History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:02 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:28 am
Posts: 5282
Location: CL-4, BB-14
The Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier was commissioned today.

_________________
"If it's not the end of the world, I'm not coming!" - Kelsie at the SAC Museum

Inner Columnist


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:27 pm
Posts: 339
A gorgeous ship, and very distinctively a British Ship, nothing else looks like her. Its going to be interesting seeing her operational life, and how she handles her F-35 air wing...assuming I live that long. :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:00 am
Posts: 13497
Location: At the computer, or tablet.
Nathan45 wrote:
A gorgeous ship, and very distinctively a British Ship, nothing else looks like her.


Not even Prince of Wales? The twin island design came from Thales so she's a distinctively Franco-British ship. :P

Nathan45 wrote:
Its going to be interesting seeing her operational life, and how she handles her F-35 air wing...assuming I live that long. :)


You're not expecting to live to 2018? Admittedly that is just for fast jet sea trials. :D

_________________
Adrian Carton de Wiart, VC wrote:
Frankly I had enjoyed the war...and why do people want peace if the war is so much fun?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:50 pm
Posts: 887
And so if my reading and memory work this is just.........71 to 72 years late after the Admiralty concluded the need for larger Carriers by late '43.

And just to further rub salt in the wound.....about 35 years after a certain Defence minister mused about the need for a pair of larger Carriers in the new post cold war environment.

Why with this turn of speed we might see a decision on manned spaceflight by 2060! Just in time for me to die in my 86th year.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6258
Location: Cambs, UK
Zen9 wrote:
And so if my reading and memory work this is just.........71 to 72 years late after the Admiralty concluded the need for larger Carriers by late '43.

And just to further rub salt in the wound.....about 35 years after a certain Defence minister mused about the need for a pair of larger Carriers in the new post cold war environment.

Why with this turn of speed we might see a decision on manned spaceflight by 2060! Just in time for me to die in my 86th year.


By that point technology will have advanced to wind power so ah hurd.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 547
I have been wanting to see this one. I've been following this from the keel laying. I have also been watching POW get built. Purely from a historical point of view, the ships are interesting. The British are finally in the flattop game.

Hope she is worth the steel and is never used for war.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:18 pm
Posts: 76
I had thought the British were leaders in Aircraft Carriers on the run up to and through WW2 with things like steam catapults and angled flight decks. I have often wondered what they could have done with an economy like the United States and shipyards that weren't bombed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:47 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:02 pm
Posts: 2614
We invented just about anything of consequence to do with aircraft carriers. Angled flight deck, mirror landing system, steam catapult, ski jump. We haven't necessarily applied those inventions too well however!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 547
David Newton wrote:
We invented just about anything of consequence to do with aircraft carriers. Angled flight deck, mirror landing system, steam catapult, ski jump. We haven't necessarily applied those inventions too well however!


The only thing the Brits were lacking on was operational doctrine and that frankly could only be gotten by facing a first class carrier opponent. The Japanese provided this for the Americans. By the time the British got back to the Pacific with carrier forces, they were able to learn most of those lessons from the Americans.

I really would have liked to have seen the projected Malta class carriers. :|


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 489
Sorivar wrote:
David Newton wrote:
We invented just about anything of consequence to do with aircraft carriers. Angled flight deck, mirror landing system, steam catapult, ski jump. We haven't necessarily applied those inventions too well however!


The only thing the Brits were lacking on was operational doctrine and that frankly could only be gotten by facing a first class carrier opponent. The Japanese provided this for the Americans. By the time the British got back to the Pacific with carrier forces, they were able to learn most of those lessons from the Americans.

I really would have liked to have seen the projected Malta class carriers. :|

When did the Americans learn the lessons of operating carriers in narrow seas against a continental land-based air power. It does not seem to me that they wanted much share in this business :)

Remember that by August 1942 Britain had lost more aircraft carriers to submarines alone than America lost at Coral Sea and Midway combined.

The Americans were not simply better. They were operating in a far more permissive environment, in which most of the numerous threats to carriers were not present, against an opponent that was considerably weaker in practically every respect other than its aircraft carrier arm.

