British Navy VS Combined German Japanese Fleets

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What If instead of attacking the US Japan had attacked Britain and Russia? The US stays out of it at this point. Now they can attack Russia feom bothsides with Japan not having to fight the US. Whats to stop the Japanese fleet from joining up with the Germans? If they di who would win the British or the combined fleets of these two plus the Itailians? My money is on the Axis. That really would have thrown a monkey wrench into the whole war.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ive neen trying to find out what the order of battle would be here for both sides but cant seem to find any info. Anyone have any ideas or links. Im pretty sure the Azis would outclass the allies in almost every department. Especially carriers.

[ShadesPanther]

Britain knew that they could never fight a war in the far east with a war in Europe at the same time. Japan would easily crush their Navy in the East, but I doubt they would join up with the Germans as Hitler was said to be unhappy about the japanese displacing white populations and possibly Australia.

[Duke Malcolm]

Let us not forget that the Japs did attack Britain. It is oft called the forgotten war the battle of Kohima, and the fighting in Burma.

[lonewolf371]

WW2 was a war of attrition first and foremost, and Japan proved itself in the war against the US that it was an explosive power but could not consolidate their gains. The USSR and Britain still had massive industrial outputs. In dealing with a war in China, a naval war against Britain in which Japan would have to transport troops all the way to Africa, and with the British being able to attack Japan from nearby colonies, would still make this a fair fight. And finally, of course, there would be the chance that the US would once again join the war in its final stages, as it did in WW1. The outcome would still be as predictable as the Super Bowl winner, the only real source we would have to go on are the natural resources of each country and their GDP, and even then we could only guess at what would happen.

[RabidGibbon]

Theres no doubt in my mind that the Japanese fleet could have destroyed the Royal Navy in a one on one fight on an open playing field.

However some other factors need to be brought into play. Like would a Japanese fleet have the RANGE to reach europe. Where would its ships refuel?

Also a battle in European waters, unlike the pacific, would almost certainly have seen the land based air forces become involved - and the RAF would have co-operated a lot better with the Royal Navy than the Luftwaffe would have with the IJN.

When in 1944 Spitfires appeared in Burma they made short work of the Zero (which was a carrier based plane and so suffered the disadvantage of a radial engine: FW190's excepted of course ~D : ) So the IJN in European waters, short of fuel, if it could even reach them, and possibly stripped of its air support by a superior RAF may well not have performed as well as expected.

In reality after dealing with the US pacific fleet at pearl harbour the japanese carrier fleet went on a tour of destruction through the dutch east indies and finally sailed into the indian ocean to attack Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). However they were spotted en route by a Commonwealth spotter plane which reported them before being shot down.

The Royal Marine Engineers had already constructed a secret naval base in the middle of nowhere and when the japanese arrived over Ceylon they found a sky full of fighters and losses were roughly equal in terms of planes with naff all damage being done on the ground.

On the topic of carrier strength, whilst british carrier aircraft were notoriously poor (Stringbags anyone?) the carriers themselves were very well built.

Illustrious in the med and whilst docked in valetta harbour took a hell of a beating and escaped, and when in the closing stages of the war British carriers served under US command in the pacific the american commanders looked on the armoured decks of british carriers with envy, which could easily take the average japanese bomb and even shrug off the odd Kamakazie.

"WARNING: All of the above is uttered by a amateur historian and could well be bollocks!"

[Thoros of Myr]

Theres no doubt in my mind that the Japanese fleet could have destroyed the Royal Navy in a one on one fight on an open playing field.

However some other factors need to be brought into play. Like would a Japanese fleet have the RANGE to reach europe. Where would its ships refuel?

Also a battle in European waters, unlike the pacific, would almost certainly have seen the land based air forces become involved - and the RAF would have co-operated a lot better with the Royal Navy than the Luftwaffe would have with the IJN.

When in 1944 Spitfires appeared in Burma they made short work of the Zero (which was a carrier based plane and so suffered the disadvantage of a radial engine: FW190's excepted of course ~D : ) So the IJN in European waters, short of fuel, if it could even reach them, and possibly stripped of its air support by a superior RAF may well not have performed as well as expected.

Good points. Some of the key reasons why it would be very difficult.

I think Japan would have been better off helping the Germans take Russia. Russia being pinned from both sides by Germany and Japan. With no real eastern front anymore Germany would have been free to concentrate on the western front. Japan, not spread thin by trying fight across the whole pacific, could attempt to take China and use their serious naval power in defence to hold off the US for years, should they decide to attack. Meanwhile Japan builds infrastructure all over Korea and China making Australia the next target.

[discovery1]

I think Japan would have been better off taking Korea and then helping the Germans take Russia.

Didn't the Japanese occupy Korea in the early 1900s?

