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

[sbroders27]

To collate the points put forward while also emphasising I did not say the ships could not be sunk:-

1) Were the ships stationary or not?
2) The size and strength of the attacking force.
3) Given the puported RAF strength and therefore potential threats to the Kido Butai itself, would the attacking aircraft not be heading to attack land bases and so have armaments not designed to sink ships?
4) How did the Kido Butai get there without the RN knowing? (Not saying it can't incidentally but, given the level of activity now and the potential for Japanese counterattack, presumably precautions would have been taken).
5) Why were there no defending RAF fighters given point 4 and the previously written level of RAF activity? (Yes I know airfields in the area were terrible, I was going with the story)

 

[StrikeEcho]

Wait did the Heavy Cruisers have Radar installed yet? Otherwise it would be strange the two would be sunk without some kind of movement.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

The next day, she and Cornwall were spotted by reconnaissance aircraft from the heavy cruiser Tone. The two British cruisers were attacked by a force of 53 Aichi D3A2 Val dive bombers 320 km (200 mi) southwest of Ceylon. In the span of about eight minutes, Dorsetshire was hit by ten 250 lb (110 kg) and 550 lb (250 kg) bombs and several near misses; she sank stern first at about 13:50. One of the bombs detonated an ammunition magazine and contributed to her rapid sinking. Cornwall was hit eight times and sank bow first about ten minutes later.

The Val didn’t enter service until 1940 and it’s predecessor the D1A1 (Susie) was a biplane. But, if we’re to compare the OTL sinking to an ATL one, the Susie can carry a 250kg bomb.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

My main quibble was with the word stationary

Alright, just checking but a bombardment force would still be going slow to give their guns more time on target and to maximize accuracy, right?

1) Were the ships stationary or not?

No. Though they also weren't maneuvering at speed.

2) The size and strength of the attacking force.

The air compliments of 3-4 carriers.

3) Given the puported RAF strength and therefore potential threats to the Kido Butai itself, would the attacking aircraft not be heading to attack land bases and so have armaments not designed to sink ships?

The torpedo bombers going after an isolated bombardment wouldn't prevent the fighters from intervening in the RAF operations further inland.

4) How did the Kido Butai get there without the RN knowing? (Not saying it can't incidentally but, given the level of activity now and the potential for Japanese counterattack, presumably precautions would have been taken).

The "Mobile Force" lives up to its name quite well. The British weren't prepared for the world's first ever carrier group to roll up on them because they are the first ones to ever find themselves on the business end of a carrier group.

5) Why were there no defending RAF fighters given point 4 and the previously written level of RAF activity? (Yes I know airfields in the area were terrible, I was going with the story)

Excessive focus on CAS operations against inland targets and suppressing shore based IJAAS planes.

Are these adequate explanations?

Wait did the Heavy Cruisers have Radar installed yet? Otherwise it would be strange the two would be sunk without some kind of movement.

No, the earliest phase of the roll out of radar to naval units had just began in September 1938. If I'm not mistaken, even in OTL they wouldn't have received any yet, and ITTL the process of adoption has actually been slowed by virtue of so much of the Navy relocating to the far side of the world.

 

[sbroders27]

To an extent. OTTL the world's first carrier group was not formed until 1941 with the 6 carriers. Yes you have 4, but they have limited experience of coordinating large scale air strikes and are not using the same high performance aircraft used at Pearl Harbour. Despite the intense training, there is still limited experience of actually attacking ships, especially ones shooting back with full damage control and not stationary.

In terms of the RAF, I meant, given the lack of carrier opposition, the Japanese would be going after the land based aircraft and their airfields so they would not be carrying torpedoes in their first strike. Also, I was thinking of some basic form of RAF fighter garrison maintaining CAP over the cruisers given the potential for air attack (although removing this due to lack of RN - RAF cooperation is perfectly believable).

Again, I am not saying they could not be sunk, it just needs fleshing out.

 

[generalurist]

Even if it's untrained crews, with the entire air wings of four carriers all going after just two heavy cruisers, who don't exactly have experience evading aircraft, it doesn't seem unreasonable for both UK ships to get sunk. To me, at least.

 

[sbroders27]

That's the point, I am positing that, in the context of the story, the air wings would be equipped for a land base strike.

Wrong and light weapons, inexperienced air crews, lower quality aircraft. Also, given the time of year, though the cruisers do not have radar, visibility would be decent so once you see the raid you can break off the bombardment and work up for evasive action (granted that takes time but given the potential for air or surface attack, you could be standing by to do just that).

Just to clarify, how this goes is of course all up to the author in the end. I just think wiping them out, all of them, would be a little more difficult as the Gungans are a hardy people, ha hmm, would be a little harder than presented given the issues highlighted.

(Couldn't resist)

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

That's the point, I am positing that, in the context of the story, the air wings would be equipped for a land base strike.

Except this is the IJN and killing warships is always their #1 priority. Pearl Harbour, ship targeted in first wave. Colombo, ships targeted in first wave. Trincomalee, ships targeted in first wave.

 

[weasel_airlift]

I just found this, and you can count me following. Good writing.

I would anticipate HMS Canada to be a deathtrap. With her bulges added, I would expect her to top out at 21 knots, and her crew will not be fully worked up on the main battery without a good long target shoot that is not going to happen. Her range was ~6500 nm at 10 knots, so this fleet is slow. A coal powered ship can only sprint, not marathon at speed. I would expect any of the Kongos to be able to whip her one on one.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I just found this, and you can count me following. Good writing.