_________________
To stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:23 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7203
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
HMS Warspite wrote:
Sorivar wrote:
David Newton wrote:
We invented just about anything of consequence to do with aircraft carriers. Angled flight deck, mirror landing system, steam catapult, ski jump. We haven't necessarily applied those inventions too well however!


The only thing the Brits were lacking on was operational doctrine and that frankly could only be gotten by facing a first class carrier opponent. The Japanese provided this for the Americans. By the time the British got back to the Pacific with carrier forces, they were able to learn most of those lessons from the Americans.

I really would have liked to have seen the projected Malta class carriers. :|

When did the Americans learn the lessons of operating carriers in narrow seas against a continental land-based air power. It does not seem to me that they wanted much share in this business :)

Remember that by August 1942 Britain had lost more aircraft carriers to submarines alone than America lost at Coral Sea and Midway combined.

The Americans were not simply better. They were operating in a far more permissive environment, in which most of the numerous threats to carriers were not present, against an opponent that was considerably weaker in practically every respect other than its aircraft carrier arm.

Did you check the date yesterday? Force Z begs to differ.
US carrier-based fighters and ship-mounted AA were much better than their British equivalents, even in 1942. Take the fate of Prince of Wales as opposed to North Carolina at the Eastern Solomans or SoDak at Santa Cruz. I'll grant you submarines, but the Japanese were a lot better at naval aviation (including the land-based parts) than the European Axis.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 489
I cannot see the relevance of an engagement in which no British carriers were present. I don't dispute that Britain did not have enough resources to meet its commitments in 1941.

There is a sense that mid-Pacific carrier vs carrier battles are "real" carrier operations, and others are somehow less "real". Possibly because they are more dramatic. The opposite is surely the case. The conditions of the mid-Pacific were extremely unusual, only relevant to a war between the US and Japan, and Japan was not a particularly important power at the time.

_________________
To stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:38 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7203
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
HMS Warspite wrote:
I cannot see the relevance of an engagement in which no British carriers were present.

You claimed that the Japanese were worse than the Germans in every way except their carrier air arm. I provided a counterexample where Japanese land-based planes dealt with a force that had the advantage of two years of AA experience in Europe. Phillips was apparently of the opinion that ships could fight planes effectively, even after said experience. Or do you really think ImplacableIndomitable, with her Hurricanes and Fulmars, would have saved them? I also compared it to two cases within the next year where US ships survived much heavier air attack (yes, I know there were carriers present, but the planes that got through were of a similar magnitude to those that sunk Force Z) thanks to the fact that we weren't saddled with HACS and other absurdities. How many British battleships did German air attack sink? Last I checked, none. (I'll grant you the German guided bombs, but that was later, and EW took care of them.)

Quote:
There is a sense that mid-Pacific carrier vs carrier battles are "real" carrier operations, and others are somehow less "real". Possibly because they are more dramatic. The opposite is surely the case.

We have n=2, and you're declaring one "unusual". This seems somewhat odd, particularly given the relative number of carrier engaged in the different types.

Quote:
The conditions of the mid-Pacific were extremely unusual, only relevant to a war between the US and Japan, and Japan was not a particularly important power at the time.

Japan wasn't important? Is that why the fall of Singapore had huge follow-on effects on the British Empire? Seriously, it's not a bad devil's advocate position, but you're taking it much too seriously.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 489
ByronC wrote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
I cannot see the relevance of an engagement in which no British carriers were present.

You claimed that the Japanese were worse than the Germans in every way except their carrier air arm. I provided a counterexample where Japanese land-based planes dealt with a force that had the advantage of two years of AA experience in Europe.

The Japanese land based force was considerably weaker than that of the Germans and Italians, achieving a local success against a weak force that was only dispatched because that force was expected to be weak, and evn then only with enormous (relative) concentration of force and expenditure of munitions.

If the British had had the resources to send a force of the calibre they sent the same year to the Mediterranean, they would have suffered no capital ship losses and the Japanese landings on Malaya would have been impossible. For sure, the British did not have the economic resources to fight both the entire European continent and Japan at the same time. That's not a question of doctrine though.