[Thoros of Myr]

Didn't the Japanese occupy Korea in the early 1900s?

Oops, Yes. :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Theres no doubt in my mind that the Japanese fleet could have destroyed the Royal Navy in a one on one fight on an open playing field.

Your leaving out the German and Itallian Fleets. No slouches in themselves.


However some other factors need to be brought into play. Like would a Japanese fleet have the RANGE to reach europe. Where would its ships refuel?

How did we? The Japanese had oilers didnt they?


Also a battle in European waters, unlike the pacific, would almost certainly have seen the land based air forces become involved - and the RAF would have co-operated a lot better with the Royal Navy than the Luftwaffe would have with the IJN.

The RAF was pretty busy at the end of 1941 anyway wasnt it? I think the Japanse mayhave pver stretched them. Had they recovered from the battle of Britain so well in only a year? Plus as I said the Japanese had a large advantage in carriers. They could also stay away from land in the Atlantic.


When in 1944 Spitfires appeared in Burma they made short work of the Zero (which was a carrier based plane and so suffered the disadvantage of a radial engine: FW190's excepted of course : ) So the IJN in European waters, short of fuel, if it could even reach them, and possibly stripped of its air support by a superior RAF may well not have performed as well as expected.

Were talking late 1941 not 1944. I doubt the British fleet or airforce would even be of use anymore by that time. How about the Japanse come across the Indian ocean and att Egypt and link up with Rommel? Then they take Iraq and Iran and Saudi Araibia. Plenty of fuel for both.


On the topic of carrier strength, whilst british carrier aircraft were notoriously poor (Stringbags anyone?) the carriers themselves were very well built.

How many did you have and how many planes did they carry in 1941? Far less than the Japanese Id imagine and far less capable aircraft .

[Franconicus]

Talking about 1941? Then the answer is easy. Britain only survived with the help of the US. And the USSR only survived with the help of the US and knowing that Japan would not attack.

Assuming the US would have been neutral and Germany / Japan would have had to fave Britain and Russia. Japan army would have attacked Sibiria and Burma; They would have attacked the British Pacicfic fleet and erased it (didn't they do it?). While that the Germans would have taken Moscow (without the reenforcements coming from Sibiria). Maybe then then would have attacked the Caucasus and turned to Iran.
Britain would not have survived the attack of the German submarines. They would not have had enough destroyers and LRA to protect the ships and were not able to rebuild new ships. The Italian fleet and the German airforce could have blocked the Med by taking Malta. That 's it!
It would not have been necessary to bring the Japanese fleet to Europe.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Talking about 1941? Then the answer is easy. Britain only survived with the help of the US. And the USSR only survived with the help of the US and knowing that Japan would not attack.

Waut a minute. How many here have claimed that Russia could have won the war all by itself? They also claim the allies could have won with no help at all from the US. Crazy huh? I see it just as you do. If the Japanese never attacked Pearl Harbor and done as you or I suggested the allies could well have lost the war.

Also I was saying there was little to stop them from doing so though some have suggested otherwise. I in fact see little reason to keep their fleet in the Pacific if the US wasnt a threat. Who would they fight?

[Franconicus]

I in fact see little reason to keep their fleet in the Pacific if the US wasnt a threat. Who would they fight?
They had to keep their fleet to fight the Russians, the Australians, NZ and Britain and to secure the supply of their colonies. They also had to keep the fleet in the Pacific to asure that the US would not change their mind.
Japan would have had no benefit in sendig the fleet to Europe. If they reaaly wanted to help Germany (which I doubt) the they would invate India and the USSR. That would give them lots of profit!

[King Edward]

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm

Here is a link to a site that shows the Royal Navy's Losses and kills during ww2. Might prove an interesting read to those of you discussing this topic.

[Shambles]

I beleve the americans said that the atlantic oacean was an american pond,
And they gave the allies ships and stuff on a lend lease agenda,

had japan attacked in the atlantic america would have said Thats our pond
your fighting in and would have joined the war any way,


Hence the saying "our freinds over the pond"
Or so i beleve

The war would have ended way before america joined had we lost the battle of britain though,

And to me the fact that the luftvaffer?.. the nazi air force.
failed to finish off the raf when they had the chance was the bigest mistake in the war,

Followed by deviding their forces up and streching lines of atrition and taking solong to take over rushia and geting caught in the cold,

There are a lot of atrotious mistakes that were made,
but pearl harbour is not one of them

the japanese knew it was only a matter of time before america found a reason to join the war,

And in all respects it was better in theory for them to attack america as it was producing Ships for the allies,
being neutrall they wernt able to prevent theeir production,

They also managed to destroy a lot of ships and Were unlycky that some were out on routine manoovers.
Prehaps that would have been a turning point in its self.

