There was also that beastie called Wyvern, what with its contraprops and rakish apperance,
also too late for WW2 service (prototype first flew in late 1946, IIRC).

And just imagine if the Allies had managed to not just develop the jet engine further, but were able to introduce turboprops for the final year of the war...

(not even taking into consideration a lot of the planned and prototypes the US had under consideration that last year, and into1946 ourselves.)

 

Thing is, I'm struggling to think of FAA machines made out of wood and cloth, even the Swordifsh was an entirely mettalic frame, although cloth covered, as was the Hurricane/sea hurricane. The spitfire series was totally aluminium, as was the firefly and barracuda.

The trees and sheep comment was lame humor, nothing more.
But the fact that many aircraft were cloth covered, and possibly even, if only initially, equipped with wooden propellors, however expertly crafted, says something in and of itself, even if cloth was cheaper to repair than metal.

 

Something I never really looked into: how susceptible to the elements was that cloth covering?

Did it soak up water and freeze in winter weather, making the airframe heavier?

Did its moisture absorbance compromise any of the steel alloys that were susceptible to rusting?

Or was the material made waterproof as much as poosible, like the treated canvas in tents (at least, when the tents were new) ?

 

Either or, England still relied heavily on imports for a lot of its strategic materials: she just didn't have all the quarrying and mining abilities (even if she could've built more than enough ore refineries) to allow herself to be fully self-sufficient, let alone petroleum issues.

Yeah, I'll admit just how rusty my WW2 history has become, without checking facts first before posting.

Or maybe I've just been confusing too many of those alternate history sites and their debates,

or a combination of both.

 

But anyhow,

I still think that if Allied (before we were referred to as the Allies, mind you) Intel had been keeping tighter tabs on the rising Nazi Germany, we would've reacted quicker when they stormed out of their borders and into its neighbors in 1938-39,

rather than just verbally condemning them for it.

 

And going back to yet another post (about Japan not needing to have done any more damage at Pearl, or if they'd have done more and how much it would've hurt us if they had),

for the amount of resources that Japan committed to the Pearl Harbor raid,

when one compares it to other naval actions,

they didn't really inflict as crippling a blow as they could have for the amount of manpower and resources they put into the Pearl raid.

 

Again, and in hindsight,

better intel might've had us better prepared to handle the Japanese raid (could the War have ended sooner if we'd have scrambled the planes at Pearl, tipped off by that radar station rather than ignored, and we were ready to pounce on the heavily-laden aircraft?

Taking 200+ planes out the sky would've left those IJN carriers considerably vulnerable to counter attacks before they could've returned home for replacements...how would that have altered the War's outcome?).

 

Imagine if Lend Lease had happened in mid-late 1938 in response to Germany invading Austria and Czechoslovakia (America woke up earlier to Germany and abandoned its isolationist attitude, perhaps in no small part to the Nazi supporters growing within the US itself (query Fritz Kuhn and the German American Bund)),

and the Battle of Britain ended up having the Luftwaffe staring down the barrel of a much more heavily fortified England, supported by more American resources that got to England before the wolfpacks started preying on convoys...

 

Imagine if further intel helped the US more quickly discover Japanese plans (whether instigated by Germany or otherwise) to tie up the US in the Pacific, and we could've then not only been more prepared for a scramble at Pearl, but also Midway, the Philippines, and several other points in between were made into much stronger bastions than what the IJN fought against going thru December 1941 and into early 1942.

 

(again, sorry to have mixed up all the alternate history crap with factual reality, but hey, we are speculating our own what-ifs on how could the RN have been a more formidable force, and cetainly that included increasing the FAA's capabilities, which at some point certainly would've rolled into Coastal Command also, as well as reaching into the RAF and other aspects of England's defenses. After all, we can't have just one branch getting all the perks, benefits, and latest and greatest technology whilst the other services faulter!)

(...excuse me while I go looking for the ketchup while this crow's still warm!)

At the time of their initial construction, fabric covered airplanes and wooden propellors were conventional. The variable pitch prop was a revolutionary piece of equipment when the Germans began deploying it. My point is, it's not so much puacity of materials as it is paucity of imagination that led to those aircraft in the end. Another point would be the lack of fuel injection on the first Merlin engines, quicly remedied when it was realsied that gravity assisted Merlin engines couldn't dive after the Me-109.... but it's a wonder that it was overlooked on what was a very good engine design, lack of nails and lost kingdoms huh?!

