Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Ideal World War Two RN
earlm    5/4/2008 3:13:32 PM
With hindsight what should the RN have done to be the best force possible for WW2? 1. Obtain better AA fire control from US. 2. Obtain US carrier based aircraft through lend lease. 3. Introduce a dual purpose 4.5-5" gun. (US 5"/38?) 4. Scrap the R class. 5. Save money on KGV and arm them with R class turrets with higher elevation. 6. Modernize Hood 7. Modernize Repulse
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23   NEXT
Tancred    larrycjr/JFKY   8/21/2008 12:12:10 PM
I agree that radar would not magically negate japanese advantages. I do think though that the greater experience of the RN in using them, the RN night doctrine and divisional integrity - probably with freer use of DD tactically would have reduced them. Just because the USN had a really bad time for a while does not automatically mean the RN would have had just as bad a time. Having the admiral in a ship with radar would have helped.
I take the point about the lack of PPI (I cant spell it either) but interference from land masses would only apply to the inshore force. In the slot everyone was an inshore force. Although Belfast in 43 had both a 284 set and what looks like a PPI.
 
Midway - and the general point fine (in my mind at Phillipine Sea the IJN had a vastly inferior air force and I think the result bears that out) but that tends to reinforce my point that the RN would not go seeking a fleet action  unless it either needed to - or unless it had a dozen large fleet carriers with air groups capable of matching the IJN.
 
WW1 sinkings is misleading. The WWI loss rate was almost entirely in UK coastal waters and happened because of no ASW detection method, no convoys until 1918 and no air cover in coastal waters. The posession of UBoat bases in Belgium helped a lot too. A lot were also due to submarine laid mines. All of those issues except the last were not applicable in WW2
where the major losses were mid Atlantic, absent the French and Belgian and Norwegian bases the U Boat passage to anywhere they could do damage is either through the channel, at night all the way because its coverable by radar, or across the North Sea which is mineable. As a minimum that severely reduces the operational range. Because so much of that is subject to air patrols - unlike say the bay of Biscay I think severe reduction in range means a catastrpohic reduction
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Tancred   8/21/2008 12:32:10 PM
I'm not trying to start a flame war, but
 
"mines"-wow, not like the Germans would try THAT again...
 
And the point I've made in the thread was that from 1919-39 the RN ASSUMED that it had solved the ASW puzzle...it never really put ASDIC/Sonar to the test in any meaningful technical exercises or tactical exercises, from what I've read.  It simply ASSUMED that German U-boats would not be successful.  That and the poor AAA are problems that crippled the RN, on the surface...in a gun fight the RN was going to prosper, but it no longer faced a solely surface threat.
 
And though it is only wildly speculative, I think it is fair to say that the IJN would have soundly, CRUSHED the RN.  Sorry, but British AAA and FAA fighters were so poor that an integrated naval force like the IJN and the Japanese Army Air Forces, would have crippled the RN and then crushed the survivors.
 
Finally mayhap I'm just a USN fan-boy, but I really find it hard to believe that the RN was going to use radar any better than the USN.  What evidence do you have of that?  The USN got skunked, at night, by the IJN well into 1943.  What magical/technical/tactical solution does the RN have that would make it any better than the USN, in the night fight with the IJN? 
 
That's what I don't grasp, why anyone thinks that the RAF, FAA and RN would have done any better 1939-43 than the better equipped American Navy did....If the RAF, the RN, the FAA and the British Army had been in Malaya in anything close to full strength numbers would carry you thru, but IF instead, and is more "likely" (which is an odd word, because it is extremely UNLIKELY that Britain would ever have sent anything but a tiny fraction of its combat power to the Pacific) only increased the level of commitment to the region, the Japanese would STILL have defeated your air/land/sea forces...The RAF would have been flying with poor tactics against superior Japanese planes/pilots/tactics, the FAA would still be flying the Fulmar, the RN would still have poor AAA, no air cover, and be faced by an able opponent who has designed his forces to apply great strength against Western weaknesses, and the Japanese Army would still have marched up the peninsula out-flanking the British forces by moving thru the jungle.  The scale of combat would have been greater and the scale of the defeat greater, but not the ultimate outcome, in 1942 or 1945....
 
