StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hello everyone. While browsing through this forum I came across this topic, http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 7&start=25, from two years ago that was rather interesting with regards to what would have happened without Hitler. The most interesting part that I found was what Japan might have done. This post stuck out the most for me:

Ziggy Stardust wrote:Even if we grant the Japanese as complete a surprise victory as they got historically in 1941 (which I must stress is incredibly unlikely without the war in Europe raging ... the British and French would have certainly sent more forces to the East if Europe was peaceful), there will immediately be large scale reinforcements of a kind that the Pacific NEVER saw (not even in 1945) during the war. The Japanese would likely be defeated even if the U.S. didn't get involved for some reason

If I may, I'd like to counter this point. The important thing to remember here is that the possibility of German aggression is what forced through the re-armament policies in both Britain and France. If there is no Hitler and possibility of a Continental war, then most likely re-armament would have started at an even slower pace then when Hitler was threatening the continent with war. Would that not actually make the British and French weaker to respond to Japanese aggression? I'm aware that before Hitler's rise the British did indeed consider the Japanese to be their main opponents, not sure about the French though, and on paper the RN did meet the requirements needed to match the IJN. But even then the British conceeded that their replacement of obsolete ships in the 1930s was moving at a slow rate. Also without Hitler, the British most likely would not embark on their naval expansion in the mid 30s to deal with the dual threat of Japan and Germany and therefore might only continue with their previous plan against Japan which was already felt as inadequate.

And as for the British Army, we're already aware that they were at the bottom of the food chain when it came to resource allocation in the mid 30s re-armament programmes. Before the threat of Germany was even considered, their priority was even lower in relation to the other Services. Importantly, the Munich Crisis is what led to the Army getting a massive overhaul and without Hitler there would be little reason for there to be one, as in the early 30s when Japan was viewed as the main threat, there was little expansion or re-armament of the Army.

Also we need to remember financial considerations as well. The reason why Britain was able to ignore the financial constraints of re-armament was because Hitler's Germany was a real threat to the survival of Britain. If the only real threat was Japan, though threatening some of the colonies but not the Home Islands, its doubtful if the British would have embarked on a massive re-armament on the scale of what they did with Germany just to counter Japan.

Obviously with no threat of war with Germany, France and Britain would have been able to strengthen the colonies, but what exactly would they strengthen them with? As we know, massive British and French(?) re-armament was related to a more aggressive Germany, and quite clearly based on early 30s plans against Japan, although on paper the British met their needs for countering Japan, in reality they were inadequate. Of course Singapore would have actually had more ships, but would the quality of these ships be top-notch? Yes more troops would have been sent, but due to a lack of re-armament they might actually be worse off then the ones that were sent in reality.

And I'm not sure what is meant by "massive" reinforcements that would surpass the 1945 levels. Does this include only the British Pacific Fleet of 1945 or the US forces as well? Well if only the BPF is considered then yes, maybe reinforcements would surpass those levels. But if its meant to include the US Navy then that is highly unlikely. The US Navy of 1945 was possibly the largest modern navy ever assembled and I highly doubt that "pre-rearmament" Royal and French navies combined even come close to the number of modern ships deployed by the Americans. Also did not the Americans deploy most of the fleet in the Pacific War anyway? Logistics and maintaining these "massive" reinforcements are also other tricky issues. Also I have to add that according to Max Hastings, in his book Retribution, the war in the Far East never captured the imagination or popularity as the war in Europe did with the British public. Would the British public tolerate deploying millions of men to fight for a bunch of exotic colonies. And how would they defeat Japan without American help? The British already thought that invading Japan was impractical and its doubtful that they could implement a successful blockade of Japan without destroying the Japanese fleet. And even if there was a blockade, we know in reality that even with a stronger blockade in place by the Americans, Japan had refused to surrender. Also I'm not entirely sure but didn't the British lack amphibious transportation anyway? I recall they were reliant on American support for some of their operations in Europe. Also massive reinforcements are conditional on re-armamanet programmes in Europe and without Hitler that isn't happening.

Basically I doubt Britain and France could defeat Japan alone. Without the presence of Hitler and an aggressive Germany there is basically little reason to embark on the massive re-armament programmes we saw in the mid to late 30s. Therefore Britain and/or France would be engaging the Japanese with pre re-armament forces which are in themselves inadequate and obsolete. I'm not saying Japan could defeat both those powers either but it is a strong claim to make that Japan would have been defeated by what are essentially two weakened powers without the assistance of the US. Also I think the industrial might and the power of the US Navy were essential ingredients for victory over Japan. Lacking US involvement any conflict between Britain and Japan would most likely end up stale-mated. Though I agree that Japan most likely would not engage in conflict with Britain and the US without an aggressive Germany.

