What if: Force Z (HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse) and a carrier named HMS Indomitable

[stevep]

Aug 19, 2017 3:02:43 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 18, 2017 18:41:19 GMT stevep said:

  The two that were present in early 42 during the period of the Japanese raids into the Indian Ocean were HMS Indomitable and Formidable.  Think after Midway removed the immediate threat they may have been transferred elsewhere to 'hotter' regions of the war.  Formidable, according to its Wiki entry stayed in the Indian Ocean to support the landings in Madagascar in mid 42 then returned to Europe to support the Torch landings.  Checking on Indomitable it also had a similar stay in the Eastern fleet before heading home after Madagascar.

But back to the thread, i was wondering, did the Royal Navy sometimes deploy their aircraft carrier with fighters only in order to provide CAP, would that not strengthen Force Z if HMS Indomitable only has Sea Hurricanes on board.

  I think that during the war most carriers in all forces increased the proportion of fighters for such reasons.  Possibly in the final stages they might have dropped again for the US as the threat reduced and the sheer number of carriers they had increased.  Although even then with the kamikazi threat this would have been a problem.

  I think it would defeat the purpose of the carrier to have solely fighters, plus you would want some scout aircraft at least to detect eneny forces.  However there would be a good basis for increasing the number of fighters in a region when the threat of attack is large and the carrier has other ships to protect. 

  One problem of course is that carrier pilots need special training and its not easy to switch them onto and off carriers, especially since also there are differences between carrier types.  Its not impossible, especially if like the US with the Essex class you have large numbers of a standard type, but its not easy either.  One problem the FAA had, especially in the 1st half of the war was a drastic shortage of both trained pilots and navalised a/c.  Between low spending pre-war and heavy wartime losses in the 1st couple of years especially.  As such the FAA was often struggling to find enough a/c of any type and trained pilots to man its carriers at all, let alone select specific types.

[lordroel]

Aug 19, 2017 21:43:32 GMT stevep said:

Aug 19, 2017 3:02:43 GMT lordroel said:

But back to the thread, i was wondering, did the Royal Navy sometimes deploy their aircraft carrier with fighters only in order to provide CAP, would that not strengthen Force Z if HMS Indomitable only has Sea Hurricanes on board.

  I think that during the war most carriers in all forces increased the proportion of fighters for such reasons.  Possibly in the final stages they might have dropped again for the US as the threat reduced and the sheer number of carriers they had increased.  Although even then with the kamikazi threat this would have been a problem.

  I think it would defeat the purpose of the carrier to have solely fighters, plus you would want some scout aircraft at least to detect eneny forces.  However there would be a good basis for increasing the number of fighters in a region when the threat of attack is large and the carrier has other ships to protect. 

  One problem of course is that carrier pilots need special training and its not easy to switch them onto and off carriers, especially since also there are differences between carrier types.  Its not impossible, especially if like the US with the Essex class you have large numbers of a standard type, but its not easy either.  One problem the FAA had, especially in the 1st half of the war was a drastic shortage of both trained pilots and navalised a/c.  Between low spending pre-war and heavy wartime losses in the 1st couple of years especially.  As such the FAA was often struggling to find enough a/c of any type and trained pilots to man its carriers at all, let alone select specific types.

Would with HMS Indomitable added to Force Z its original escort of five destroyers be enlarge ore was only the plan to add HMS Indomitable to Force Z.

[stevep]

Aug 19, 2017 21:49:19 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 19, 2017 21:43:32 GMT stevep said:

  I think that during the war most carriers in all forces increased the proportion of fighters for such reasons.  Possibly in the final stages they might have dropped again for the US as the threat reduced and the sheer number of carriers they had increased.  Although even then with the kamikazi threat this would have been a problem.

  I think it would defeat the purpose of the carrier to have solely fighters, plus you would want some scout aircraft at least to detect eneny forces.  However there would be a good basis for increasing the number of fighters in a region when the threat of attack is large and the carrier has other ships to protect. 

  One problem of course is that carrier pilots need special training and its not easy to switch them onto and off carriers, especially since also there are differences between carrier types.  Its not impossible, especially if like the US with the Essex class you have large numbers of a standard type, but its not easy either.  One problem the FAA had, especially in the 1st half of the war was a drastic shortage of both trained pilots and navalised a/c.  Between low spending pre-war and heavy wartime losses in the 1st couple of years especially.  As such the FAA was often struggling to find enough a/c of any type and trained pilots to man its carriers at all, let alone select specific types.