 

Having said that, the fabric covered hurricanes were capable of taking a beating precisely because of the nature of the construction.On the point about how well those aircraft stood up to the weather, I don't rightly know, however, the Russians deployed a lot of hurricanes and the RN and merchant navy deployed them in the north atlantic, so I'd assume the fabrics were ok in wet and cold weather conditions.

 

And yeh, of course Britain was never self sufficient, otherwise the RN wouldn't have concerned itself with winning the battle of the atlantic.

Since I've pretty much got a slow day here,

I figured what the heck.

 

Again, basing everything in hindsight,

what we know of her career and the threats she faced,

I'll pitch up my thoughts on improving her (guns only, as I wouldn't know garbage from gold as to how to go about uprating her machinery (power/propulsion).

 

as she sat, and considerably leaning on NavWeaps.Com websites, data:

 

Main armament: 3 twin 15"/42 Mk I (same as Hood)

I'd have considered two options here. If it was decided she would be doing more task force work chasing down other BBs, I'd have considered letting the Yanks install 16" guns, if she would've been able to handle them.

Otherwise, I'd consider stepping her down (blasphemy, I know!) to the same 14" Mk VII's that Prince of Wales carried on their fateful day, easing logistics for the trip. Mind you, that move means we lose ~350 pounds per shell, but it might allow for a few more rounds over a given period of time. Any ranges she's ever engaged other ships at, and gauging also off other gun-to-gun engagements, she didn't really have much concern then if she could shoot 40km or only 35.

At best, she'd have ended her career as a shore bombardment ship throughout the remainder of the Pacific campaign.

 

Secondary armament: 3 triple 4"/45  low angle (surface engagement only, maybe also torpedo bombers) Mk IX's.

Horrible mount design for goiong into WW2, but certainly would've had its merits as an anti-torpedo boat gun thru the 1920-30s timeframe.

 

Primary AA armament: multiple 4"/45 QF guns (unsure of Mks) in twin and single mounts.

Here, I'd have consolidated. Absolutley no casemated guns in limited traverse sponsons. But rather, the 4.7" /50 Mk XI as we mentioned earlier, multiple twin and single guns in DP mounts, with an attempt at equilateral spacing around the ship to provide the most ideal fields of overlapping fire. These offered heavier antisurface capability, and a more lethal shell versus aircraft, and could readily have accepted a proximity fuze design late-War.

Were she ands similar ships to survive long enough, late-War I'd almost consider replacing her 4.7" guns with the 3.7" Mk VI that utilized a 5.25 case and specially-designed rifling that allowed it to reach a higher ceiling than any other Allied AA gun of the War (~15000m). As the late-War threat moved away from surface action other than coastal bombardment, the 3.7" gun's reach and higher rate of fire than a 4.7" could've given her and her siblings a considerable AA edge, coupled to the use of proximity fuzes.

Note also, this is entirely assuming that the RN had no interest in adopting USN-pattern 5" /38 (or other caliber) guns.

 

Secondary AA: If it would've been felt that the 4.7" guns in DP mounts still didn't provide enough defense against torpedo boats and such, here we could've either utilized a few 3" DP QFs on each side,

or even single or twinned 57mm/6-pdr guns (also in DP mounts) as were used around a coastal installation or two (something between the 10-cwt Mk I and the 7-cwt MkII's that allowed reasonable range with an acceptably high-enough rate of fire).

 

And here again, we'd also be replacing every 2-pdr pom-pom with 40mm Bofors guns, ideally also in DP mounts (singles and twins, possibly even quads if she survived late-War) that could obliterate small surface combatants at upwards of 120rpm each.

 

tertiary AA: 20mm Oerlikons and Vickers 12.7mm HMGs.

This has been explained before also: quad 20mm Oerlikons where they'd fit, doubles elsewhere, and consider quad 50-cals anywhere there was room left (late-War). Mount singles of either only for under-defended areas of the ship.

 

Aircraft: a Walrus? Surely a better design, even if the RN had to borrow from the Yanks, could've been acquired. This should be a fleet-wide design, but it is notable that British philosphy seemed to be around an aircraft capable of SAR in addition to principally being a scout like the US seemed to prefer. A redesign of her aft section, above the Y turret, might have allowed more options for an aviation component (though not necessarily a large flight deck with more than 1/2 dozen aircraft).