Sorry for bringing this up as the topic is two years old, but i found it strange that no one addressed these points.

It depends on.... certain other factors, such as the existence of a militant germany and etc.

However, the sole reason why Malaya was historically undermanned was due to the German threat. As the Sembawang Naval Base showed, by 1935, Britain had taken defending the Malayan colony seriously and more importantly, without a hostile Italy/Germany, they could actually enact a plausible Singapore Strategy. Including stationing a much larger, powerful fleet in the East, in coordination with both Dutch, French forces.

Japan would never have been able to successfully invade anything beyond Hong Kong and if they're suicidal enough, Phillipines.

Even without 'Hitler', I can't see either France or Britian diverting their entire peacetime forces to asia. If they are taken by surprise and respond badly with poor equipment the way they did in WW2, the distances will probably make it much harder to build up forces to counterattack.

Without the threat of German re-armament, would the Europeans have enough carriers to screen warships at sea?

Well, as far as I know the British carrier forces were not built with Germany in mind in the first place. Assuming they are still built as planned that gives the British alone 7 fleet carriers (or 8 if you count Eagle) versus Japans 6, though the Japanese carriers carried more aircraft. So it probably would come down to British land-based fighters being able to support the fleet (unlikely) and it would probably be vital for the Brits to hold on to Singapore in the first place to provide a safe haven.

Otherwise you get a long slog through Burma.

I was under the impression many of Britains carriers were old and crap, but I guess without the early losses vs submarines they'd have more than I thought. However, did the doctrine exist to defend the fleet against mass attack at this time?

Stark wrote:I was under the impression many of Britains carriers were old and crap,

Not really. The Brits were really doing quite well rearming all things considered. (Interestingly, their plans also called for the rearmament to be done at the same time the German Navy expected its programs to be finished but WWII happened way before that for each Navy).

But let us look at the ships and planes:

Japanese:

Akagi - 1927 - 66 planes
Kaga - 1928 - 72
Soryu - 1937 - 57
Hiryu - 1939 - 57
Shokaku - 1941 - 72
Zuikaku - 1941 - 72
=396 planes max.

British:
(HMS Eagle - 1924 - 30)
(HMS Furious - 1825 - 30)
HMS Courageous - 1928 - 48
HMS Glorious - 1928 - 48
HMS Ark Royal - 1938 - 72
HMS Formidable - 1940 - 36-52
HMS Illustrious - 1940 - 36-57
HMS Indomitable - 1941 - 55
HMS Victorious - 1941 - 36-54
= 386 (466) max

So they actually compare pretty well against each other in build years and planes carried overall. Of course the Japanese still have an advantage in fighter craft design etc.

Interestingly, given the parity here battleships might actually play more of a role than they did. Here the Japanese definitely have the advantage as there is nothing that can stop the Yamato in a gun duel. However, the Japanese might not even have the fuel to deploy her or the other battle squadrons on long combat operations.

but I guess without the early losses vs submarines they'd have more than I thought. However, did the doctrine exist to defend the fleet against mass attack at this time?

No idea but do note that when Germany tried massed aircraft attacks (land-based forces though) against the British fleet the Luftwaffe did not do so well.

I don't have time to go through the entire OP in detail and respond to anything but the general premise.

That said, here's a little discussion point:

Assuming Europe is completely peaceful, does Japan have the political will to carry out the attacks in question? It wasn't very long before that the Japanese were, in fact, allied with the British, and even in the real historical timeline a significant faction of the Japanese command were against a war against the West. The terms of this RAR presuppose the United States won't get involved in the war at all, but does this mean the Japanese don't have to worry about them? That is, the presence of American forces in the Philippines is a major strategic factor at play.

(Of course, it is difficult to make a scenario like this realistic due to the geopolitical conditions of the time).

On the other hand, how does the Western world react to Japanese incursions in China (1937, IIRC?) without the specter of Europe threatening?

How would the Brits/French compare submarine wise? That was a major part of the defeat of Japan...American subs pulling a far more successful version of the U-Boat campaign (since Japan couldn't build anywhere near as many merchantman as the Allies pumped out). I know that the T-Class subs were shorter ranged than the Gato's (to use the more...famous...for lack of a better word, subs), but not much more than that.