[King Edward]

I agree with Shambles. The US woulden't have allowed the European Allies to lose the war they would have joined sooner or later regardless of the events at Pearl Harbour.

[English assassin]

Good link.

Its very hard to tell, but in a carrier battle without any land air support I would think the RN would lose, although with armoured decks and Seafires http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Seafire.htm on board the RN carriers would not have been trivial targets. But they had far less offensive power than the japanese, and to win you have to be able to sink the other guy. Its like hoping to win a test match by picking only good batsmen, you can't do it. You have to have the bowlers

In a big gun action though, hard to say. The Japanese ships were more modern (http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm this site is fun if you like battleships), the RN had more. And, dammit, its the navy. Blah blah blah Nelson....blah blahTrafalgar....

Seriouisly I don't see how you could say.

[King Edward]

The Armoured Decking Decking was most certainly Usefull, looking at the link i posted it states that HMS Illustrious was hit with 2 Kamikaze attacks and still limped home.

The Trouble with the British navy is that it has aways been a battleship navy and thus became rapidly out dated once carriers had sufficent aircraft range as was the case towards the end of the war (Was it Midway in the pacific where the american and Japanese fleets didnt actually see each other? it was all fought in the air.)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

They had to keep their fleet to fight the Russians, the Australians, NZ and Britain and to secure the supply of their colonies.

Dont make me laugh. What Russian navy or any of the others you mentioned could stand up in anyway to the Japanese. They kicked the butts of all those navies plus ours at the start of the war.

Also what colonies? My premise is they dont take the islands but the mainland of the far east or Russia.


Its very hard to tell, but in a carrier battle without any land air support I would think the RN would lose, although with armoured decks and Seafires

Its easy to tell. Read your link. In 1939 they had 1 carrier and 5 being built. How many did they have in Dec 1941?



In a big gun action though, hard to say. The Japanese ships were more modern (http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm this site is fun if you like battleships), the RN had more. And, dammit, its the navy. Blah blah blah Nelson....blah blahTrafalgar....

Again your leaving out the German and Itallian fleets who togther could have given the royal navy a good battle. Together with the Japanese I maintain its no contest.


beleve the americans said that the atlantic oacean was an american pond,

I think thats after we joined the war that we may have said that not before .


The US woulden't have allowed the European Allies to lose the war they would have joined sooner or later regardless of the events at Pearl Harbour.

You cant say that. Most Americans opposed our joining the war until Pearl Harbor. Thats why theres that big conspiracy theory that FDR knew about the attack.

[Shambles]

britain had a rule of thumb when it came to navy
I beleve it was called the rule of 2 or similar,

this rule ment that the british naval fleat had to be Biger than Both of the largest naval fleets of any other country(s) combined together.

so say italy had 600 ships and sweeden had 400 ships and they were the 2 largest naval fleets in the world not counting britain,
Britain would build 1000+ ships,
"these are just numbers as an example"

i know this rule was upheld,
but what with ships being sunk. and britain being a small island without the space nor the money for extreem mass production,. i do not know how many tonnage of ships the british navy had left,

The problem with the japanese was,
They gave them enough fule to get where they were going most of the time,
"one way trip"
so although you can easily forsee them destroying a lot of ships,

They them selfs were never actualy going to serve again,
so They would also be loosing vast numbers of men,

And I know that they declaire that the atlantic was an american pond before the war,
was about the same time as the lend lease proposals were accepted,.

And since when does american oppinion matter To america wether it goes to war or not?
aslong as its not election week,
They really dont care what the people say.

[RabidGibbon]

Re: the German and Italian fleets

The german surface fleet in late 1941 didn't have much going for it. Bismarck was sunk, Scarnhorst and Gneisau (I believe) were still in dry dock following the channel dash and tirptz was a couple of months off completion.

There were the two remaining pocket battleships, which couldn't stand up to any british battleship but could have performed as super-heavy cruisers perhaps.

The Italian fleet never really performed as it could have done given its size and ship quality, and I dont think the two fleets combined could have stood up to the Royal Navy.

Neither of them had any carriers.

I'm not certain if the two italian battleships damaged at Taranto were repaired by late 1941.

I think thats why there not being mentioned much in this thread.

Re: Japanese alternatvie land attacks into india and russia, with the main body of the japanese army tied down in china where would the men come from?

And what about logistics, the Japanese rarely gave much thought to supplies and in siberia this would prove as disastarous as it did in the Burmese jungle.

There was a (big) border incident in the late-30's possibly 39 but maybe earlier, cant remember what it was called but the upshot was a numerically superior japanese force attacked and was given a hiding by the Red Army -
I cant see the Japanese army threatening russia at all.

