It's A Long Way To Nagasaki: The Anglo-Japanese War

[GrahamB]

[there] is no way that the British will not go to war footing in terms of Production

I would imagine that Hitler and Mussolini would be ecstatic

A year's advance on Britain's industrial mobilization (sorry, "Britain and Friends", inclusive of my fellow Cannucks and associate Dominions) might actually give Adolf pause. Unless I'm very much mistaken a good deal of German assumptions about potential opposition to their expansionist policies relied on Britain and France wanting to avoid another Great War. With Britain already at war and mobilizing, one of those assumptions has already fallen. Mussolini might still get adventurous in the Mediterranean, especially if the RN transfers a sizable portion of the fleet out to Asia, but I suspect France will try to take up any slack themselves.
If anything, the foreign policies of Britain and France might become a little more confrontational in a "We're already dealing with Japan, don't you start anything!" sort of way. I suspect Germany and Italy will content themselves with cheering on Franco in the Spanish Civil War for now.

I would appreciate a broad overview of international opinion on the war when there's an appropriate pause in the narrative, just to keep tabs on everyone else as the butterflies get shuffled around.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Really enjoying this TL. How would this effect the RN’s building programme? How much could the KGV battleships or Illustrious class carriers build time be sped up? Will we see the lion class built?

Fingers crossed the KGVs get 15” guns ITTL after the battle of Borneo show the usefulness of big rifles in a capital ship engagement.

 

[GrahamB]

I think it's a bit late to be making changes to the KGVs. As I understand it you'd need to significantly change the turret rings to fit different guns and those are one of the first things to go into a battleship that's not hull or engine mountings. If there's a real push for alternate guns Anson and Howe might be delayed long enough for the changes to be made, effectively making them a subclass, but that would require maybe another year's work to stretch the hulls to make room so might not be considered worth the effort.
I think it equally likely for Lion and Temeraire to be pushed forward in their original 1938 design (very capable, but very wet bows), although I suspect they won't complete before the end of the war (I'm thinking 1941 commission dates). Not sure on the availability of their improved 16" guns at that rate (battleship cannon having one of the longest production times of any part of the ship as a whole) so if the RN take some shocking losses and need hulls replaced ASAP Lion might leave the shipyard with nine of the spare 15" guns that ended up on Vanguard OTL, loaded on too-large turrets with expectation for replacement during refit.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Clash of Empires: The Blitz of Brunei
....
So Japan is basically in a very precarious position...

The Japanese are going to have a lot of trouble on their left (inland) flank. The locals don't like them at all - and the traditional national pastime is head-hunting. The White Rajahs suppressed it, but... George Macdonald Fraser, the editor of the Flashman Papers, visited Sarawak in the 1970s. He noticed some relatively fresh trophy heads in the Dyak longhouses. The Dyaks said they were "orang japon".

 

[HJ Tulp]

The Japanese are going to have a lot of trouble on their left (inland) flank. The locals don't like them at all - and the traditional national pastime is head-hunting. The White Rajahs suppressed it, but... George Macdonald Fraser, the editor of the Flashman Papers, visited Sarawak in the 1970s. He noticed some relatively fresh trophy heads in the Dyak longhouses. The Dyaks said they were "orang japon".

Did they like the Britons though?

 

[sarahz]

Did they like the Britons though?

not much but the japanese are even more "endearing"

 

[GDIS Pathe]

Did they like the Britons though?

IIRC the White Rajah's were well respected, the British administrators who took over after the cession of the colony to the Colonial Office, less so

 

[Tjyorksgeezer]

Did they like the Britons though?

Depends on the seasoning...

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Did they like the Britons though?

They were quite loyal to the White Rajahs, who were British, and to the Empire, which held a protectorate over Sarawak.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Alright, fixed up the last post. Hope it's more to your liking now.

I understand why you re-wrote this to prevent multiple magazine explosions and the language and narrative are very good, but I feel you went too far the other way during the naval battle.

The Japanese are both incompetent and unlucky now - they lost two battleships and had two more (and a fleet carrier) suffer "substantial damage" and all they have to show for it is they caused one battleship to almost not make it back to Singapore and damaged two battle cruisers. Borneo went from a slight British victory to a massive one.

You could have kept the sinking of the British battlecruisers in and just taken out the magazine explosions and kept the casualty list more or less the same. Ships sink in battle for lots of reasons. But, by going too far the other way in order to appease some posters you've now made this TL utterly predictable.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

But, by going too far the other way in order to appease some posters you've now made this TL utterly predictable.

Does Britain losing one capital ship and having two capital ships out of action for over a year really balance things with Japan any more than having three capital ships out of action for over a year? In either case the first two KGVs will have entered service in a year's time, Ramillies re-enters service in two months' time, Revenge re-enters service in seven months, and Royal Oak in six.

On the contrary, given how long it would take Japan to replace their capital ship losses with new builds, I'd say changing Kongo from sunk with all hands to merely needing a new rudder is far more beneficial to Japan than the survival of Repulse is detrimental. Kongo can be recommissioned well before Hiei is in 1941.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Does Britain losing one capital ship and having two capital ships out of action for over a year really balance things with Japan any more than having three capital ships out of action for over a year? In either case the first two KGVs will have entered service in a year's time, Ramillies re-enters service in two months' time, Revenge re-enters service in seven months, and Royal Oak in six.

On the contrary, given how long it would take Japan to replace their capital ship losses with new builds, I'd say changing Kongo from sunk with all hands to merely needing a new rudder is far more beneficial to Japan than the survival of Repulse is detrimental. Kongo can be recommissioned well before Hiei is in 1941.

"...having two capital ships out of action for over a year..." You just said "damaged." The footnote explains how laid up Barham is but there was no explanation beyond "damaged" for the rest of the fleet. I can't make the assumption that the BCs are damaged for over a year without you saying so.

Meanwhile the Japanese had two battleships outright sunk and two more (and a carrier) "substantially damaged." So if "damaged" is a year+ then "substantially damaged" is what? Eighteen months? Two years? A constructive total loss? They got their asses kicked, and that's fine. That's what happens in battle. You get one roll of the dice and sometimes you hit your point and sometimes you crap out.

I just wonder why you changed the battle from a slight British victory/draw (I think in your original post you called it a reverse Jutland?) to a more overwhelming one. Neutering Japan even more just sets this TL on a path of complete predictability and that detracts a little from the quality. The Japanese position after the first update was bad. Their position after this one is worse. Why make that change?

 

[Johnrankins]

My feeling about the Churchill "Colony's colony" gaff. In 1938 Churchill is a very different figure than the OTL PM post 1940. Here if his comments cause significant offence to the Australians then he would have to expend a lot of political capital to attempt to save his possition at the Admiralty. If he can't do this then he's sacked and off to back bench obscurity. I would expect a few comments about his words being used out of context and a bit of political brown nosing would suffice. And that's before the RN just beat the IJN off Borneo. Now as far as Churchill (and anyone else he can convince) is concerned Churchills navy just smashed the enemy thanks to the bold dashing leadership of (you've guessed it) Churchill! He currently has plenty of political capital (as everyone loves a winner) so should be able to survive the occasional gaff.

I also suspect that the Australians would forgive him the odd gaff as I feel that the Aussie press would be preoccupied with reporting the influx of famous battleships into the Far East to protect Austrailia (and other lesser possessions like New Zealand). The news realms would be full of smiling indian troups disembarking from ships in places like Malaya, Borneo and Burma and possibly British regulars climbing up gangways onto ships heading to the war. All of this before a stinking naval victory (they're not going to be calling it a tactically victory) reminiscent of Nelson at Trafalgar.

Perhaps the over enthusiasm of the press is why the early reports of the exploding BC's at the Battle off Borneo proved to be a unfounded. However once the story broke that there wasn't something wrong with the Battle Cruisers that day, the feeling of the average Australian (and British) was that a sunk battle ship is a sunk battleship whether it blows up or keels over.

Loving this TL!

Agreed, the gaffe would blow over in a week or two at most. The naval victory far outweighs it and Churchill could and probably would backtrack his statement . One statement isn't going to cause a big, long term rift between GB and Australia.

 

[Logisticsofwar]

Are the French supporting the British with troops or ships?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

"...having two capital ships out of action for over a year..." You just said "damaged." The footnote explains how laid up Barham is but there was no explanation beyond "damaged" for the rest of the fleet. I can't make the assumption that the BCs are damaged for over a year without you saying so.

Yes, I haven't gotten around to discussing post battle repair schedules yet. However, as mentioned in the write up on the battle, both Hood and Repulse got pounded with 14" shells. Super structure repairs and crew replenishment are needed in both cases. Repulse also needs a new engine, which will naturally take quite a bit.

Hood is also way overdue for a refit, so that would probably be folded into its repairs (so if anything it's probably out for two years at minimum).

Meanwhile the Japanese had two battleships outright sunk and two more (and a carrier) "substantially damaged." So if "damaged" is a year+ then "substantially damaged" is what? Eighteen months? Two years? A constructive total loss?

Well, that can also mostly be inferred from the details of the battle update. Kongo has lost a rudder, I'm not sure how long exactly that would take to replace, but I assume its not too lengthy of a fix.* Akagi had mechanical difficulties due to being rushed through its post-refit trials, but that can be remedies without visiting a dry dock.* Fuso is worse off (hull damage and super structure damage) so it's probably out for over a year like the British ships.

If it alleviates confusion I can remove the qualifier "substantially" or add it to the British section as well.

*in these cases substantial refers to the fact that these damages took these ships out of the operation entirely, rather than the extent of of the repairs needed.

I just wonder why you changed the battle from a slight British victory/draw (I think in your original post you called it a reverse Jutland?) to a more overwhelming one.

2 BBs sunk, 2 BBs and 1 CV damaged in exchange for 1 BB and 2BCs damaged is a much better deal for Japan than 3BBs sunk, 1 BB and 1 CV damaged in exchange for 1 BC sunk, 1 BC and 1 BB damaged.

Japan can't afford permanent losses, Britain can.

Additionally, I'd still say this is a second Jutland. Costly to both sides (though in favour of Britain this time) but not a war deciding battle by any means. The British were still forced to break off their pursuit and forego attacking the Japanese landing sites after all. Lowering the overall lethality of the battle may have taken away Japan's one gotcha moment, but it also made the war just as hard for Britain in the short term and a tad harder in the long term.

Neutering Japan even more just sets this TL on a path of complete predictability and that detracts a little from the quality. The Japanese position after the first update was bad. Their position after this one is worse. Why make that change?

But I didn't? This is a much better situation for Japan.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Are the French supporting the British with troops or ships?

No troops and at least no military ships. The French and British are still in agreement that someone needs to keep their attention on Europe. Just because Britain is only at war with expected enemy #3 doesn't mean that expected enemies #1 and #2 have been forgotten.

That said, I imagine the French Merchant Marine is moving some things around the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean for the British.

 

[Logisticsofwar]

No troops and at least no military ships. The French and British are still in agreement that someone needs to keep their attention on Europe. Just because Britain is only at war with expected enemy #3 doesn't mean that expected enemies #1 and #2 have been forgotten.

That said, I imagine the French Merchant Marine is moving some things around the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean for the British.

Are expected enemy #1 and #2 Germany and Soviet union and are the French reinforcing asian colonies or focusing on French/Belgian/German border and French/Italian borders?

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Additionally, I'd still say this is a second Jutland. Costly to both sides (though in favour of Britain this time) but not a war deciding battle by any means. The British were still forced to break off their pursuit and forego attacking the Japanese landing sites after all. Lowering the overall lethality of the battle may have taken away Japan's one gotcha moment, but it also made the war just as hard for Britain in the short term and a tad harder in the long term.

Thank you for answering. I disagree with this paragraph especially and the bolded part most of all. In the update re: the land battles of Borneo/Brunei you wrote. "They didn’t have long to ponder it as they unexpectedly came under naval bombardment in the late afternoon as British cruisers moved in to assist. With morale plummeting now that it seemed the British, not the Japanese, had command of the seas, the 16th Division withdrew during the night."

So it seems like the British were able to attack the Japanese landing sites? Or was that a different sea-based bombardment? Either way, British cruisers operating that close to the IJA means the IJN screwed up in a huge way. If the IJN can't even protect the area next to their army then what good are they?

The IJN as I see it has failed on three fronts
A - They failed to defeat the British in a Decisive Battle. In fact, that Decisive Battle was a Decisive Loss
B - They failed to prevent British ships from bombing their landing sites as cited above, leading to the army withdrawing from Borneo
C - They failed to prevent British subs from attacking their troop/supply convoys

What did they gain? Nothing. The British still have numeral supremacy in the theater. In fact, they probably out-ton the Japanese even more now than before, even if you remove both sides ships that need fixing/refitting. Calling this a costly battle is technically true but it is masking the situation.

Yes, the 1,647 dead sailors and nearly a thousand injured ones are losses. Barham, Hood, Repulse all needing to be repaired/refitted are losses. The Hawkins-Class Cruiser being sunk is a loss. But compare to what they won - two sunk battleships, two more being repaired, a damaged carrier, twice as many casualties among naval personnel, all while operating with impunity in the seas as the IJN can't even protect their army from being bombed at this point. Any British leader will take that tradeoff any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

This is both a tactical and strategic disaster for the IJN. They not only failed at every single one of their goals but failed in a spectacular way. It is going to be exceedingly hard for the IJN to recover if they can't even defend their army from bombardment. Couple that with the Brits having the Japanese codes and there's almost no way Japan recovers from this battle.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

This is both a tactical and strategic disaster for the IJN. They not only failed at every single one of their goals but failed in a spectacular way. It is going to be exceedingly hard for the IJN to recover if they can't even defend their army from bombardment.

Are the Japanese not allowed to fail?

 

[Sargon]

This looks interesting. An earlier war neither side is really ready for.

I would agree with some of the comments that if the intention is not to have a short war (the title implies a long one) the Japanese perhaps need to suffer less losses to stretch it out. However, sea battles are fickle things and the next one could have a bad result for the British, who knows? That's what happens in war. It doesn't all go one way all the time otherwise it can become a wank. There will be setbacks and victories along the way as that is realistic.

A good idea and POD for a TL, so keep it up!


Sargon