(granted, I could be wrong on just how much the subs did, but I have read a lot on the Pacific War)

Thanas wrote:So they actually compare pretty well against each other in build years and planes carried overall. Of course the Japanese still have an advantage in fighter craft design etc.

An interesting thing to consider with aircraft capabilities would be that ASV equipped Swordfish (available in IIRC 1941) would should allow the Royal Navy to launch night strikes against the Japanese Navy.

Interestingly, given the parity here battleships might actually play more of a role than they did. Here the Japanese definitely have the advantage as there is nothing that can stop the Yamato in a gun duel. However, the Japanese might not even have the fuel to deploy her or the other battle squadrons on long combat operations.

I'd give battleship fleet combat to the French & Brits.

Assuming ship building goes as per historical and a early-mid 1942 battle Japan has: 1 (possibly 2)x Yamato's, 2x Nagato's, 2x Ise's, 2x Fuso's and 4x Kongo's.

Britain/France would have: 2 (possibly 3) King George V's, 5x Queen Elizabeth's, 5x Revenge's, 1x Hood, 2x Renown's, 2x Nelson's, 2x Dunkerque's, 2x Richelieu's.

This give Japan 11(12) Battleships/Battlecruisers and Britain/France 21(22).

Now from what I understand (its been a while since I looked at the details so if someone finds fault with this let me know) the Fuso's were pretty marginal as front line combat units, but so are the Revenge's, and the Kongo's were thinly armoured, but so are the Renown's. Even assuming Britain leaves the Revenge's home that still gives the allied fleet 17 ships to 11, and with more of their ships being modern designs. Radar on the allied ships should also be more advanced too.

Its pretty implausible that Japan would ever fight the British and French if Hitler isn't around and dominating Europe at all, because that would be an excellent way to also end up at war with the US too, and maybe get completely raped by the USSR on top of it.

They only did what they did because France was gone, and key French land already in Japanese hands, the British looked very weak, the Soviets looked like they were on borrowed time, and that just left America which suddenly was nice enough to move its battle fleet into a position at which Japan could dream of destroying with a surprise attack in mid 1940. Take away any one of those factors and Japan would already become less likely to go to war. Take them all away and its just silly. In fact with no Hitler around that also means German aid to China would keep going, and in general Japanese policy in China which led to the war with everyone else would be more difficult. Meanwhile no invasion of French Indochina removes the historical basis of the US total trade embargo, though its also possible that with no Hitler to worry people so much, everyone might impose an oil embargo earlier. Battleships favor the British and French, new units are certain to be built because Italy was, and would still build them, so would the US, and so would the USSR, and so would Japan. You could end up with Japan outmatched 20:4 in modern battleships fairly quickly, and while the Nagato class was okay with modernization, if slower then all the allied units, none of the 14in Japanese ships were much good and using them would mean a slow battleline. Certainly they are no better then the modernized old British units, the old French ships are worth about nothing since not one was modernized at all.

Germany doesn't even factor into that part of the equation that much, she never got that far on her navy. Air and land rearmament might go a fair bit slower, but the British and french only need a fraction of possible strength to match Japan. It doesn't take many modern planes in the far east before an invasion of Indochina would become difficult, and reaching Singapore before its flooded with more British and French forces is highly unlikely. Also the Dutch just got stronger from all of this, though its unlikely to matter. Also utter fuckloads of US reserve weapons and planes went to the British in 1940, hundreds of bombers, thousands of guns, guess what, now the Philippines are not starved of war material at all. Its plausible the islands could be so well defended by 1941 Japan simply couldn't take them, Luzon is a massive food exporter too so if it isn't invaded, it can't be starved out. Not even remotely.

Not to mention the British and French submarine forces outnumber the US submarine force, and have torpedoes that generally worked. That would mean a lot more pain early war.

You could end up with Japan outmatched 20:4 in modern battleships fairly quickly, and while the Nagato class was okay with modernization, if slower then all the allied units, none of the 14in Japanese ships were much good and using them would mean a slow battleline.

To elaborate, Japan basically has two units of the Yamato class (which were massive fuel hogs, and possibly why they were never employed in Guadalcanal), and two units of the Nagato class (one of which blew up in harbor due to a munitions accident).

The rest of the IJN battleship fleet consists of ships that are not much better or worse than the modernized Queen Elizabeths (1916 vintage). The four Kongos were also barely battleships since they were really battlecruisers.

