Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What was Britian thinking

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> What was Britian thinking Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 6:56:38 AM   
SargeantTex


Posts: 420
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		they had a flying stringbag for a torpedo bomber the Fulmar was an atrocious fighter they didnt have a decent naval fighter till the Seafire. the Japs would have slaughtered them one on one and did!
Post #: 1
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 7:44:11 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		Yeah, you know? They even were stupid enough to call themselves Britain

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to SargeantTex)
Post #: 2
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 8:19:21 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SargeantTex

they had a flying stringbag for a torpedo bomber the Fulmar was an atrocious fighter they didnt have a decent naval fighter till the Seafire. the Japs would have slaughtered them one on one and did!



Remember that Britian's primary threat and enemies were Germany and Italy. And Taranto was attacked very successfully with those "Stringbags"..., as was Bismarck. When they needed more modern Carrier Aircraft they turned to the US. Had the Japanese been the primary threat in the 30's, more efforts would have been made with Carrier A/C.

(in reply to SargeantTex)
Post #: 3
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 8:23:57 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Had more to do with the FAA being controlled by the RAF for so many years I think.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 4
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 8:44:17 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Yeah, you know? They even were stupid enough to call themselves Britain


Do you see Mike's post after yours? I believe he deserves a citation for the same offense! We will make a spelling nazi out of you yet.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 5
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 10:36:17 AM   
Howard Mitchell


Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline 		Much was to do with lack of resources as well. Britain had to develop aircraft to fight a direct threat to the UK and there was little spare capacity in terms of both design and production to equip the RN.

_____________________________

While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 6
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 12:51:57 PM   
Widell


Posts: 913
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Trollhättan, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SargeantTex

they had a flying stringbag for a torpedo bomber the Fulmar was an atrocious fighter they didnt have a decent naval fighter till the Seafire. the Japs would have slaughtered them one on one and did!


That´s a funny post! It is probably correct from a Computer Game player perspective, but the reality of things were that Britain after the Great War took a political decision to not have a great fleet or air force as "there would not be war again in a forseeable future" or somehting along those lines

They actually trained the Japanese Carrier Pilots as part of a Naval Alliance between Britain and Japan (One of the things the British did to compensate for the reduction of naval and air units around the world). Once it became a very, very likely risk that the Japanese would attack Singapore (and more....), the British tried to make up for the lack of investment since WWI by sending ships to Singapore (what became the unfortunate Force Z). It was too little and too late, and a result of bad political decisions on many levels

Conclusion is that they fought with what they had and got beat up pretty badly, but I sincerely don´t think pulling inferior equipment off the front lines was an option (or even a possibility in some cases)


_____________________________


(in reply to SargeantTex)
Post #: 7
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 12:54:28 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Fulmar's sucked no doubt about that. The Stringbags had their place though. Sure when meeting any fighter opposition they were dead meat but they were easy enough to maintain and were a flexible enough aircraft to be used for ASW also, radar mods etc.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Widell)
Post #: 8
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 12:58:57 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The Swordfish was a fine aircraft.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 9
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 3:12:30 PM   
captskillet


Posts: 2493
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: Louisiana & the 2007 Nat Champ LSU Fightin' Tigers
Status: offline 		they also took down (with some help from bombers/AVG and one LB Swordfish Sq all from Rangoon) the Kaga, Akagi & a CVL when the KB made its 'attempted' call on the Indian Ocean !

_____________________________

"Git thar fust with the most men" - Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 10
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 5:32:28 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Que!

Tha Japanese carriers did enter the Indian Ocean and smote Colombo & Trincomalee while in the meantime sinking Hermes, Dorsetshire & Cornwall.

The only Allied aircraft involved were the RAF & RN Hurricanes & Fulmar fighters and RAF Blenheims. (THough extra aircraft such as the Blackburn Shark flew search patrols)

Yes, the Fleet Air Arm was poorly equipped by the RAF, but the Brits had a land war as their major focus, in addition to the defence of their homeland. Compare the Frontline Fighters & Bombers against the USAAC equipment on 3 Sept 39. You will find the RAF well ahead.

But the USA had 2 great Oceans shielding them so extra effort went into Carrier based Aircraft. Despite this her CV based fighters at 3 Sept 39 were a mix of F2A & F3F with TBD Devastator & SB2U Vindicator as the strike aircraft, hardly world beaters themsekves.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to captskillet)
Post #: 11
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 5:59:05 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline 		I have heard it said that the Swordfish was a superb aircraft for operations in the North Atlantic, where they were designed to operate. Thier low stall speed made them a ridiculously stable torpedo bomber and their large wing surface actually made them more stable in bad weather, which there is a lot of in the area, than many more modern TBs. I have also heard that the Swordfishes low speed was actually an advantage versus the Bismark because its AA director was designed with faster aircraft in mind. However, I wouldnt testify to that in court.