Quote:
Or do you really think ImplacableIndomitable, with her Hurricanes and Fulmars, would have saved them?

Very likely yes. Although they would not have caused enormous damage to the Japanese attackers, they would have disrupted the attack enough to give very good chances of no losses.

That wasn't the only difference between Z and the kind of force sent to the Mediterranean. The screening force of cruisers and destroyers was also absent. (depending on location) the screening force of land based aircraft was absent. Again, the British Admiralty was well aware of all of this (and opposed Force Z in the face of Churchill's insistence), they just did not have the resources to do better.

Quote:
How many British battleships did German air attack sink? Last I checked, none.?

Thus proving the British were incompetent.

Quote:
Quote:
There is a sense that mid-Pacific carrier vs carrier battles are "real" carrier operations, and others are somehow less "real". Possibly because they are more dramatic. The opposite is surely the case.

We have n=2, and you're declaring one "unusual". This seems somewhat odd, particularly given the relative number of carrier engaged in the different types.

Quote:
The conditions of the mid-Pacific were extremely unusual, only relevant to a war between the US and Japan, and Japan was not a particularly important power at the time.

Japan wasn't important? Is that why the fall of Singapore had huge follow-on effects on the British Empire? Seriously, it's not a bad devil's advocate position, but you're taking it much too seriously.

The economic pivot of the world lay between New York and London. California-Asia was a sideshow. In that sense, the mid Pacific carrier battles were an exception, and a relatively unimportant exception.

_________________
To stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:13 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7203
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
HMS Warspite wrote:
ByronC wrote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
I cannot see the relevance of an engagement in which no British carriers were present.

You claimed that the Japanese were worse than the Germans in every way except their carrier air arm. I provided a counterexample where Japanese land-based planes dealt with a force that had the advantage of two years of AA experience in Europe.

The Japanese land based force was considerably weaker than that of the Germans and Italians, achieving a local success against a weak force that was only dispatched because that force was expected to be weak, and evn then only with enormous (relative) concentration of force and expenditure of munitions.

I'm in the middle of Friedman's book on AA guns and gunnery. All of the tactics that had worked in the Med failed spectacularly against the Japanese. Nobody but nobody thought the RN was better at air defense than the USN after mid-1942.
As for 'disproportionate force', I really fail to see how you can call it that when the Japanese sunk two capital ships with 90 planes, and the Germans and Italians were unable to sink any one of six during Operation Pedestal with air strikes with nearly 600 planes. (OK, only 285 were bombers, but the bomber/capital ship ratio was pretty much identical. Yes, the British had fighters, but on the other hand, the Japanese lost a grand total of 4 airplanes vs Force Z.)

Quote:
Very likely yes. Although they would not have caused enormous damage to the Japanese attackers, they would have disrupted the attack enough to give very good chances of no losses.

And the bit where the Japanese sent Zeros along with the bombers to deal with the carrier they knew was there? The Fulmars were only about 10 mph faster than the G4Ms.

Quote:
That wasn't the only difference between Z and the kind of force sent to the Mediterranean. The screening force of cruisers and destroyers was also absent. (depending on location) the screening force of land based aircraft was absent. Again, the British Admiralty was well aware of all of this (and opposed Force Z in the face of Churchill's insistence), they just did not have the resources to do better.

I fully understand the resource constraints the British were working under at the time.

Quote:
Quote:
How many British battleships did German air attack sink? Last I checked, none.?

Thus proving the British were incompetent.

No. I have a great deal of respect for the RN, I just think you're claiming way too much about how good they were relative to the USN. My point was that if the Germans were so good at air attacks, they would have done a better job of it and probably sunk something. Actually, last I checked, the Japanese also lead in carrier kills via aircraft.

Quote:
Japan wasn't important? Is that why the fall of Singapore had huge follow-on effects on the British Empire? Seriously, it's not a bad devil's advocate position, but you're taking it much too seriously.