That being said, the IJN does at least have the Long Lance torpedoes and quite a few ships that carry it (destroyers and cruisers both had it). But I really don't think it could turn the tide given the numbers Skimmer has already elaborated upon, especially given how the IJN actually tended to fire a huge number of torps with largely minimal results. At Java Sea for instance I think they fired something like 60 torpedoes to sink 5 light warships, while at Sunda Strait they fired dozens of torpedoes to sink two cruisers... while at the same time torpedoing at least four friendly transports.

I meant the four Yamato hulls actually. No Midway or similar mass disaster, they'd all get built.

At Java sea the IJN fired 164 torpedoes, and got three hits, sinking two small light cruisers and one destroyer. The speed of the Long Lance mattered, the range was a complete waste, warhead depended on the target. Gunnery accuracy by both sides at Java sea was also dismal, cruisers caliber guns under optical control were near incapable of accurate fire at such great distances. The British were just as good, or better, with night surface torpedo tactics, and had a weapon more then good enough for the job, while they'll have a major radar advantage as the war goes on. Not good at all for Japan. The French were pretty surface torpedo happy too, comes with planning to fight in the Med.

The Yamato class never went to Guadalcanal because that just made no real sense and no high explosive ammunition existed for the 46cm guns, they never even considered Guadalcanal that important until it was too late. It was after all only an outpost of an outpost defending Truk. The USN was pretty reluctant to send its own battleships in too. We could have had North Carolina at Savo island, for all the good it would have done.

Thanas wrote:British:
(HMS Eagle - 1924 - 30)
(HMS Furious - 1825 - 30)
HMS Courageous - 1928 - 48
HMS Glorious - 1928 - 48
HMS Ark Royal - 1938 - 72
HMS Formidable - 1940 - 36-52
HMS Illustrious - 1940 - 36-57
HMS Indomitable - 1941 - 55
HMS Victorious - 1941 - 36-54
= 386 (466) max

So they actually compare pretty well against each other in build years and planes carried overall. Of course the Japanese still have an advantage in fighter craft design etc.

Combined allied fleet would also have French carrier, that's 40 more planes in the mix.

Interestingly, given the parity here battleships might actually play more of a role than they did. Here the Japanese definitely have the advantage as there is nothing that can stop the Yamato in a gun duel.

How about radar? Past 1942, any battle of Yamato vs allied fleet is going to end like Scharnhorst vs Duke of York, worse even, Scharnhorst at least had radar, too, if much worse one, and wasn't going in completely blind.

Irbis wrote:Combined allied fleet would also have French carrier, that's 40 more planes in the mix.

The Bearn was near worthless as a carrier.

Thanas wrote:The Bearn was near worthless as a carrier.

In what way? Sure she's small, old and slow, but I'm not aware of any major differences between her and Eagle.

How is it worse than half of the carriers counted above, especially HMS Eagle, or these failed multiple deck British/Japanese experiments? Yes, it's not modern fleet carrier, but on par with big part of the list.

Also, with no German invasion, Béarn would be replaced by at least one Joffre class carriers by 1941, making French fleet if anything more significant.

Irbis wrote:How is it worse than half of the carriers counted above, especially HMS Eagle, or these failed multiple deck British/Japanese experiments?

You noticed how I put Eagle in Parenthesis, right?

Without Germany in the war the historical British rearmament programme would proceed apace once the war starts, too, which creates serious problems. For example, the first four Lions (yes, first four) and Vanguard will be commissioned by 1943. Four more Vanguards will follow by 1945, armed with guns from the Revenge-class. By 1947 another four Lions should be completed. The later KGVs will finish up to six months sooner. There will two Implacables instead of four and they will finish by 1942 for the first two, not 1944; the second two in 1943, with Audacious class carriers, expect another four of those, in 1944 - 1947. If necessary the Malta class will then follow.

One cannot underestimate just how much strategic bombing attacks, desperate mobilization of ASW assets, and the huge need to repair damaged merchants (in 1942 there was a six-month halt to all military shipping production so all workers could be used to get the 25% of the entire British merchant marine sitting around with unrepaired damage to work again!) did to completely destroy the British mobilization plans--which were essentially what I've listed above.

Ive got a few questions about your outline there Zeon.

Wasnt the Vanguard only an emergency wartime measure? The old guns only used because gun foundaries were already at max. With time behind them and no credible naval threat near to home would Britain actually use servicable but old 15/42s on new construction when Japan/USA are using new 16" guns?
Would that many heavy ships actually be built without a credible European threat? Primarily thinking of that many Lion class ships.