Would with HMS Indomitable added to Force Z its original escort of five destroyers be enlarge ore was only the plan to add HMS Indomitable to Force Z.

  I think there was a plan to build up a substantial fleet by ~Mar 42 to defend Malaya and the neighbouring area, as well as more troops and a lot more land based a/c but unfortunately the Japanese struck before those reinforcements arrived.

[lordroel]

Aug 19, 2017 22:02:32 GMT stevep said:

Aug 19, 2017 21:49:19 GMT lordroel said:

Would with HMS Indomitable added to Force Z its original escort of five destroyers be enlarge ore was only the plan to add HMS Indomitable to Force Z.

  I think there was a plan to build up a substantial fleet by ~Mar 42 to defend Malaya and the neighbouring area, as well as more troops and a lot more land based a/c but unfortunately the Japanese struck before those reinforcements arrived.

Than why did they, and with the risk of derailing this thread, not start to build up the Royal Navy presence in 1940/41, ore was Germany and Italy so a risk that the Royal Navy was kept at home ore in the Mediterranean Sea.

[stevep]

Aug 19, 2017 22:09:54 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 19, 2017 22:02:32 GMT stevep said:

  I think there was a plan to build up a substantial fleet by ~Mar 42 to defend Malaya and the neighbouring area, as well as more troops and a lot more land based a/c but unfortunately the Japanese struck before those reinforcements arrived.

Than why did they, and with the risk of derailing this thread, not start to build up the Royal Navy presence in 1940/41, ore was Germany and Italy so a risk that the Royal Navy was kept at home ore in the Mediterranean Sea.

  Germany was too great a risk once France fell, plus you had threats from Italy and concerns about the status of the French fleet.  At this point while there were concerns about Japan they were largely tied up in China and too distant to threaten any British possessions other than Hong Kong and possibly some Pacific islands.

  Despite loses by late 41 the RN was more powerful while Germany had lost the Bismarck and Italy had been shown to be something of a paper tiger as far as the navy was concerned.  Furthermore with Italian East Africa sown up that threat was removed while also the French fleet looked to be neutralised.  Also Japan was looking far more threatening, especially with the occupation of French Indo-China, which put it much closer to Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.  As such Britain and the empire started thinking about reinforcing the weak defences in the east.  Unfortunately it was too little too late. 

  Basically what was needed was a few more land units, especially with some experienced troops and armour and the sort of air garrison that was planned for Malaya, rather than the much smaller number of obsolete a/c that were actually there in Dec 41.  Its just that with a shooting war in Europe and aid to Russia there wasn't enough resources sent to Malaya because the threat was under-estimated.  Arguably, with the advantage of hindsight, it was the greatest blunder Britain made in WWII.

[lordroel]

Aug 20, 2017 16:10:40 GMT stevep said:

Aug 19, 2017 22:09:54 GMT lordroel said:

Than why did they, and with the risk of derailing this thread, not start to build up the Royal Navy presence in 1940/41, ore was Germany and Italy so a risk that the Royal Navy was kept at home ore in the Mediterranean Sea.

  Germany was too great a risk once France fell, plus you had threats from Italy and concerns about the status of the French fleet.  At this point while there were concerns about Japan they were largely tied up in China and too distant to threaten any British possessions other than Hong Kong and possibly some Pacific islands.

  Despite loses by late 41 the RN was more powerful while Germany had lost the Bismarck and Italy had been shown to be something of a paper tiger as far as the navy was concerned.  Furthermore with Italian East Africa sown up that threat was removed while also the French fleet looked to be neutralised.  Also Japan was looking far more threatening, especially with the occupation of French Indo-China, which put it much closer to Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.  As such Britain and the empire started thinking about reinforcing the weak defences in the east.  Unfortunately it was too little too late. 

  Basically what was needed was a few more land units, especially with some experienced troops and armour and the sort of air garrison that was planned for Malaya, rather than the much smaller number of obsolete a/c that were actually there in Dec 41.  Its just that with a shooting war in Europe and aid to Russia there wasn't enough resources sent to Malaya because the threat was under-estimated.  Arguably, with the advantage of hindsight, it was the greatest blunder Britain made in WWII.

