Singapore carrier squadron - what aircraft to deploy?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Building a number of small bases just invites the Japanese to do to the British what the Americans did to the Japanese.
Island hop and defeat in detail the defenders after cutting them off from support.
And if you are going to build a naval base it should be big enough to do repairs to a major warship, like have one or more large dry docks, other wise it is not a "base" but merely a fueling station.

The question started as to what aircraft to deploy or perhaps what ones were even available.
Some accounts say there were already more planes than pilots. More planes with poorly trained pilots and ground crew, no matter how brave or hard working, are going ot make much difference. that said the list of planes is actually pretty short.

Buffaloes?, the Far East already has the vast majority of British Buffaloes, there are very few left to send.

F4Fs? Britain only got 90 of the folding wing Martlets until well after this scenario is over. Most of them were used in the Atlantic or Med.

Skua's have been mentioned. Last one left the factory in March of 1940, the one before that left the factory in Dec of 1939. Some of the last ones left the factory as target tugs.
Others were converted. Any available planes are going to be rather weary specimens.

Sea Gladiators have been mentioned. "Of the 98 aircraft built as, or converted to, Sea Gladiators, 54 were still in service by the outbreak of the Second World War "
of the total of 747 Gladiators built, 216 were exported to other countries. some of the early ones, if still flying, would have been almost 5 years old in Jan of 1942.
Whatever the Gladiators did over Malta in the summer of 1940, any Gladiators sent to the Far east in the fall of 1941 are another 1-1 1/2 years older.

The idea is to bolster the defences of the Far East, not saddle the Far East with old (literally) obsolete maintenance hogs. They had enough of that with the Buffaloes with their questionably "overhauled" engines.
 
Instead of wasting money on building the Singapore naval base, perhaps smaller bases for both naval and RAF could be built in Penang, and across British Pacific territories. Just look at how many islands Britain controlled, but with little investment in their defence or use as a barrier to defend Australia, etc.

View attachment 565286

The mostly USA (plus ANZ) forces that re-took the Solomons (for the British) suffered 10,600 killed. Retaking PNG cost the USA 13,000 dead (plus >7K ANZ/CW forces). I know the First World War took much of Britain's treasure, but to neglect your empire's defences like this is nuts. Look at the investment the USA put into retaking Britain's territory in the Gilbert Islands at the Battles of Tarawa and Makin. I wonder what the Americans and locals in the Gilbert Islands territory thought when the British governor, Henry Evans Maude arrived to take command in 1946. He didn't waste anytime setting up a new British administration.

These small islands should have been submarine bases, akin to the secret RN base on Diega Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
I certainly like the ideas you're coming up with. I've been thinking about all this too although I've come up with some slightly different ideas. Perhaps we need a new thread to explore them.
 
OK just keeping with the POD

Argus, is only a support carrier, and given the POD has the Royal Navy with more carriers, she would be used to ferry aircraft from the red sea end of the African air route, over to Singapore.

Because of their relative slow speed compared to the modern carriers and battleships, I don't see the RN creating a strike force as such, however your POD would suggest there would still be the deployment of the old R class battleships to Ceylon, and no doubt the Carriers would provide ASW, and recon for these ships, along with a limited CAP. Though I cant see them being moved into the south china sea, a task force of one of them with one maybe two R class battleships supporting the Dutch in the Java sea might be feasible.

The aircraft being shipped would be Swordfish, with possibly a few ASV radar equipped Albacore's and Sea Hurricanes, maybe an increased number produced from Canadian factories

Regards
Fatboy Coxy
 
Lots of interesting thoughts being tossed around, makes for good reading.

Again, not well versed in the British carriers we're discussing but one thing that struck me was when talking about using them at Coral Sea. I doubt they can operate with Lexington and Yorktown but what about as nighttime search forces? Did not Swordfish and Albacores have radar capability for ship search? I'll wager the problem would be that getting out of harms way come daylight might be problematic (for both ships and planes) but perhaps (a big perhaps) they could manage to ferret out the IJN forces during the night hours and give the USN a leg up on location of the Japanese carriers?
 
Lots of interesting thoughts being tossed around, makes for good reading.

Again, not well versed in the British carriers we're discussing but one thing that struck me was when talking about using them at Coral Sea. I doubt they can operate with Lexington and Yorktown but what about as nighttime search forces? Did not Swordfish and Albacores have radar capability for ship search? I'll wager the problem would be that getting out of harms way come daylight might be problematic (for both ships and planes) but perhaps (a big perhaps) they could manage to ferret out the IJN forces during the night hours and give the USN a leg up on location of the Japanese carriers?
How about cross decking at Coral Sea, with USN Wildcats operating from the RN carriers? Any flat top is welcome I imagine.
 