Now that I think about it would the KGV class even be remotely like OTL? Iirc the 14" guns were chosen so that hulls could be in the water in time for a war with germany.

Vanguard predated the war, the first design was put on paper in 1937. The British were not strongly convinced of the advantages of heavier guns at what the expected decisive battle ranges so recycling guns and turrets at a huge cost savings seemed reasonable, though at times the concept was considered that of a battlecruiser. They really wanted 30 knot speed. The 14in gun was chosen because it was the limit of the treaty in force at the time, and in any case a balanced 16in treaty ship was impossible. That's why say, a South Dakota has so much less armor, and horrific seakeeping characteristics. The US North Carolina class was actually laid down with an armament of 14in quadruple turrets, but shifted to 16in during construction.

More Vanguards were a real wartime proposal, without a war they may or may not happen. It was purely a matter of shipbuilding capacity, if it exists they'd be built, if it doesn't then this most likely means more RN carriers. The threat in Europe is more then credible enough with Soviet and Italian ships being built, and war with Japan and the US was always on the table. The British empire was rather huge, no means existed to defend it with limited numbers. Also British warships were fairly cheap to construct in the first place. Certainly much cheaper then US ships of similar sizes.

Why was that?

Much lower labor costs and lower standards of fittings. Such as new Royal Navy ships would in many cases not even have running hot tap water for officers until late war designs began to add it. Meanwhile the USN is busy installing icecream making machines and in one case, built an icecream making ship. The British didn't much care about the people onboard because after all, was not life already vastly better then in the age of sail not so long ago at all? Problem was in the age of sail you didn't have to do stuff like man battle stations for days at a time because nothing moved fast enough to take you by near instant surprise, so habitability was far more important and rum not such a brilliant solution to moral.

The British yards, despite being overrun by different unions, were also in an era in which they simply managed to be very efficient at what they did. However this also involved fierce resisting technological changes desired by the Admiralty, which was why for example welding was not as prolific as on US ships even though that particular change actually would make for lighter cheaper ships, and heavy DC electrical systems were standard until 1945. On a battleship none of this was that awful a liability because of the massive standards of construction required to build such a ship and the decision to accept only ten 14in guns as a weight saving measure, while Lion could simply grow to take her heavier main battery, indeed she should have been bigger, but the British wanted cheap ships and to encourage others to not build up to the 45,000 ton clause. On cruisers such design and building conservatism caused the RN to loose the large lead it had in 1920s designs to the USN in the 1930s, but then most RN war built cruisers only had a 10 year design life anyway. They were fully expendable.

The smaller you went the more not being able to use aluminum fittings, or high tension steel hurt until you end up with RN destroyers that looked like dog crap compared to USN designs until the first Daring class was completed post war, effectively the RN ended up about a decade behind in design practices. But they got the numbers they wanted and in large part needed, even if lots of them ended up on the ocean floor from lack of AA defense.

Direct cost comparisons though are plagued by different standards of accounting, particularly concerning government furnished equipment which is not reflected in the yard cost. This affects weapons production of all kinds.

Thank you.

The pre-war British plan, which was being modified due to budget costs, steel shortages, and all sorts of other things, saw eight Lions, five Vanguards (using the Revenge's turrets), Hood, Nelson and Rodney, three QEs, and the five KGVs. (In addition to somewhere between eight and thirteen fleet carriers.) I can provide the 1936 Tentative Plan, but as I said, it was being modified even before the war broke out. It did, however, involve a mind-boggling number of ships. If it was a purely naval war, without the need for large numbers of tanks, well, the Director of Plans wanted to lay down four battleships and two carriers each and every year during the war, before he was beaten back into sanity.

The British regarded the "luxuries" and labour-saving conveniences of American ships to be excessive - to a RN designer, what mattered was comfort and space where the men slept and messed (though during the treaty era, habitability often came dead last on the priority list, and this was cause for some very acidic arguments during the design processes for the Leander class cruisers, for instance.) Ships were also designed with regard for cost, whereas later US designs were built to fulfill requirements, with cost very, very far down the priority list.

At least the British were preparing something a USN bluejacket could only dream of in 1945; a fleet of dedicated beer-brewing ships for the fleet train.

Isn't the lack of comforts on British ships also partly because - unlike the Americans - the Brits tended to expect to fight near a major naval base they owned (which were spread all over the world)?

Whereas the US tended to center its naval planning efforts around the Pacific, with its vast expanses and no ports for resupply.