This is NOT a Briton's are stoopit post, the USN, USAAF, and the US Army and Marines ALL learned, at great cost, just how good the Japanese forces were and it took well into 1943 for them to master the skills and technology necessary to defeat them.  I just don't see Britain, poorer, smaller, further away, performing BETTER than the US forces did.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       8/21/2008 4:30:39 PM

 I just don't see Britain, poorer, smaller, further away, performing BETTER than the US forces did.


Considering your talking about the 1940's, the British Empire was significantly larger than the US, and indeed all over the place, while portions of the army(s) (including British battalions) had significant jungle training.  India alone in WWII contributed the largest volunteer army in history.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr       8/21/2008 11:23:52 PM




 I just don't see Britain, poorer, smaller, further away, performing BETTER than the US forces did.






Considering your talking about the 1940's, the British Empire was significantly larger than the US, and indeed all over the place, while portions of the army(s) (including British battalions) had significant jungle training.  India alone in WWII contributed the largest volunteer army in history.


But Navys are far less a matter than Armys a concern for total population.  They are much more a matter of technological and industrial capabilities.  In 1941, the US represented about half of the total industrial capacity of the entire world!!  Between 1938 and 1945 the United States built, nearly from scratch, the most powerful navy the world had ever seen, while, at the same time providing large numbers of ships, aircraft and other supplys to its allies. 
The Japanese had gained technical advantages (superior quality torpedoes and a carrier air force of unrivaled power and skill) by dint of making enormous investments of national resources over a period of nearly twenty years.  Over the same period they had engaged in naval exercises used to develope superior doctrine and a generally better trained force thru the use of levels of ruthlessness, and dedication (backed both by the nature of their national character, as well as the enforcement of discipline to the point of brutality) that neither the RN nor the USN could possibly have matched even in war, let alone in peacetime.  This gave them great initial advantages.  Although they could not maintain those advantages (the quality of torpedoes accepted) on the long term against the population and industrial capacity of the British Empire, let alone the US, they did have them at the end of 1941, which is the point at which we are comparing forces. 
 
Quote    Reply

juan grande       8/21/2008 11:49:12 PM




 I just don't see Britain, poorer, smaller, further away, performing BETTER than the US forces did.






Considering your talking about the 1940's, the British Empire was significantly larger than the US, and indeed all over the place, while portions of the army(s) (including British battalions) had significant jungle training.  India alone in WWII contributed the largest volunteer army in history.


Yeah, some Indians even fought for the Japanese.  Overachievers those Indians.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Yimmy   8/22/2008 10:43:22 AM
Considering your talking about the 1940's, the British Empire was significantly larger than the US, and indeed all over the place,
IF size, alone or population was the determinant in modern war, China would have handily defeated the Japanese in 1931 and would have been invading Japan in 1937 and this whole theoretical discussion would be even more moot.  As Larry points out, by 1939 the US was 50% of the world's military production, Britain was about 10% of the worlds capacity, surpassed by Germany and the USSR.  The true reality is that Britain could stand off Germany, but never defeat it and therefore could never contribute much to the Pacific War.  It did not until after May 1945, IIRC.  So sorry, talking about how the "Sun Never Sets on the British Empire" is the equivalent of the Italian Fascists conjuring the Glories of the Romans at Zama, nice but irrelevant to the issue at hand.


while portions of the army(s) (including British battalions) had significant jungle training. 
Too bad none of them were in Malaya then, because they sure would have come in handy.  You guys outnumbered the Japanese, they didn't steam roller you, they out-flanked you and ran thru your road blocks with the few tanks they had.  Before this devolves into a nasty Yank-Brit flame war, the US forces in the Philippine and Bataan and Corregidor, specifically, also lost to a foe of equal or smaller size.  This is not, "You Brit's SUCK."  This is the Western Forces were outclassed by their Japanese competitors, the Western forces blinded by racism as to the quality of the Japanese.
 