Also, I think Ron is right in this case. Much of the Fleet Air Arm's woes came from the fact that it was controlled by the RAF up until the very outbreak of war, and basically got very short shrift as a result.

I think there is also something to be said for the way the Bits operated their carriers. The Stringbag, all in all, is a much more compact aircraft than the stuff that either the USN or IJN was operating. This makes much sense considering that RN CVs needed all the hangar space they could get, being that they were not very big to begin with as well as that it was not RN practice to either stow or service aircraft on deck.

The Fulmar, for all its faults, was not really designed as a fighter AFAIK. It was supposed to be a jack of all trades; fighter, dive bomber, recce aircraft, night fighter, etc. We can all probably site hundreds of examples where things designed for many tasks ultimately sucked at all of them.

Also, for all its sexiness, the Seafire was not that good of a plane for carrier application. From what I remember of a great little book called "The Forgotten Fleet", RN CVs were losing as many Seafires to ops losses as they were to enemy action. Most of these ops losses came by way of landing gear collapse as the birdies smacked down on the deck.

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 12
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 6:07:49 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Yes, the Fleet Air Arm was poorly equipped by the RAF, but the Brits had a land war as their major focus, in addition to the defence of their homeland. Compare the Frontline Fighters & Bombers against the USAAC equipment on 3 Sept 39. You will find the RAF well ahead.

But the USA had 2 great Oceans shielding them so extra effort went into Carrier based Aircraft. Despite this her CV based fighters at 3 Sept 39 were a mix of F2A & F3F with TBD Devastator & SB2U Vindicator as the strike aircraft, hardly world beaters themsekves.


Much beer!

However, I still stand by the notion that the RAF gave the FAA the short end of the stick in the way of aircraft development. In 1939, the RAF had very impressive hardware either in development or on its way through the production pipeline. The FAA got none of that. Even the design doctrine behind the planes being developed for the FAA in 39 was way behind. I think this is the reason that the FAA never really caught up and was forced to utilize either US hardware, for which their carriers were ill designed and required a lot of adaptation and change in doctrine, or RAF planes which despite modifications never really measured up.

All that said, in 1939 not only was the USN still flying a motley collection of crap, but the IJN as well was operating some pretty rare garbage.

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 13
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/27/2006 6:12:46 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		xxx

< Message edited by juliet7bravo -- 5/18/2007 4:48:52 PM >

(in reply to SargeantTex)
Post #: 14
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 1:28:41 PM   
Freddy Fudpucker

 

Posts: 235
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		Though the Stringbag wasn't exactly at the cutting edge of 1940's aviation technology, I understand that it was a very reliable aircraft and not easy to shoot down. I have no source to quote but I seem to remember reading about stringbags bringing their crews home safe and sound despite being absolutley riddled with bullet and shrapnel holes.

_____________________________

Gentlemen, we're in the stickiest situation since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun'. -Capt. E. Blackadder.

(in reply to juliet7bravo)
Post #: 15
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 2:50:41 PM   
captskillet


Posts: 2493
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: Louisiana & the 2007 Nat Champ LSU Fightin' Tigers
Status: offline 		JeffK, the smiley wink face was a clue that in my "game" it was attempted, I know in the real world of WWII they did a foray into the Indian Ocean. #2....... I wasn't the one that made the original contention about Swordfish, etc. and my post wasn't meant as a putdown of the RN AC at that time, on the contrary it was meant to say the Swordfish weren't so bad.............

_____________________________

"Git thar fust with the most men" - Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 16
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 3:24:11 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Something else to remember. Britian went to war in September of 1939 with the Hurricane and the Sptifire and the Gloster Gladiator. At that time, the Japs were flying Nates and Claudes. The British had to solidify designs to mass produce them for the War with Germany..., Japan could still work with new designs. Strained by the War in Europe, the British were forced to "bluff" to an extent in the Far East. Japan called their bluff, and their pair of 3's didn't hold up.

(in reply to captskillet)
Post #: 17
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 5:48:27 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		With hindsight, every nation can be critiqued for some of their choices of weapons. Remember, the USN chose the Brewster Buffalo over the F4F.