India would also have been hard to take - I seem to recall hearing The Indian army in the second world war was the largest all-volunteer force in the world, and once again the sheer land mass would have been prohibitive to a manpower short japan.

Why the Japanese would want to pursue such a strategy is also a point to raise, wasn't their main objective the oil rich dutch east indies (Indonesia now?) and they figured the americans wouldn't let them do that so why not get the first blow in?

[English assassin]

Its very hard to tell, but in a carrier battle without any land air support I would think the RN would lose, although with armoured decks and Seafires

Its easy to tell. Read your link. In 1939 they had 1 carrier and 5 being built. How many did they have in Dec 1941?


I'm not sure but I do know without having to look it up that the RN had rather more than one aircraft carrier in 1939. this link http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm gives the RN seven. Off the top of my head I know Ark Royal, Glorious and one other had been sunk by end 1941. How many had been launched I am not sure, but as there were 65 in service by 1945 (though most would have been small escort carriers) I think we can guess a fair few. And I see that the Japanese only had 10 carriers at the end of 1941.

You may well be a finer admiral than me, but I'll stick with "its hard to tell" for now if thats OK.

The German "fleet" consisted of one battleship and two badly knocked about battle cruisers, and in light of their performance in actions such as Cape Matapan (one battleship damaged and three cruisers two destroyers sunk, for the loss of one torpedo bomber) I feel pretty confident in saying that had the Italian fleet ever faced the RN in a fleet action it would have been entirely annihilated.

So I don't think we are "overlooking" these mighty kreigsmarines as much as discounting them.

[Spino]

Had Britain been forced to take on Japan alone in the Pacific the Imperial Japanese Navy would have ravaged the Royal Navy, especially in the early years of the war.

Britain's early war carrier planes were pretty bad, and with the arguable exception of the Sea Hurricane, worse than America's F4F Wildcats and TBD Devastator torpedo planes which in turn compared unfavorably to their Japanese counterparts (the SBD Dauntless however was a real gem, one of the best dive bombers of the war). Sure, the Seafire (carrier variant of the Spitfire) could have given the Brits a serious advantage over the Japanese but it would have been deployed too late and with insufficient numbers to effectively deal with the Japanese fleet.

Many of the Brit carriers may have had armored flight decks but Japan's torpedo planes and their excellent air dropped torpedos would have still gotten the job done. A lesser known tidbit about Britain's carrier fleet is that those same armored flight decks had an adverse effect on the number of planes that could be carried. The additional weight caused by the deck armor raised the ship's center of gravity and led to unacceptable instability in rough weather so the designers had to eliminate the maintenance deck below the hangar deck thus decreasing overall capacity. This would have been a serious handicap for Brit carriers when going toe to toe with the more capacious Japanese fleet carriers. Furthermore Japan's land based medium bombers (G3M Nell and G4M Betty) with their impressive range proved to be equally effective at taking out ships with air dropped torpedos as witnessed with the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse off the coast of Singapore.

Beyond the lopsided match up between carrier fleets Britain's submarine fleet would have been hard pressed as well. Britain's submarine fleet was, by design, woefully inadequate for long range patrols and therefore would have had a minimal impact in the Pacific. This is not to say it wouldn't have made a dent in Japanese shipping but its inability to operate subs far beyond the precious few friendly ports not seized by the Japanese in SE Asia would have seriously limited their effectiveness.

The Japanese army faired poorly against the Soviets in more open terrain, where armor and anti-armor assets play an important role. The Japanese had little in the way of decent tanks or anti-tank guns and the like so any major offensive against a reasonable Soviet defense would have been an iffy situation at best. Furthermore Soviet land based fighters and bombers were, on the whole, superior to their Japanese counterparts. However without America's large scale active intervention on the side of the Allies the Soviet Union would have fared much worse againt Nazi Germany in the west (even with our generous Lend Lease strategy) and with simultaneous pressure on both fronts would have had to give some ground in the less critical eastern front.

Now about the Russian navy... ROTFLMAO!!! Flotsam and jetsam my friend, flotsam and jetsam.

[Spino]

Whats to stop the Japanese fleet from joining up with the Germans? If they di who would win the British or the combined fleets of these two plus the Itailians? My money is on the Axis. That really would have thrown a monkey wrench into the whole war.

Whoops, I forgot to mention that I seriously doubt the Japanese would have sent a sizeable portion of its fleet across the world to help Germany. Even a 'neutral' pro-Allied United States, with its considerable military presence in the Philippines, is much too big a 'what if' for Japan to leave its proverbial back door open like that. If anything Japan would have further expanded into Asia along the coastline, pushing right into the Indian Ocean and using its carrier fleet to sink allied merchant vessels, thus isolating Britain from its prized possession, India. Once you do that there's no need to risk sending naval assets into the Mediterranean or the Atlantic.