So no way the Royal Navy sends HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse to Asia before the outbreak of hostilities in the Pacific.

[stevep]

Aug 20, 2017 17:01:39 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 20, 2017 16:10:40 GMT stevep said:

  Germany was too great a risk once France fell, plus you had threats from Italy and concerns about the status of the French fleet.  At this point while there were concerns about Japan they were largely tied up in China and too distant to threaten any British possessions other than Hong Kong and possibly some Pacific islands.

  Despite loses by late 41 the RN was more powerful while Germany had lost the Bismarck and Italy had been shown to be something of a paper tiger as far as the navy was concerned.  Furthermore with Italian East Africa sown up that threat was removed while also the French fleet looked to be neutralised.  Also Japan was looking far more threatening, especially with the occupation of French Indo-China, which put it much closer to Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.  As such Britain and the empire started thinking about reinforcing the weak defences in the east.  Unfortunately it was too little too late. 

  Basically what was needed was a few more land units, especially with some experienced troops and armour and the sort of air garrison that was planned for Malaya, rather than the much smaller number of obsolete a/c that were actually there in Dec 41.  Its just that with a shooting war in Europe and aid to Russia there wasn't enough resources sent to Malaya because the threat was under-estimated.  Arguably, with the advantage of hindsight, it was the greatest blunder Britain made in WWII.

So no way the Royal Navy sends HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse to Asia before the outbreak of hostilities in the Pacific.

  Well possibly they couild have sent them a couple of months earlier.  Especially if PoW's wasn't used for Churchill's visit to the US.  However on their own they won't deter the Japanese from striking south and unless their very lucky they are unlikely to be able to do much to prevent the success of such an attack.

  They did actually arrive a few days before the Pacific War started but even if they had been there a couple of months earlier the most likely option is that the Japanese deploy some more forces in the region.

[lordroel]

Aug 20, 2017 17:35:24 GMT stevep said:

Aug 20, 2017 17:01:39 GMT lordroel said:

So no way the Royal Navy sends HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse to Asia before the outbreak of hostilities in the Pacific.

  Well possibly they couild have sent them a couple of months earlier.  Especially if PoW's wasn't used for Churchill's visit to the US.  

So if the PoW was not used by Churchill's visit to the United States, she could have been send earlier to the Pacific.

[stevep]

Aug 20, 2017 17:38:15 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 20, 2017 17:35:24 GMT stevep said:

  Well possibly they couild have sent them a couple of months earlier.  Especially if PoW's wasn't used for Churchill's visit to the US.  

So if the PoW was not used by Churchill's visit to the United States, she could have been send earlier to the Pacific.

  Possibly.  Presuming she wasn't used for something else.  I have also read the suggestion that, because she was pushed into service for the action against Bismarck, then repaired, then sent to the US on the diplomatic mission the ship didn't do a lot of the working-up programme that RN ships normally did.  Which could have been a factor in damage control problems, especially turning the screw back on which did so much to cripple the ship.  This could have been another problem if it avoided the OTL fate off Malaya.

[lordroel]

Aug 20, 2017 22:32:45 GMT stevep said:

Aug 20, 2017 17:38:15 GMT lordroel said:

So if the PoW was not used by Churchill's visit to the United States, she could have been send earlier to the Pacific.

  Possibly.  Presuming she wasn't used for something else.  I have also read the suggestion that, because she was pushed into service for the action against Bismarck, then repaired, then sent to the US on the diplomatic mission the ship didn't do a lot of the working-up programme that RN ships normally did.  Which could have been a factor in damage control problems, especially turning the screw back on which did so much to cripple the ship.  This could have been another problem if it avoided the OTL fate off Malaya.

And what sending some other big gun earlier to the Pacific. 

[stevep]

Aug 21, 2017 2:50:32 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 20, 2017 22:32:45 GMT stevep said:

  Possibly.  Presuming she wasn't used for something else.  I have also read the suggestion that, because she was pushed into service for the action against Bismarck, then repaired, then sent to the US on the diplomatic mission the ship didn't do a lot of the working-up programme that RN ships normally did.  Which could have been a factor in damage control problems, especially turning the screw back on which did so much to cripple the ship.  This could have been another problem if it avoided the OTL fate off Malaya.