_____________________________




(in reply to SargeantTex)
Post #: 18
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 6:52:05 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline 		The Swordfish was all right as long as it did not face enemy fighters and anti-aircraft gunners who realized how slow they flew. British torpedoes were more reliable than US torpedoes at the start of the war as long as they did not use magnetic exploders. The British Navy still seems to like small carriers with planes that have limited range, would the Argentine Air Force wrecked so much havoc on the RN if the Brits were using American style carriers and planes?
A more legitimate criticism of RN and Lord Louis Battenberg (a.k.a. Mountbatten butchers of Canadian at Dieppe) was it lack of offensive operation on the Burma coast from the second half of 1944 onwards.


< Message edited by madmickey -- 5/28/2006 7:00:42 PM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 19
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 8:24:22 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

With hindsight, every nation can be critiqued for some of their choices of weapons. Remember, the USN chose the Brewster Buffalo over the F4F.


Wasnt there a caveat of some sort there? IIRC, the bought the Buffalo contract because they prommissed to supply more planes faster. And unless I'm totally confusing something, I think the same thing happened with the B-17. IIRC, the AAC kept the project on ice because the factory could not deliver sufficient quantity to justify a contract. By the time the Army finally decided to reach for the check book, the 17 was in its 4th modification.

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 20
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 8:30:10 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Guess PDUs were not in widespread use IRL.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)
Post #: 21
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 8:31:28 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Mi read post


< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 5/28/2006 8:32:45 PM >

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 22
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 8:37:23 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

British torpedoes were more reliable than US torpedoes at the start of the war as long as they did not use magnetic exploders.


I think they had those figured out by the time of the Bismark saga, no?

quote:

The British Navy still seems to like small carriers with planes that have limited range, would the Argentine Air Force wrecked so much havoc on the RN if the Brits were using American style carriers and planes?


I would argue that likes and dislikes hardly figure into it. I'm sure the RN would have loved to field a dozen behemoths the size of the Nimitz. The plain and sad truth was that they couldnt afford it. I cant say if they British powers-that-be were justified in slashing the military budgets to half past nothing, but the fact is that they did.

quote:

A more legitimate criticism of RN and Lord Louis Battenberg (a.k.a. Mountbatten butchers of Canadian at Dieppe) was it lack of offensive operation on the Burma coast from the second half of 1944 onwards.


The distinct impression I got from the Sommerville Papers was that the standing opinon among RN brass was that there was absolutely no legitimate reason to risk His Majesty's Ships in Burma at all. Later on, (see The Forgotten Fleet) they did run a few operations along the coast, trying to intercept barge convoys, shoot up radio and radar stations and the like. But even then nothing bigger than a DD was involved. Incidentally, they did sink an IJN CA down there in about that time frame (maybe a bit later).


_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 23
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 8:38:15 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

A more legitimate criticism of RN and Lord Louis Battenberg (a.k.a. Mountbatten butchers of Canadian at Dieppe) was it lack of offensive operation on the Burma coast from the second half of 1944 onwards.



What the hell did this have to do with the Swordfish???

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 24
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 8:47:26 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

A more legitimate criticism of RN and Lord Louis Battenberg (a.k.a. Mountbatten butchers of Canadian at Dieppe) was it lack of offensive operation on the Burma coast from the second half of 1944 onwards.



What the hell did this have to do with the Swordfish???


I think what he's trying to say is that instead of blasting the Brits for using Swordfish, we could be discussing their bigger strategic failures.

Anyway, dont you have to sacrifice a goat to The Tread today or something?

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 25
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 8:50:52 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Wow, two dumbasses for the price of one...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)
Post #: 26
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 8:53:06 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline 		Watch your language young man. Unlike you, I have the ability to be bored without having to offer a prayer to the almighty Thread.

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 27
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 8:54:29 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		The RN didnt want to do anything off Burma the view was it was a total waste of time when the critical point was in CentPac

Churchill had to virtually force them to prepare for ops there on Political grounds not Military.

Also dont forget about th emonsoon restricting opportuniteis and ships take time to get from Overlord/Anvil to India its not a quick task

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 28
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 9:00:28 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Wow, two dumbasses for the price of one...

Typical from a country that surrendered in 2 minutes.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 29
RE: What was Britian thinking - 5/28/2006 9:02:29 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo


quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

British torpedoes were more reliable than US torpedoes at the start of the war as long as they did not use magnetic exploders.


I think they had those figured out by the time of the Bismark saga, no?




correct term is after the Bismarck saga.

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> What was Britian thinking Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.704