Yes, my money would have been on the Axis as well.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm not sure but I do know without having to look it up that the RN had rather more than one aircraft carrier in 1939. this link http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm gives the RN seven.

I think this link will give you a good idea on the relative strength of each nations carrier strength.



LINK (http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2005/Winter/art7-w05.htm)

Real good article. It taught me a few things i never realised like this


Of the seventeen engagements fought between the U.S. and Imperial Japanese navies in the Solomons, fifteen were fought by surface ships, two by carriers.3

[CBR]

Hm Japanese Navy going to North Atlantic? Thats something like 15000 NM and most of that would be through hostile waters. Japan started the war to get oil and would have to get the Dutch colonies. It took a few months before they had taken the area and then they could start preparing for such a long journey.

It would have required lots of oilers and even if they had those and were willing to use them for such a mission (useful for supplying the mainland too) they didnt have much oil to begin with so it would be very risky spending so much and then end up forcing the Germans to give them more oil (which they didnt have much of either) to continue their operations.

Any fancy stuff like doing invasion in the middle east would have been very difficult to do as it would require extensive supply lines that was near impossible for them to do. They didnt have the cargo ships for it. Invading Hawaii was for example not possible even if they wanted to do it right after Pearl Harbor as it would left them with not enough transport for their other objectives.

Also I doubt US would just let Japan alone. Afterall US saw the Pacific as their sphere of interest.

But the logistics alone would really have been enough to put a stop to any major naval force deploying to the Atlantic.


CBR

[English assassin]

LINK

Real good article. It taught me a few things i never realised like this

Very interesting article, Big G.

[Gregoshi]

Yes, very good article Gawain. I'll have to go back and read it closer when I have some more time. Thanks for the link!

[zelda12]

A most revealing article, but one that leads me to believe that although the RN would be outclassed early on by the IJN it would win through in the end. Most of you forget that India has a huge amount of manpower that could have been commited not to mention the fact that the Uk could ship a lot og Hurricanes to ground bases and as the war was fought in an area of the pacific with a large number of Islands and given the hardiness and ease to land that the hurrican was imbued with it would be concievablt that the RN with the help of the RAF could take the IJN albeit by sneaky methods and the use of PT boats and lightning strikes.

Edit: If we were taking the entire RN including every battlship cruiser and destroyer they had in service versus the German Italian and Japanese fleet's I'd say the RN would take them. Becuase for a start the German and Italian Navies were what you might call a shamble's. The Germans relied mainly on U-boats and it was suicide for a U-boat commander to go anywhere near a full battlegroup let alone a navy.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Becuase for a start the German and Italian Navies were what you might call a shamble's. The Germans relied mainly on U-boats and it was suicide for a U-boat commander to go anywhere near a full battlegroup let alone a navy.

Not alone they wouldnt but added to the Japanese Navy Im sure they would come out and fight. As to writting off the German navy as just abunch of U boats and raiders this wouldnt be the case.


1942

JANUARY 1942

German Surface Warships - The German big ships give the Admiralty much cause for concern. "Scharnhorst", "Gneisenau" and "Prinz Eugen" all now repaired, are ready for a possible break-out from Brest into the Atlantic. At the same time the new battleship "Tirpitz" moves to Trondheim in the middle of the month from where she can prey on the Russian convoys. In fact Hitler has ordered the Brest squadron back to Germany. By early February the Admiralty has got wind of the proposed "Channel Dash" and prepares accordingly.

Then theres also the Deutschland,Admiral Scheer ,Admiral Hipper and Lutzow to mention a few.

As for Italy all these were available in 1942


Cavour class battleships

Displ: 22,992 tons normal; 24,500 to 24,801 tons full load
Dim: 557.5 x 92 x 30.5-32 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 20 boilers, 4 shafts, 31,278 hp, 22.2 knots
(Cesare 24 boilers, 30,700 hp, 21.6 knots, Da Vinci 32,300 hp, 21.6 knots
Crew: 1232-1235
Arm: 3 triple, 2 dual 12/46, 18 single 4.7/50, 12 3/50, 3 17.7 inch TT (sub)
Armor: KC: 10 inch belt, 4.4 inch deck, 10 inch turrets, 11 inch CT
Survivors reconstructed 1930's: new machinery installed, center
turret removed, bow lengthened, superstructure replaced,
guns re-bored to 12.59 inch. Details as follows:
Displ: 29,032 tons deep load
Dim: 611.5 x 92 x 34 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 8 boilers, 2 shafts, 75,000 hp,
27 knots
Arm: 2 triple, 2 dual 12.59/43.8, 6 dual 4.72/50,
4 triple 3.93/47, 6 dual 37 mm, 12 13.2 mm
Armor: 10 inch belt, 11 inch barbettes, 10 inch CT

Conte Di Cavour
Built by La Spezia Yard. Laid down 10 Aug 1910, launched 10 Aug 1911,
completed 1 April 1915. Reconstructed 10/1933 to 7/1937 at Trieste.
Sunk by torpedo 11 Nov 1940, salvaged and stripped of most guns,
reconstruction cancelled. Scuttled 1943, captured and raised
by the Germans, laid up for use as a blockship. Bombed and sunk
15 Feb 1945 at Trieste, salvaged 1947, scrapped 1950-1952.