And what sending some other big gun earlier to the Pacific. 

  Unless there had been some change that boosted the relative position between the allied and European Axis, like the French fighting on from N Africa meaning their fleet was available to the allies and Libya was quickly overcome, securing Africa and the ME much earlier, there wouldn't have been much capacity for earlier reinforcements, even if there had been a clearer realisation of the threat from Japan.  Mind you as I say it really requires ground and air units rather than naval for best effects.

[lordroel]

Aug 21, 2017 18:33:36 GMT stevep said:

Aug 21, 2017 2:50:32 GMT lordroel said:

And what sending some other big gun earlier to the Pacific. 

  Unless there had been some change that boosted the relative position between the allied and European Axis, like the French fighting on from N Africa meaning their fleet was available to the allies and Libya was quickly overcome, securing Africa and the ME much earlier, there wouldn't have been much capacity for earlier reinforcements, even if there had been a clearer realisation of the threat from Japan.  Mind you as I say it really requires ground and air units rather than naval for best effects.

So nothing we can change to get the British a strong position in naval power in the Pacific.

[stevep]

Aug 21, 2017 18:41:51 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 21, 2017 18:33:36 GMT stevep said:

  Unless there had been some change that boosted the relative position between the allied and European Axis, like the French fighting on from N Africa meaning their fleet was available to the allies and Libya was quickly overcome, securing Africa and the ME much earlier, there wouldn't have been much capacity for earlier reinforcements, even if there had been a clearer realisation of the threat from Japan.  Mind you as I say it really requires ground and air units rather than naval for best effects.

So nothing we can change to get the British a strong position in naval power in the Pacific.

  Well you can get a powerful navy with some butterflies but it would need fairly major changes to do so.  Also:
a)  The cheapest and most effective defence would involve non-naval units.

b)  Even the strongest naval force Britain is likely to be able to send, unless supported by strong land based air support, is going to be vulnerable to Japanese air attack, both b0th from the sort of land-based a/c that sunk Force Z OTL and the Kidō Butai, the Japanese fleet carrier force.  Unless you have substantial pre-war changes the FAA isn't going to have the numbers, doctrine and a/c to fight the KB and win, at least without a lot of luck.

[lordroel]

Aug 21, 2017 18:49:53 GMT stevep said:

Aug 21, 2017 18:41:51 GMT lordroel said:

So nothing we can change to get the British a strong position in naval power in the Pacific.

  Well you can get a powerful navy with some butterflies but it would need fairly major changes to do so.  Also:
a)  The cheapest and most effective defence would involve non-naval units.

b)  Even the strongest naval force Britain is likely to be able to send, unless supported by strong land based air support, is going to be vulnerable to Japanese air attack, both b0th from the sort of land-based a/c that sunk Force Z OTL and the Kidō Butai, the Japanese fleet carrier force.  Unless you have substantial pre-war changes the FAA isn't going to have the numbers, doctrine and a/c to fight the KB and win, at least without a lot of luck.

I always have wonder was the original Force Z in range of land based RAF fighter cover.

[stevep]

Aug 21, 2017 18:51:31 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 21, 2017 18:49:53 GMT stevep said:

  Well you can get a powerful navy with some butterflies but it would need fairly major changes to do so.  Also:
a)  The cheapest and most effective defence would involve non-naval units.

b)  Even the strongest naval force Britain is likely to be able to send, unless supported by strong land based air support, is going to be vulnerable to Japanese air attack, both b0th from the sort of land-based a/c that sunk Force Z OTL and the Kidō Butai, the Japanese fleet carrier force.  Unless you have substantial pre-war changes the FAA isn't going to have the numbers, doctrine and a/c to fight the KB and win, at least without a lot of luck.

I always have wonder was the original Force Z in range of land based RAF fighter cover.

  Technically yes for a good bit of the time.  However the RAF forces were small and pretty much obsolete as well as having to defend other areas.  Also there is a long last dispute/debate about whether and when Philips called for air cover.  [For a long while he was presented as an old time officer who though modern warships would be pretty much immune to air attack but in more recent years this has come heavily under question.]  Also until the Japanese showed it was possible it was thought that bombers carrying torpedoes couldn't reach that far south as where Force Z was attacked and sunk.