India alone in WWII contributed the largest volunteer army in history.
And did it produce an army the size of the British Army in 21 Army Group or the US Army, per capita?  And how many Spitfires, Battleships, Comets, Centurions, Gloster Meteors, Colossus Carriers, cavity magnetron's, and 25 pdr field guns did it produce?  And really who cares if it was a volunteer or draftee army, what matters was its combat capacity on the battle field, and until Imphal-Kohima, the British-Indian forces hadn't mustered that much combat capacity, had they?  Again, considering that 5,000 Japanese captured 15,000 American/Filipino's on Corregidor this is not some kind of put-down, just an honest, if brutal, assessment.
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Japanese Aviation forces.....   8/22/2008 11:18:07 AM
The Japanese had gained technical advantages (superior quality torpedoes and a carrier air force of unrivaled power and skill) by dint of making enormous investments of national resources over a period of nearly twenty years.  Over the same period they had engaged in naval exercises used to develope superior doctrine and a generally better trained force thru the use of levels of ruthlessness, and dedication (backed both by the nature of their national character, as well as the enforcement of discipline to the point of brutality) that neither the RN nor the USN could possibly have matched even in war, let alone in peacetime.  This gave them great initial advantages.  Although they could not maintain those advantages (the quality of torpedoes accepted) on the long term against the population and industrial capacity of the British Empire, let alone the US, they did have them at the end of 1941, which is the point at which we are comparing forces. 
 
In spite of their dedicated effort (IJN's) they merely drew even against the USN in carrier battles and aviation. Both the USAAF and the USN aviation ultimately fought the Japanese aviation forces to a draw up through 1942 when the Japanese were at their best. The British had to develop their naval aviation to be competitive against the IJN but ultimately the sheer weight of the Common Wealth would have overpowered the Japanese by no later than say, 1947. Provided the Common Wealth stayed in the fight.
 
For all of their bluster the Japanese aviation forces were evenly  matched against US 1941-1942, and the British were not all that far behind. IMV.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       8/22/2008 2:25:50 PM

Considering your talking about the 1940's, the British Empire was significantly larger than the US, and indeed all over the place,

IF size, alone or population was the determinant in modern war, China would have handily defeated the Japanese in 1931 and would have been invading Japan in 1937 and this whole theoretical discussion would be even more moot.  As Larry points out, by 1939 the US was 50% of the world's military production, Britain was about 10% of the worlds capacity, surpassed by Germany and the USSR.  The true reality is that Britain could stand off Germany, but never defeat it and therefore could never contribute much to the Pacific War.  It did not until after May 1945, IIRC.  So sorry, talking about how the "Sun Never Sets on the British Empire" is the equivalent of the Italian Fascists conjuring the Glories of the Romans at Zama, nice but irrelevant to the issue at hand.

That's fine.  I can't say I have read the thread - I was just correcting your point on size.



while portions of the army(s) (including British battalions) had significant jungle training. 

Too bad none of them were in Malaya then, because they sure would have come in handy.  You guys outnumbered the Japanese, they didn't steam roller you, they out-flanked you and ran thru your road blocks with the few tanks they had.  Before this devolves into a nasty Yank-Brit flame war, the US forces in the Philippine and Bataan and Corregidor, specifically, also lost to a foe of equal or smaller size.  This is not, "You Brit's SUCK."  This is the Western Forces were outclassed by their Japanese competitors, the Western forces blinded by racism as to the quality of the Japanese.

 They were, especially the Argyll's under Lt Col Ian Stewart, whom proved to be the most capable jungle fighters of the conflict.  Then there were other jungle trained units, if less vigorously, such as I think the Manchester's.   We didn't out number the Japanese I don't believe, certainly not in the early stages.

India alone in WWII contributed the largest volunteer army in history.
And did it produce an army the size of the British Army in 21 Army Group or the US Army, per capita?  And how many Spitfires, Battleships, Comets, Centurions, Gloster Meteors, Colossus Carriers, cavity magnetron's, and 25 pdr field guns did it produce?  And really who cares if it was a volunteer or draftee army, what matters was its combat capacity on the battle field, and until Imphal-Kohima, the British-Indian forces hadn't mustered that much combat capacity, had they?  Again, considering that 5,000 Japanese captured 15,000 American/Filipino's on Corregidor this is not some kind of put-down, just an honest, if brutal, assessment.