Giulio Cesare
Built by Ansaldo, Genoa. Laid down 24 June 1910, launched
15 Oct 1911, completed 14 May 1914. Reconstructed 10/1933 to
10/1937 at Genoa. To Allied control 9/1943. Renamed Z11 after WWII.
To Russia as Novorossiysk 15 Dec 1948, sunk 29 Oct 1955.

Doria class battleships

Displ: 22,956 tons normal; 24,729 tons full load
(Duilio: 22,994 tons normal; 24,715 tons full load)
Dim: 557.5 x 92 x 31 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 20 boilers, 4 shafts, 30,000 hp, 21 knots
(Duilio: 31,090 hp, 21.3 knots)
Crew: 1233
Arm: 3 triple, 2 dual 12/46, 16 single 6/45, 13 single 3/50, 6 3/50 AA,
3 17.7 inch TT (sub)
Armor: KC: 10 inch belt, 3.9 inch deck, 11 inch turrets, 11 inch CT
Reconstructed 1930's: similar to Cavour class reconstruction:
Displ: 29,032 tons deep load
Dim: 611.5 x 92 x 34 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 8 boilers, 2 shafts, 75,000 hp,
26 knots
Arm: 2 triple, 2 dual 12.59/43.8, 4 triple 5.31/45,
10 single 3.54/10, 6 dual, 3 single 37 mm, 8 dual 20 mm
Armor: 10 inch belt, 11 inch barbettes, 10 inch CT

Andrea Doria
Built by La Spezia Yard. Laid down 24 March 1912, launched
30 March 1913, completed 13 March 1916. Reconstructed
8 April 1937 to 26 Oct 1940 at Trieste. To Allied control
9/1943, returned 1944, used as training ship. Laid up 6/1953,
stricken 1 Nov 1956, scrapped 1957-1961.

Caio Dulio
Built by Castellammare Yard. Laid down 24 Feb 1912, launched
24 April 1913, completed 10 May 1915. Reconstructed 1 April 1937
to 15 July 1940 at Genoa. Torpedoed at Taranto 11 Nov 1941, repaired
by 5/1941. Under refit from 3/1942 until Italian surrender, to Allied
control 9/1943. Returned 1944, used as training ship. Fleet
flagship 1947-1949, then training again. Laid up 1953, stricken 15
Sept 1956, scrapped 1957-1961.

Littorio class battleships

Displ: 40,517-40,992 tons normal; 45,752-46,215 tons full load
Dim: 780 x 107.5 x 31.5 feet (Impero, Roma: 789.5 x 107.5 x 31.5 feet)
Prop: Steam turbines, 8 boilers, 4 shafts, 128,200 hp, 30 knots
Crew: 1830-1950
Arm: 3 triple 15/50, 4 triple 6/55, 4 4.7/40, 12 3.5/50, 8 dual, 4 single
37 mm, 6 dual 20 mm
Armor: 13.8 inch belt, 3.5-6.4 inch deck, 11-13.8 inch barbettes,
13.8 inch turrets, 10.2 inch CT
First two intended as a reply to the French Dunkerque class,
second two ordered to a slightly modified design in 1938.

Littorio
Built by Ansaldo, Genoa. Laid down 28 Oct 1934, launched 22 Aug 1937,
completed 6 May 1940. Torpedoed 11 Nov 1940, under repair until
4/1941. Renamed Italia 30 July 1943. Damaged by German guided
bombs while steaming to surrender 9 Sept 1943, to Allied control upon
surrender. Returned 1946, to USA as reparations 1947, discarded
1 June 1948, scrapped 1948-1955.

Vittorio Veneto
Built by CRDA, Trieste. Laid down 28 Oct 1934, launched
22 July 1937, complete 28 April 1940. Torpedoed 3/1941,
under repair until 8/1941, torpedoed 11/1941, under
repair until 3/1942. To Allied control 9/1943. Returned
1946, to UK as reparations 1947, discarded 1 Feb 1948, scrapped
1948-1951.

Roma
Built by CRDA, Trieste. Laid down 18 Sept 1938, launched
9 June 1940, completed 14 June 1942. Destroyed by German
guided bombs while steaming to surrender 9 Sept 1943.




