just under 800 men.