Lots of interesting thoughts being tossed around, makes for good reading.

Again, not well versed in the British carriers we're discussing but one thing that struck me was when talking about using them at Coral Sea. I doubt they can operate with Lexington and Yorktown but what about as nighttime search forces? Did not Swordfish and Albacores have radar capability for ship search? I'll wager the problem would be that getting out of harms way come daylight might be problematic (for both ships and planes) but perhaps (a big perhaps) they could manage to ferret out the IJN forces during the night hours and give the USN a leg up on location of the Japanese carriers?
What the Swordfish, Albacore, Fulmar and Skua had was a special technical ability to operate at night or bad weather and still find their carrier to return even if it had changed course whilst they were in the air. They still had to find their target though.
 
The Victorious operate4d with the USN fleet for a short while and carried 60 (I think) Wildcats so there is no reason why this shouldn't happen.

The only real option was the one that never existed, i.e. the Courageous, Glorious and Ark Royal hadn't been sunk and were available
 
The Victorious operate4d with the USN fleet for a short while and carried 60 (I think) Wildcats so there is no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Lack of aircraft and the risk of depleting Yorktown and Saratoga's CAG is one reason. But if Nimitz can get some extra Wildcats I'm sure the RN would welcome them wholeheartedly.

The other way round, with British fighters landing on USN carriers did not go well, at least with the Seafire. With the exception of Canadian P/O Jerrold Alpine Smith successfully landing his Malta-bound RAF Spitfire back on USS Wasp without a hook due to a failure with his slipper tank, the Supermarine fighter did not have luck on USN-operated carriers. I'm trying to find the link, but I recall two pilots tried to land their Seafires on a USN fast fleet CV and both pranged, with one aircraft being taken back to the US as a museum piece. The FAA pilots blamed the arrestor set up, saying it was set at too heavy a weight for the light Seafire, but IDK. Seafires certainly operated from US-build CVEs.
 
Last edited:
Lack of aircraft and the risk of depleting Yorktown and Saratoga's CAG is one reason. But if Nimitz can get some extra Wildcats I'm sure the RN would welcome them wholeheartedly.

*SNIP*

I'm trying to find the link, but I recall two pilots tried to land their Seafires on a USN fast fleet CV and both pranged, with one aircraft being taken back to the US as a museum piece. The FAA pilots blamed the arrestor set up, saying it was set at too heavy a weight for the light Seafire, but IDK. Seafires certainly operated from US-build CVEs.

I don't have time to search this site but there is an account of a Seafire landing on a USN carrier here: Armoured Aircraft Carriers in World War II

As I recall it was an entertaining look at the differences in RN and USN practice.
 
^^^ Yeah man, those British carriers, they may have been rather cramped and uncomfortable what with no air conditioning and bad ventilation but they were TOUGH.
Agreed. They should have delayed HMS Anson and Howe and focused on getting Implacable and Indefatigable completed faster. Different yards, so not materially interchangeable, but if funds are limited, put them to the carriers.

As a comparison.
  • HMS Illustrious - Laid down 27 April 1937, Completed 25 May 1940. Three years and one month.
  • HMS Indefatigable - Laid down 21 March 1939, Completed 28 Aug 1944. Five years and five months.
With Courageous, Glorious, Ark Royal, Hermes and Eagle sunk by summer 1942, the RN needed carriers, not more battleships.
 
Last edited:
If you can land a Seafire on a CVE, you can land it on a fleet carrier. An RN fleet carrier would always be of assistance even if the same number of aircraft were spread around. An extra target for the IJN to deal with and one that was both capable of taking damage, having up to date radars and AA guns, plus an experienced crew isn't an offer to be turned down lightly.
 
If you can land a Seafire on a CVE, you can land it on a fleet carrier. An RN fleet carrier would always be of assistance even if the same number of aircraft were spread around. An extra target for the IJN to deal with and one that was both capable of taking damage, having up to date radars and AA guns, plus an experienced crew isn't an offer to be turned down lightly.
The Seafire isn't ready for combat until June 1942.
 
Agreed. They should have delayed HMS Anson and Howe and focused on getting Implacable and Indefatigable completed faster. Different yards, so not materially interchangeable, but if funds are limited, put them to the carriers.