Together with the Japanese I dont see how the British could match this force. Is their anyone who doubts that in an open sea battle the Axis combined fleets would destry the British?

[zelda12]

Surely if we did an Axis versus RN battle the Axis would win from sheer numbers. But and its a big but the British weren't alone you would also have to factor in the remnants of the French fleet and for that matter the Navies of all the British Commonwealth, so canada Australia and the rest of them. That would even things out significantly.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You would also have to factor in the remnants of the French fleet

Yes you would but they would be added to the Axis side. Thanks for reminding me.


d for that matter the Navies of all the British Commonwealth, so canada Australia and the rest of them. That would even things out significantly.

How many battleships did these countries have? Im not sure but I believe the answer is 0. Without the US there to help I doubt that the Austrailian navy would have lasted very long .Maybe not even Austrailia itself.

[zelda12]

Canada had some at leats 1 or 2 and Australia had a few also. And the French Medditaranean fleet was gone quite early on in the war so thats gone and the French fleet based in the Channle ports escaped to Britain if I remember correctly.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The Canadian navy never had a battleship nor did Austrailia. I dont think any escaped to Britain but Im not sure as far as the French go though I know some were scuttled and others sunk in their harbor by the British.

Hers another great site on the subject that covers the history of almost every Navy. I love this stuff. ~;)

LINK (http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/canadian_navy.htm)

[zelda12]

Thanks!

[Petrus]

Surely if we did an Axis versus RN battle the Axis would win from sheer numbers. But and its a big but the British weren't alone you would also have to factor in the remnants of the French fleet and for that matter the Navies of all the British Commonwealth, so canada Australia and the rest of them. That would even things out significantly.

The french fleet would certainly not have been on allied side after june 1940.

At that date, fearing that the combined naval powers of germany and italy could challenge the royal navy due to the very extended lines that the british navy had to cover, Churchill decided to destroy what remained of the french mediterannean fleet.

It was parfectly justified by the position of great britain in summer 1940 as it was possible for hitler to force the french fleet to colaborate with the axe in wich case the combined naval power of italy, germany and france would have been superior to the royal navy at least concerning bttleships.

So the attack on mers el kebir sunk several ships, in alexandria the french fleet was blocked and in the british isle all french ships were captured.

It was not enough to change the balance between the axe and great britain, but it was enough to create a very strong hostility among french sailors concerning the royal navy : the british naval assault was percieved as a stab in the back from what was still an allied.

This did not make the french fleet an axe force, the french fleet in toulon sunk itself not to be captured by the germans when they invaded the south of france in the end of 1942, the hatred of military sailors concerning italy was even stronger than concerning britain, but the nazis could probably have forced at least a partial colaboration of the french fleet with the axe.

So globaly, in 1940-1942 the french fleet would have wether remained neutral or given a marginal help to the axe navys, i think.

[English assassin]

OT, here is the Admiralty record of the action against the French fleet at Mers el Kebir. http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/official/adm234/adm234-317.html Considerable efforts were made to avoid the attack as you would expect.

I read that this attack came as a complete surprise to Roosevelt, who had up to that time been fed a continuous diet of disinformation by the nazi-sympathising (or at any case rabidly Anglophobic) ambassador to London, Joe Kennedy. It seemed that the effeminate yellow toothed brits were, in fact, capable of ruthless action when called for. Maybe if they were that determined Amercia could in fact take the chance of backing them after all...

[Petrus]

OT, here is the Admiralty record of the action against the French fleet at Mers el Kebir. http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/official/adm234/adm234-317.html Considerable efforts were made to avoid the attack as you would expect.

I read that this attack came as a complete surprise to Roosevelt, who had up to that time been fed a continuous diet of disinformation by the nazi-sympathising (or at any case rabidly Anglophobic) ambassador to London, Joe Kennedy. It seemed that the effeminate yellow toothed brits were, in fact, capable of ruthless action when called for. Maybe if they were that determined Amercia could in fact take the chance of backing them after all...

With the exception of effeminate yellow tooth, it seems to have had the same effect upon the british opinion.

To be more precise, this attack, an infamy as would have declared any american president in this situation, was totaly justified.

It was percieved as a heavy betrayal by the french opinion and it caused a huge growth of anglophobia in france, but it was slowly admited as an event that can appear in wars without being seen as a treason.

And it is obvious that it was a correct choice given the situation of britain and of the german dominated french dictature : for great britain, it was a question of survival.

[Spino]

Quote:
Of the seventeen engagements fought between the U.S. and Imperial Japanese navies in the Solomons, fifteen were fought by surface ships, two by carriers.3

Real good article. It taught me a few things i never realised like this
I forgot to comment on this...

