2 men save the RNAS's planes

Had the Royal Navy(RN) managed to keep their planes and, more importantly, the World War I experienced pilots, instead of losing them to the Royal Air Force(RAF) in 1918, their aircraft carriers would surely have been better in World War II. I believe two men could have done this: First Sea Lord and Admiral of the Fleet John "Jacky" Fisher, and First Sea Lord Winston Churchill. Had both men agreed the Dardanelles campaign was too risky and not conducted it in the first place, neither would have resigned, and they would have kept their posts until at least the end of World War I. Working together, I think they could have made sure the RN kept the RNAS's planes and pilots. What do you carrier lovers think? Could they have turned the RNAS into a Royal Naval Air Force?
 
Last edited:
The only way to avoid the Dardanelles campaign is to launch an attack in Germany's Baltic coast (Fisher's plan to get relief shipments to Russia), which would arguably have been as bad or worse.
 
bigmanhelper said:
Had both men agreed the Dardanelles campaign was impossible
It wasn't impossible. It was incompetently led.

That said, you'd need RN senior officers to realize keeping their own a/c & not agreeing to a unified service was a good idea. Would they do it if it meant sacrificing CBs or BBs?:eek: I really doubt it.:rolleyes:
 
It wasn't impossible. It was incompetently led.

That said, you'd need RN senior officers to realize keeping their own a/c & not agreeing to a unified service was a good idea. Would they do it if it meant sacrificing CBs or BBs?:eek: I really doubt it.:rolleyes:
I realize that I used the wrong word and changed my post to reflect this. I also changed it because I didn't make clear that I meant that the Dardanelles campaign never took place at all: In other words, Churchill lost the argument to Fisher, who opposed the operation.
 
The only way to avoid the Dardanelles campaign is to launch an attack in Germany's Baltic coast (Fisher's plan to get relief shipments to Russia), which would arguably have been as bad or worse.
Thats too narrowminded. Its ASB to say that no Dardanelles invasion will always lead to a Baltic Operation.
 
The politicians were pushing for a supply chain to Russia, which meant either the Baltic, the Dardanelles, or the Barents. I presume they must have had a reason for not trying the Barents.
 
The politicians were pushing for a supply chain to Russia, which meant either the Baltic, the Dardanelles, or the Barents. I presume they must have had a reason for not trying the Barents.
I'd presume they chose the Dardanelles because the other two options were even less attractive.:eek: That being true, the op not going ahead at all, in the face of pressue to support Russia, seems less than credible.

It might be HMG takes a different tack, tho. IIRC, there was an option to "bribe" Turkey to change sides & the opportunity was ignored (or missed, I don't recall which). I'd imagine more effort would be made in that direction if it was decided Gallipoli was a non-starter...& if that was the decision, I'd want to see a damn good reason, when it wasn't a non-starter OTL.
 
The Problem with trying to bribe the Ottomans was that their No. 1 enemy was Russia, and had been for almost a century, so they weren't going to let anything get to Russia.
 
Top