The economic pivot of the world lay between New York and London. California-Asia was a sideshow. In that sense, the mid Pacific carrier battles were an exception, and a relatively unimportant exception.[/quote]
Unimportant. If that's the case, why didn't the British pull out of Singapore when it was obvious they were going to lose? Don't get me wrong. Germany-first made sense. But I think you're denigrating the Pacific campaign to make the RN look better and the USN worse.
(Just to be clear, the USN wasn't perfect. Their performance in the early days in the Atlantic was horrifyingly bad, and a lot of the decisions in the Pacific leave a great deal to be desired. IMO, the two navies both did very good jobs in their respective spheres. But the British messed up their carrier aviation something fierce in the runup to the war.)

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 489
ByronC wrote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
The Japanese land based force was considerably weaker than that of the Germans and Italians, achieving a local success against a weak force that was only dispatched because that force was expected to be weak, and evn then only with enormous (relative) concentration of force and expenditure of munitions.

I'm in the middle of Friedman's book on AA guns and gunnery. All of the tactics that had worked in the Med failed spectacularly against the Japanese.

When were they ever tried? Britain did not send a force capable of employing them until 1945.

Quote:
Nobody but nobody thought the RN was better at air defense than the USN after mid-1942.

And I would agree, because of materiel factors alone.

Quote:
As for 'disproportionate force', I really fail to see how you can call it that when the Japanese sunk two capital ships with 90 planes, and the Germans and Italians were unable to sink any one of six during Operation Pedestal with air strikes with nearly 600 planes. (OK, only 285 were bombers, but the bomber/capital ship ratio was pretty much identical. Yes, the British had fighters, but on the other hand, the Japanese lost a grand total of 4 airplanes vs Force Z.)

The German attacks of 600 planes were not against two unescorted capitals, and would likely have succeeded against two unescorted capitals. 90 planes was more than the British expected of the Japanese very far from their homeland. Even then, as I said, the Admiralty was less than impressed with the Force Z plan, which was pushed by political considerations. The British never sent major capital ship forces without carrier escort on extended missions into the Med.

Quote:
Quote:
Very likely yes. Although they would not have caused enormous damage to the Japanese attackers, they would have disrupted the attack enough to give very good chances of no losses.

And the bit where the Japanese sent Zeros along with the bombers to deal with the carrier they knew was there? The Fulmars were only about 10 mph faster than the G4Ms.

It is not symmetric. It does not matter if Britain loses the fighters so long as she does not lose the capitals. The Japanese attack barely succeeded even without the presence of a few dozen British fighters.

Quote:
Quote:
That wasn't the only difference between Z and the kind of force sent to the Mediterranean. The screening force of cruisers and destroyers was also absent. (depending on location) the screening force of land based aircraft was absent. Again, the British Admiralty was well aware of all of this (and opposed Force Z in the face of Churchill's insistence), they just did not have the resources to do better.

I fully understand the resource constraints the British were working under at the time.

OK.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How many British battleships did German air attack sink? Last I checked, none.?

Thus proving the British were incompetent.

No. I have a great deal of respect for the RN, I just think you're claiming way too much about how good they were relative to the USN. My point was that if the Germans were so good at air attacks, they would have done a better job of it and probably sunk something. Actually, last I checked, the Japanese also lead in carrier kills via aircraft.

Against the Germans the RN was playing hard ball, because the Germans mattered quite a bit more than the Japanese.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Japan wasn't important? Is that why the fall of Singapore had huge follow-on effects on the British Empire? Seriously, it's not a bad devil's advocate position, but you're taking it much too seriously.

The economic pivot of the world lay between New York and London. California-Asia was a sideshow. In that sense, the mid Pacific carrier battles were an exception, and a relatively unimportant exception.

Unimportant. If that's the case, why didn't the British pull out of Singapore when it was obvious they were going to lose? Don't get me wrong. Germany-first made sense. But I think you're denigrating the Pacific campaign to make the RN look better and the USN worse.
(Just to be clear, the USN wasn't perfect. Their performance in the early days in the Atlantic was horrifyingly bad, and a lot of the decisions in the Pacific leave a great deal to be desired. IMO, the two navies both did very good jobs in their respective spheres. But the British messed up their carrier aviation something fierce in the runup to the war.)

By the time the loss was "obvious", they didn't have the transport.

The Pacific campaign was materially irrelevant.