Most of the fleet engagements that took place in the Pacific may have been ship to ship actions but they were not nearly as decisive as the few carrier battles that took place. Furthermore virtually all of those ship to ship engagements that took place around the Solomon Islands during the fight for Guadacanal were at night. Why? It was the only time of day surface fleets and supply convoys from both sides could steam into the 'slot' and remain unmolested by aircraft! Unless accompanied by a carrier task force or protected by an umbrella of land based aircraft it was suicidal to operate a surface fleet within range of enemy aircraft carriers or air bases.


Surely if we did an Axis versus RN battle the Axis would win from sheer numbers. But and its a big but the British weren't alone you would also have to factor in the remnants of the French fleet and for that matter the Navies of all the British Commonwealth, so canada Australia and the rest of them. That would even things out significantly.

No it wouldn't. So long as the Imperial Japanese navy is a factor the Axis would have won such a confrontation handily based purely on the presence of their operational aircraft carriers and and long range, torpedo capable medium bombers (and I'm limiting myself to the land based squadrons operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy). Even if we eliminate those land based bombers we're talking about six fleet carriers and two light carriers that, when fully loaded to their theoretical limit, could put in excess of 500 aircraft into the air!. To add insult to injury Japan's carrier pilots were the best in the world at the onset of the war. Once Britain's carrier fleet was neutralized (either through the sinking of the carriers or the elimination of their aircraft) the Allied fleet would have been mauled by Japanese carrier aircraft and the German, Japanese and Italian surface fleets sent in to mop up the survivors. It wouldn't be pretty.

[RabidGibbon]

If we throw the two navies in a "sandbox" (or seabox?) and have them fight then I'd say 60/40 in favour of Japan.

Theres a few reasons I dont agree with the "Combined fleet hands down" point of view.

First Radar, this was a useful tool for avoiding/detecting incoming carrier strikes, a fleet with radar couldn't be taken by suprise and would always have an adequate CAP airborne. The Royal Navy had it and the Germans may have had aprimitive version, but I dont think the Italians did and the Japanese didn't.

The Japanese pilots were trained extensively and were truly the cream of the crop when they went into action the lack of plane to plane radios, self sealing fuel tanks (and armour plated cockpits?) really told. Over Ceylon in early 1942 the flight groups of 5 japanese fleet carriers tangled with two squadrons of hurricanes (Inferior to Sea/Spitfires) and lost roughly equal numbers (17 RAF to 19 IJN). It was the first time the IJN carrier fleet had come up against modern fighters with well trained crews, and to my mind shows that the myth of early war Japanese invincibility is sometimes overstated.

On carrier numbers to the 500+ aircraft the japanese could put into the air in early 1942 the RN had the following carriers according to the very nice link provided by Gawain :bow: :

Early Carriers: Furious, Hermes and Eagle

Fleet Carriers: Illustrious, Victorious, Formidable, Indomitable, Unicorn

Escort Carriers: Archer, Avenger, Biter, Attacker, Chaser.

The most aircraft I've ever heard of on a RN carrier during WW2 is 72, and thats for Ark Royal, which was already on the bottom by 1942. The least is 48 - I assume some sources count aircraft stashed on deck whilst others count hanger space,

So counting the early carriers as carrying say 30 aircraft and the escort carriers as carrying a dozen to 18 aircraft(can anyone shed more light on this?) we have a fleet air arm strength of worst case 390 and best case 540.

British naval attack aircraft were inferior to their Japanese equivalants, but there Interceptors, espically when guided by radar could (I believe) have given an incoming force a real bloody nose.

Finally one last really, really nitpicking point on the list of Italian battleships posted above the Conte di Cavour is shown as salvaged, stripped of most guns, reconstruction cancelled for 1942 until 1943 when it was ummm, scuttled, hardly ready for action ~:) .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So counting the early carriers as carrying say 30 aircraft and the escort carriers as carrying a dozen to 18 aircraft(can anyone shed more light on this?) we have a fleet air arm strength of worst case 390 and best case 540.


Hermes 15 AC

Eagle Capable of 40 but usually carried less. It was sunk in 1942.

Illustrious , Victorious, Formidable, Indomitable 36 AC. Sister ships. thats 144

Unicorn Again 36 max.

Lets give the 4 escort carriers 15 each for 60.

So including the Eagle which was sunk that year it adds up to 280 at best. Plus 33 onboard Furious for a maximum total os 313. Also the British carriers were far slower than their Japanese counterparts.

Now for the Japanese

Hosho 91 AC

Akagi 91 AC

Kaga 61 AC

Ryujo 36 AC

Soryu 71 AC

Hiryu 73 AC

Shokaku 84 AC

Zuikaku 84 AC

Hiyo 56 AC

Junyo 56 AC

I may have missed a few but lets total them thats 712

Quite an unfair advantage.