 Those in the army, and as a result the combat effectiveness in the field.  Unfortunately in the instance of the British Indians, many of their battalions in Singapore were hardly trained on the onset of the invasion.




 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       8/22/2008 2:28:01 PM
Off topic still, but if your interested in Singapore JFKY, I would well recommend reading "Singapore Burning", by Colin Smith, all be it the first couple of chapters are a bit boring unless your interested in the more distant Imperial history of the island.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr       8/22/2008 6:02:18 PM

The Japanese had gained technical advantages (superior quality torpedoes and a carrier air force of unrivaled power and skill) by dint of making enormous investments of national resources over a period of nearly twenty years.  Over the same period they had engaged in naval exercises used to develope superior doctrine and a generally better trained force thru the use of levels of ruthlessness, and dedication (backed both by the nature of their national character, as well as the enforcement of discipline to the point of brutality) that neither the RN nor the USN could possibly have matched even in war, let alone in peacetime.  This gave them great initial advantages.  Although they could not maintain those advantages (the quality of torpedoes accepted) on the long term against the population and industrial capacity of the British Empire, let alone the US, they did have them at the end of 1941, which is the point at which we are comparing forces. 


 

In spite of their dedicated effort (IJN's) they merely drew even against the USN in carrier battles and aviation. Both the USAAF and the USN aviation ultimately fought the Japanese aviation forces to a draw up through 1942 when the Japanese were at their best. The British had to develop their naval aviation to be competitive against the IJN but ultimately the sheer weight of the Common Wealth would have overpowered the Japanese by no later than say, 1947. Provided the Common Wealth stayed in the fight.

 

For all of their bluster the Japanese aviation forces were evenly  matched against US 1941-1942, and the British were not all that far behind. IMV.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 



Well, you've certainly got the final outcome right.  At the end of the Battle of Santa Cruz the USN and IJN carrier forces had fought each other to exhaustion.  I don't entirely agree with your view that this was because they were evenly matched initially.
IMV, the USN managed it, against the odds, due to several factors. 
 
First, as I posted earlier, the Japanese could not maintain their initial position as of Dec. '41 due to lack of industrial capacity and other resources.  They were unable to manufacture enough a/c and train enough new pilots to repace even the comaparatively light losses suffered in the months before the Battle of the Coral Sea.  The Kido Butai went into the Battle of Midway with a standard squadron strenght of 18 rather than 21 a/c.  They didn't lose all that many air crew at Midway, but they DID lose a lot of a/c that they couldn't replace for months.  By the end of October, the IJN had more flight decks than the USN available, and more total carrier capacity, but it didn't have the a/c or pilots to provide air groups.  The USN was down to two CVs and one of those damaged, but it still had air groups, and an increasing shore based presence of USN aircraft in the Solomons.
 
Second, the Japanese naval commanders (read Yamamoto) made some very basic mistakes that the Americans -- either by planning, or sheer luck -- had been able to capitalize on.  The decision to commit CarDiv5 by itself to the Coral Sea had removed a third of their primary force carriers from the Midway operation, giving the US the chance to defeat the Kido Butai in detail.  Nimitz's plan to ambush the IJN carriers at Midway achieved just exactly that.  And, of course, Midway was an idea that Yamamoto shoved down the throats of his nominal superiors.  Even with the ambush situation, if there had been six IJN carriers, the result would probably have been a trade of 2 or 3 US CVs for 3 IJN CVs.  As it was, the destruction of 4 CVs for the loss of one allowed the USN to go into the second half of the year on about an equal footing in ships and better than equal in number of a/c on board.
 
The IJN was ahead of the USN in carrier forces in Dec. '41, but that advantage had already eroded somewhat, even before Midway.  The RN, in carrier forces, was IMV badly behind the USN.  This, as I have posted before, was due to the results of the RAFs control of carrier aircraft during the 1920s and early 30s.  Beyond the lack of the technical base for modern carrier a/c which was lost due to lack of funding for carrier types under the RAFs co
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics