Best fleet of WWII

Which was the strongest Navy as of 1939?

  • The Royal Navy (plus Commonwealth navies)

  • Imperial Japanese Navy

  • United States Navy


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that the problem I have with your thoughtful analysis is that the UK at this point had basically conceded that it was incapable of defending Singapore and Malaysia in the event of an European war. And in 1939, the UK's primary concern was with Europe--while at the same time the UK felt that

The UK believed that its colonies in the Fear East were vital to its economic welfare. (Modern economic scholarship sometimes argues otherwise, but that's another issue.) Certainly, the Far Eastern colonies were important to UK economically to the UK than the Philippines were to the US. Loss of the Philippines would have no real economic effect on the US, per se. (Though a situation where the Philippines were taken would.) The US strategy--not unreasonably, given this--was to retake the Philippines when strategic superiority rather than to race into the Philippines. Even without a war Europe, the UK had considerable doubt about being able to defend Singapore and Malaysia--and for good reasons.

Fair comments, and the relative importance of the locations does shed new light on "best".

I'm uncertain that Malaya is definitely indefensible in the case of a European war - I think it depends a lot on the nature of the war and the timing of the Japanese attack. While you'd expect Japan to attack at the most advantageous time, faced with the choice of a suboptimal opportunity or no opportunity at all, they may still go south. Certainly there are cases of where the troops and aircraft cannot be spared from the European front to be sent to Indochina and Malaya - if we imagine Germany crushing part of the BEF or French Army, resulting in a manpower crisis, for example, or simply heavy fighting that sucks in too many reserves. Alternatively, if a German attack fails with heavy losses - such as Blunted Sickle - then there may be the forces available to be sent east, at the cost of weakening the offensive against Germany, which may be deemed acceptable.

We know historically that trying to hold Malaya without Indochina and while fighting in Africa and supporting the USSR was impossible. But how many of these three factors need to be negated to give Malaya a realistic chance? With the historical forces available, I'd say that Free French Indochina is insufficient - Japan will just roll over it and Malaya more slowly, because of air superiority and the ability to outflank by sea. But adding in the North African forces in the case of a neutral Italy may be different. The Japanese forces that took Malaya were not particularly strong, but I have little idea of how quickly Japan could build up strength in northern Malaya to resume the offensive if the original campaign stalls halfway down Malaya.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Fair comments, and the relative importance of the locations does shed new light on "best".

I'm uncertain that Malaya is definitely indefensible in the case of a European war - I think it depends a lot on the nature of the war and the timing of the Japanese attack. While you'd expect Japan to attack at the most advantageous time, faced with the choice of a suboptimal opportunity or no opportunity at all, they may still go south. Certainly there are cases of where the troops and aircraft cannot be spared from the European front to be sent to Indochina and Malaya - if we imagine Germany crushing part of the BEF or French Army, resulting in a manpower crisis, for example, or simply heavy fighting that sucks in too many reserves. Alternatively, if a German attack fails with heavy losses - such as Blunted Sickle - then there may be the forces available to be sent east, at the cost of weakening the offensive against Germany, which may be deemed acceptable.

We know historically that trying to hold Malaya without Indochina and while fighting in Africa and supporting the USSR was impossible. But how many of these three factors need to be negated to give Malaya a realistic chance? With the historical forces available, I'd say that Free French Indochina is insufficient - Japan will just roll over it and Malaya more slowly, because of air superiority and the ability to outflank by sea. But adding in the North African forces in the case of a neutral Italy may be different. The Japanese forces that took Malaya were not particularly strong, but I have little idea of how quickly Japan could build up strength in northern Malaya to resume the offensive if the original campaign stalls halfway down Malaya.
The IJA had considerable forces available, if necessary, but it would have taken time to assemble them. The critical question is if the rest of the offensive across the region could continue. I would argue that it could. Singapore was an important choke point, but only as long as it could be kept in supply (the same situation applied to the Philippines, particularly Luzon). Once cut off, as would have been the case once the IJA completed the conquest of the Dutch East Indies, Singapore could be strangled, much as happened on Bataan and Corregidor. The biggest impact on the Japanese would be a delayed entry into Burma (the question then becoming one of the British being able to reinforce that area).

The point of relative value of the two regions is also worth a bit of expansion. Malaya was very valuable in terms of raw materials and Singapore had tremendous strategic value to the British Empire, both in basing location and control of access to the IO. The British, in 1941, had absolutely no desire to divest themselves of the region (and in fact maintained control into the late 50s). The U.S., conversely, couldn't wait to cut the Philippines loose (while maintaining certain economic privileges to be sure) and had already set a date for awarding full independence (July 4, 1945). The U.S. military bases in the region were very useful, although more in a geopolitical sense than anything else (they presented an excellent location to threaten Japan's LOC without needing to be overtly aggressive). The primary reasons the U.S. eventually spent enormous resources (and lives) to retake the Islands were MacArthur and retaking something that had been taken by force. The U.S. was out of the Islands (with the notable economic and basing concessions noted earlier) less than a year after the War ended.
 
I voted RN. In 1939, the RN was the largest naval force in the world, the only one with.....

I gave up on the above, sensing contrarian-bait. Peace out.
I was going to vote Royal Navy but it went with the USN. I'd say that they are rather equal with the Royal Navy having the advantage of tradition and more experience in the first world war.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top