What was Britian thinking

What was Britian thinking (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

SargeantTex -> What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 6:56:38 AM)
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!

pasternakski -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 7:44:11 AM)
Yeah, you know? They even were stupid enough to call themselves Britain

Mike Scholl -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 8:19:21 AM)
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.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 8:23:57 AM)
Had more to do with the FAA being controlled by the RAF for so many years I think.

Charles2222 -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 8:44:17 AM)
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.

Howard Mitchell -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 10:36:17 AM)
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.

Widell -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 12:51:57 PM)
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)

Speedysteve -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 12:54:28 PM)
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.

Terminus -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 12:58:57 PM)
The Swordfish was a fine aircraft.

captskillet -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 3:12:30 PM)
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 [:D] !

JeffroK -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 5:32:28 PM)
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.

Onime No Kyo -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 5:59:05 PM)
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.

Onime No Kyo -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 6:07:49 PM)
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.

juliet7bravo -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/27/2006 6:12:46 PM)
xxx

Freddy Fudpucker -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 1:28:41 PM)
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.

captskillet -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 2:50:41 PM)
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.............

Mike Scholl -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 3:24:11 PM)
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.

m10bob -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 5:48:27 PM)
With hindsight, every nation can be critiqued for some of their choices of weapons. Remember, the USN chose the Brewster Buffalo over the F4F.

madmickey -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 6:52:05 PM)
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.

Onime No Kyo -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 8:24:22 PM)
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.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 8:30:10 PM)
Guess PDUs were not in widespread use IRL.[:D]

Andy Mac -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 8:31:28 PM)
Mi read post

Onime No Kyo -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 8:37:23 PM)
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).

Terminus -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 8:38:15 PM)
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???

Onime No Kyo -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 8:47:26 PM)
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?

Terminus -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 8:50:52 PM)
Wow, two dumbasses for the price of one...[8\|]

Onime No Kyo -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 8:53:06 PM)
Watch your language young man. Unlike you, I have the ability to be bored without having to offer a prayer to the almighty Thread.

Andy Mac -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 8:54:29 PM)
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

madmickey -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 9:00:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Wow, two dumbasses for the price of one...[8\|] Typical from a country that surrendered in 2 minutes.

madmickey -> RE: What was Britian thinking (5/28/2006 9:02:29 PM)
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.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.297363