As I have said, the Americans faced a far more permissive environment for carriers, designed carriers optimised for a permissive environment, and largely avoided employing their carriers in Britain's main carrier theatres (in stark contrast to most other American materiel).

_________________
To stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4694
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
ByronC wrote:
Phillips was apparently of the opinion that ships could fight planes effectively, even after said experience.

No, he wasn't. He very much wanted air cover for his sortie, but the RAF was unwilling to provide it. Nonetheless, he considered it his duty to go out and try to interdict the invasion force, air cover or not, regardless of the risks.

As it turned out, when the force came under attack the RAF stooped to sending a handful of fighters to see off the attack. At the extreme ranges the G3Ms and G4Ms were operating, they didn't have a lot of margin for evasion. There's a very good chance that the presence of air cover - whether land-based or organic to the fleet - throughout the operation would have made a significant difference, simply by not allowing them to make almost undisturbed attack runs.

The nearest US equivalent I can come up with is the USN 'abandoning' the Marines on Guadalcanal because of divergent priorities. The key difference is, the USMC took this to mean that they couldn't depend on fighters that weren't theirs, and deployed their political machine to get and keep them. The Royal Navy keeps forgetting the lesson.

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:22 am 
Online

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7203
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
HMS Warspite wrote:
ByronC wrote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
The Japanese land based force was considerably weaker than that of the Germans and Italians, achieving a local success against a weak force that was only dispatched because that force was expected to be weak, and evn then only with enormous (relative) concentration of force and expenditure of munitions.

I'm in the middle of Friedman's book on AA guns and gunnery. All of the tactics that had worked in the Med failed spectacularly against the Japanese.

When were they ever tried? Britain did not send a force capable of employing them until 1945.

1941. The Germans and Italians could be deterred by barrages of medium gunfire. The Japanese ignored them.

Quote:
Quote:
Nobody but nobody thought the RN was better at air defense than the USN after mid-1942.

And I would agree, because of materiel factors alone.

Which is more or less my point. Yes, the USN had better materiel. This wasn't really the RN's fault, either, for reasons I'm pretty sure you know.

Quote:
The German attacks of 600 planes were not against two unescorted capitals, and would likely have succeeded against two unescorted capitals.

Obviously.

Quote:
90 planes was more than the British expected of the Japanese very far from their homeland.

I'm well aware of that, particularly when they were heavy naval strike airplanes. So?

Quote:
Even then, as I said, the Admiralty was less than impressed with the Force Z plan, which was pushed by political considerations. The British never sent major capital ship forces without carrier escort on extended missions into the Med.

I'm very well aware of the politics around the defense of Singapore. Read a book on them, in fact.

Quote:
It is not symmetric. It does not matter if Britain loses the fighters so long as she does not lose the capitals. The Japanese attack barely succeeded even without the presence of a few dozen British fighters.

Yes, I know they were at the edges of range. But I think you're assuming far too much about British carrier fighter performance, which was generally not that good. The Japanese could have sent escorts, but didn't because they knew there was no carrier.

Quote:
Against the Germans the RN was playing hard ball, because the Germans mattered quite a bit more than the Japanese.

OK. I don't have time to do a full analysis of the British Pacific Fleet right now, but it really doesn't justify this.

Quote:
By the time the loss was "obvious", they didn't have the transport.

OK. Defend sending the 18th Infantry Division in, then.

Quote:
As I have said, the Americans faced a far more permissive environment for carriers, designed carriers optimised for a permissive environment, and largely avoided employing their carriers in Britain's main carrier theatres (in stark contrast to most other American materiel).

History does not agree, except on the last point. Which had a lot more to do with the necessity to send ships to the Pacific than a reluctance to send the ships into the Med. The British had been mildly dissatisfied with their AA until they sent ships to the Pacific, when upgrades became really urgent. That doesn't sound like going from a non-permissive environment to a permissive one to me.

RLBH wrote:
ByronC wrote:
Phillips was apparently of the opinion that ships could fight planes effectively, even after said experience.

No, he wasn't. He very much wanted air cover for his sortie, but the RAF was unwilling to provide it. Nonetheless, he considered it his duty to go out and try to interdict the invasion force, air cover or not, regardless of the risks.