Also, late-War, this would've provided her a considerable deck area for numerous additional AA guns, as was practice in the USN where some cruisers and destroyers had X turret removed for additional AA firepower (a space which Repulse mounted some of her triple 4" guns).

 

For commonality issues, I've had tried earlier in the War to get as many ships as possible

At a small level Britain REALLY could have done with:

 

1) The adoption of the 4.7" XI L/50 much, much earlier...

2) The adoption of a HA mounting for this weapon...

3) The adoption of the Mk 37 GFCS, in place of it's HACS, and later

4) The adoption of the Mk51 GFCS for the 4 cm Bofors, if it didn't adopt it.

 

Britain's surface fleet was just horribly handicapped by it's inability to fly CAP, because its A/C were simply bad, and the fact that its AAA FCS were very poor...

 

A lot of this stems from Britain's besetting sin of the interwar period, poor theory and penny-pinching...

The thing that must be remembered about the RN and carrier aviation is that at the start of WWII it had 6 fleet carriers under construction, 4 of those were completed in 1940 and 1941, however the two implacable class were not completed until 1944 due to the need to build convoy escorts, merchant ships, cruisers and to conduct repairs.

 

I'm going to assume that prewar planning for a European war relied upon France not falling. if france had not fallen, the access of uboats to the Atlantic would have been limited to just the few German ports opening into the north sea. Similarly, the mediteranean fleet would have been assisted by the french fleet in the mediteranean against the italians, plus there would be shore based air support from southern france.

 

If France had not fallen, and the Uboats had been able to be largely contained by ASW patrols in the north sea, then the RN probably could have completed the carriers more quickly, and perhaps constructed more.

 

 Similarly, if there had not been a european war, the RN could have sailed east with a force large enough to match the japanese fleet. The problem was that they were trying to fight a war on three fronts, the North Atlantic, the Mediteranean, and South east asia.

 

 If there had not been a european war, the RN possibly would have had by the end of 1941.

4 x Illustrious class

2 x Implacable Class

Ark Royal

2 x Glorious class

Various older carriers

 

 5 x Fast KGV class BB's

2 x Renown Class

5 x Queen Elizabeth class (QE was completely rebuilt from 1939-1941, rest would have probably followed)

HMS Hood (due for refit in 1941 to receive deck armour capable of meeting the threats of the time)

 

 The Nelson's and Revenge class were too slow to keep up with the other ships, would have been of most use as convoy escorts as they were used for most of the war.

  

IMO, The Royal Navy could have taken on the IJN if it wasnt tied down in other theatre's.

Steve, somewhere on this board is an incredibly lengthy, detailed, and highly interesting scenario detailing exactly that: IJN vs. UK in roughly the same time frame as WWII.  The conclusion to that thread backed up with lots of knowledge and research would be that the IJN would hand the U.K. its hindquarters with little difficulty early on.  If the UK could hold on and get a build program in place it could potentially fight back in a long term war.  In the short term she is smoked.  You should look for the thread though, it is incredibly interesting. 

 

I will take one immediate issue with your post though.  Historically the British have never, once, deployed the bulk of their home-fleet to foreign lands.  Historically just because there is no European war does not mean there are not tensions, the U.K. would still be forced to keep a good portion of her fleet in home waters to keep the other European powers from exploiting her weakness while the Navy is away.  One can remove the war in your scenario, but England has never laid itself bare absent its Navy until the modern era.  Not once, not ever until NATO.  Saying they could defeat the Japanese in this way is something that would never happen.  Also, you would need to account the Japanese build plans if you want the later start date.  They were building ships up until they ran out of resources. 

Correction:

3 x Glorious class, not 2. I forgot furious

Other carriers:

HMS Hermes

HMS Argus

HMS Eagle

 

HMS Unicorn was laid down in 1939 and commissioned 1943, not sure if work was slowed like the implacable 

Either war, that is a minimum of 13 Carriers by late 1941.

 

Plus the 13 fast battleships and battlecruisers

 

 Wicked Chinchilla

Saw your post just as i was about to post this. You could leave the R class and Nelsons as well as the Hermes, Argus, Eagle in home waters, with them split between the mediteranean and scapa. Those ships would be enough firepower to take on the Italian Navy and German Navy, especially considering the alliance with France.

This still leaves 10 carriers and 13 battleships for the pacific.

The Royal Navy had lots of cruisers, plus their late prewar destroyers were large with plenty of range.

 

 Start date i was thinking of was december 1941 as historical. Any idea where i could find that post?