As a comparison.
  • HMS Illustrious - Laid down 27 April 1937, Completed 25 May 1940. Three years and one month.
  • HMS Indefatigable - Laid down 21 March 1939, Completed 28 Aug 1944. Five years and five months.
With Courageous, Glorious, Ark Royal, Hermes and Eagle sunk by summer 1942, the RN needed carriers, not more battleships.


Trouble is you can't change hull types or construction that quickly. Anson and Howe were laid down in July and June of 1937 respectively and had over two years worth of work already done before the war started, this includes guns and "turrets" ordered and being built. The Howe took 5 years to build compared to the 3 years and 9 months of the KGV.
Once you hit Sept of 1939 the question of funds is pretty much out the window. It is a question of labor (dockyard workers) and work to be done, like repairs on existing ships.
The different yards have little to do with the materials. It is more like the plates (and framing materials and such) being delivered and stockpiled are sized to the application and in some cases are pre-made to fit certain parts of the specific hull. delaying the Anson and Howe by a couple of years also means their guns and turrets are either sitting on the dock next to the ship or sitting in a depot somewhere. Not a good use of material.
 
Trouble is you can't change hull types or construction that quickly. Anson and Howe were laid down in July and June of 1937 respectively and had over two years worth of work already done before the war started, this includes guns and "turrets" ordered and being built. The Howe took 5 years to build compared to the 3 years and 9 months of the KGV.
Once you hit Sept of 1939 the question of funds is pretty much out the window. It is a question of labor (dockyard workers) and work to be done, like repairs on existing ships.
The different yards have little to do with the materials. It is more like the plates (and framing materials and such) being delivered and stockpiled are sized to the application and in some cases are pre-made to fit certain parts of the specific hull. delaying the Anson and Howe by a couple of years also means their guns and turrets are either sitting on the dock next to the ship or sitting in a depot somewhere. Not a good use of material.
All good points, and perhaps I focused too much on the two final KGV ships. My question should have been, what WAS expedited to thus directly result in the five year build time for the Indefatigable class?

HMS Implacable, Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Co. February 1939 - August 1944
HMS Indefatigable, John Brown & Co. November 1939 - May 1944

I'll look up what else these yards were working on. Fairfield was already building HMS Howe (since April 1937) and about to complete the cruiser HMS Liverpool when Implacable was laid down two years later. In January 1943, Fairfield laid down the carrier HMS Theseus, completed in less than two years. Other than Howe and Theseus, I can't find what the Fairfield yard was doing to take so long with Implacable.
 
All good points, and perhaps I focused too much on the two final KGV ships. My question should have been, what WAS expedited to thus directly result in the five year build time for the Indefatigable class?

HMS Implacable, Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Co. February 1939 - August 1944
HMS Indefatigable, John Brown & Co. November 1939 - May 1944

I'll look up what else these yards were working on. Fairfield was already building HMS Howe and about to complete the cruiser HMS Liverpool when Indefatigable was laid down two years later. In January 1943, Fairfield laid down the carrier HMS Theseus, completed in less than two years. Other than Howe and Theseus, I can't find what the Fairfield yard was doing to take so long with Indefatigable.
Construction was put on hold by the government, otherwise they would have been in service in 1942.
 
Construction was put on hold by the government, otherwise they would have been in service in 1942.
Of course, no one else but government could put large military procurement projects on hold.

But perhaps it's my fault for being unclear. It's not who put the Indefatigables on hold, but why? Yes, the simple answer is money or perhaps labour and materials, but what was the money et al needed to complete the carriers in a timely manner otherwise allocated to?
 
Of course, no one else but government could put large military procurement projects on hold.

But perhaps it's my fault for being unclear. It's not who put the Indefatigables on hold, but why? Yes, the simple answer is money or perhaps labour and materials, but what was the money et al needed to complete the carriers in a timely manner otherwise allocated to?
Priorities IIRC. ASW ships and carriers were more critical. Unicorn was affected too delaying it by 18 months.
 
I could be wrong but in 1941-42-43 the priorities were often escorts, shipping and repairs.

Not sure it is the same Fairfield but a quick look shows two Dido class cruisers, 4 J-N class destroyers, 2 L&M destroyers, 5 of the O & P classes, 4 of the S-W classes and 5 of the first Group of Battle destroyers. The Cruiser Blake (of the Tiger class) was laid down in Aug 1942 but not completed until 1961 if you want to talk about long build times ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back