I went through about half a dozen books on this last week. The only one with details on Phillips's thoughts said he thought he'd be OK without air cover. Yes, I do know he wanted it, but the picture I got was not "I expect to die, but I'll do my duty." He might even have been right, based on Med experience.

Quote:
As it turned out, when the force came under attack the RAF stooped to sending a handful of fighters to see off the attack.

That was totally Phillips's fault. He read "no air cover near Singora" as "no air cover at all" and didn't even call for help. Tennant did after PoW got hit and he wasn't sure if Phillips was still in command.

Quote:
At the extreme ranges the G3Ms and G4Ms were operating, they didn't have a lot of margin for evasion. There's a very good chance that the presence of air cover - whether land-based or organic to the fleet - throughout the operation would have made a significant difference, simply by not allowing them to make almost undisturbed attack runs.

And the bit where they would have had zeros along if there had been a carrier in the British force? I know they had little margin, but the handful of British fighters that would have been available are unlikely to be a panacea. More likely, Indomitable joins them on the bottom.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4694
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
ByronC wrote:
I went through about half a dozen books on this last week. The only one with details on Phillips's thoughts said he thought he'd be OK without air cover. Yes, I do know he wanted it, but the picture I got was not "I expect to die, but I'll do my duty." He might even have been right, based on Med experience.

I'll see if I can dig out the article; my recollection is that Philips was reasonably air-minded, but felt that the Navy had a job to do. Cunningham's remarks about the evacuation of Crete spring to mind here - the two men were very much contemporaries. That said, I don't know that he had a full appreciation of the scale of the air threat. At any rate, the conclusion was that he was made a scapegoat for the wider policy failings that led to the loss of his ships.
ByronC wrote:
And the bit where they would have had zeros along if there had been a carrier in the British force? I know they had little margin, but the handful of British fighters that would have been available are unlikely to be a panacea. More likely, Indomitable joins them on the bottom.

Were there any A6Ms available? Was the fuel for them available at the bases? Genuine questions by the way. If not, then sending A6Ms means sending fewer G3Ms and G4Ms, which reduces the strength of the attack. If there aren't any Japanese fighters then the Fulmar gets to play the bomber destroyer game that it and the Defiant were designed for, against aircraft that are basically flying fuel tanks.

Either way, a third hull means splitting the Japanese attack. You pay your money and take your choice on that, but it's hard to see that the combination of fewer torpedoes aimed at each ship and (roughly) 50% more AA fire wouldn't help the RN's odds. At least one loss is likely, three entirely possible, but it's more of a chance than having nothing. I find it hard to believe that adding an aircraft carrier to the force would have made no difference whatsoever to the outcome.

There are wider questions about the impact of an aircraft carrier on the handling of Force Z (possible contact with Ozawa being the main one), and I don't question for one moment that anything the RN could spare would have had a very difficult time of it in that theatre. British naval aviation was godawful, partly because the RAF controlled it for about twenty years too many but also because the RN had some very funny ideas of their own. Even after the RN got control of the FAA, they still specified terrible aircraft. The ships, too, were partly a response to the parlous state of the FAA, partly due to the strategic situation.

If the USN were in the same strategic situation, they may have made different ship-design decisions, but they'd be doing so from a better understanding of the role and capabilities of naval aviation, and probably would have done better than the RN. If the RN had been in the USN's situation, they probably wouldn't have done much differently than OTL, and would have struggled accordingly.

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6258
Location: Cambs, UK
This account is quite good.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Repulse.php

One bomb and 8 torpedo hits total, of which one torpedo hit on each ship was root cause for the other three each to complete the sinkings.

Adding another large ship reduces the number of attacks made on each ship by 17% (from 1/2 to 1/3) while increasing the risk of loss of the carrier from 0 to 1/3.

REPULSE has dodged 19 torpedoes before taking her fatal hit then eating another three; it’s easy to see how another target in the water would have attracted those four fish.

PoW is doomed from the start due to Golden BB...

Now what happens to the carrier? Japanese anti shipping aviation just shot all its available ammunition in theatre...

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The Lurker and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group