Thank you!

I would anticipate HMS Canada to be a deathtrap. With her bulges added, I would expect her to top out at 21 knots, and her crew will not be fully worked up on the main battery without a good long target shoot that is not going to happen. Her range was ~6500 nm at 10 knots, so this fleet is slow. A coal powered ship can only sprint, not marathon at speed. I would expect any of the Kongos to be able to whip her one on one.

Yeah, in her current state she's a write off in any role beyond shore bombardment. That said should she make it home to the UK for a proper refit there are... opportunities.

 

[weasel_airlift]

Yeah, in her current state she's a write off in any role beyond shore bombardment. That said should she make it home to the UK for a proper refit there are... opportunities.

She's not worth the money to refit. Shift her to oil firing, enhance main battery elevation, and enhanced AA fit perhaps. Beyond that, the money is better spent on more capable units, like Renown or Hood, certainly not on one-offs that don't otherwise fit the fleet. If Canada wants to cough up the money, I suppose they could get the US to give it a deep refit. But she'll never be more than a third-rate unit, not even quite as capable as the old R class.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The sinking of 2 County class cruisers, hell the sinking of 2 RN ships full stop, by airpower will be a massive wake up call

Previous to this the only air attack that comes to mind is the bombing of the Deutschland in 1937 that saw over 100 of her crew killed and injured although the ship was able to sail independently to Gib and then back to Germany

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

She's not worth the money to refit. Shift her to oil firing, enhance main battery elevation, and enhanced AA fit perhaps.

That's quite the extensive refit right there! Just add stripping out the centre turret and rationalizing the deck layout and you have the dreaded Italian-style rebuild

If Canada wants to cough up the money, I suppose they could get the US to give it a deep refit.

*Foreign Office

It may be named Canada, it may be operating alongside the RCN and Canadian Militia, it may have been acquired by a guy named Halifax, but it's not actually Canadian.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

That's quite the extensive refit right there! Just add stripping out the centre turret and rationalizing the deck layout and you have the dreaded Italian-style rebuild

Yeah , slap some additional DP guns on her and some light AAA and use her to free up better more modern ships for other things.

No time for a major refit during wartime - certainly nothing like a Warspite refit - and quite frankly if they did have the time for such a thing far better to expend such resources on modernising the Hood, or give Repulse a similar refit to Renown's or one of the other 4 QEs.

 

[weasel_airlift]

That's quite the extensive refit right there! Just add stripping out the centre turret and rationalizing the deck layout and you have the dreaded Italian-style rebuild

Not as much as you think, most can be done dockside. The AA requires bolting some more light guns to the deck. It will leave light on medium and heavy AA, but it's an old ship. The main gun elevation shouldn't require more than adjustments to the machinery and possibly cutting the embrasures larger. Shifting to oil firing is intensive, but not as much as you might think. It also eases (Especially in the current situation) the logistical challenge of the ship immensely. Coaling ship in the tropics is a somewhat unpleasant task. Now imagine coaling ship, the entire ship coated in coal dust, the crew busy, clouds of dust surrounding the ship....and surprise! An air attack! That small bomb that would normally have been no issue suddenly sets off a rather problematic chain of events...

Regardless, when coal bunkers were removed from RN ships, the additional space was often used to increase crew comfort. Now, complement of a coal fired ship is already large, and it's increased by the need for additional men for AA. This is problematic.

Additionally, the range gained by such a conversion would be helpful. For instance the USS New York on about 3000 tons of coal could travel about 7700 nm at 12 knots. After conversion, she could travel over 15,000 nm at 10 knots.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Shifting to oil firing is intensive, but not as much as you might think.

Doesn't that require the hull to be opened up?

 

[ArtosStark]

Shifting to oil firing is intensive, but not as much as you might think.

They may need to change boilers. If so, I believe they need to come out from the top. Which means they would need to remove everything above them to get them out. They may be lucky and be able to adapt the existing boilers to oil, but that is still going to put the ship out of commission for a while. To make the most use of it the drive train and propellers should be replaced but that can probably be skipped in this case. If the plan is to make use of the extra space from the freeing up of coal bunkers that will also take some time and effort.

Basically if they are lucky you can do a rough and dirty switch to oil, if the only benefit they are interested in is the reduced crew and maintenance requirements and maybe a little extra space from the bunkers.

EDIT: At least I think this is possible. Maybe. If the boilers can be adapted.

 

[weasel_airlift]

EDIT: At least I think this is possible. Maybe. If the boilers can be adapted.

They may need to change boilers. If so, I believe they need to come out from the top. Which means they would need to remove everything above them to get them out. They may be lucky and be able to adapt the existing boilers to oil, but that is still going to put the ship out of commission for a while. To make the most use of it the drive train and propellers should be replaced but that can probably be skipped in this case. If the plan is to make use of the extra space from the freeing up of coal bunkers that will also take some time and effort.

I know the process took at least a year on US battleships, however that included (In all cases I think) other modernizations, including deck armor, new rangefinders and other new toys, as well as being done in peace time in a leisurely fashion. I imagine that boilers alone could be done inside of a three months, if it was a rush job. That sounds like a lot of time, but those old coal ships needed regular dock time anyhow for boiler maintenance (Another plus to converting, by the way) so you might break even.

*Foreign Office

It may be named Canada, it may be operating alongside the RCN and Canadian Militia, it may have been acquired by a guy named Halifax, but it's not actually Canadian.

My mistake. Regardless, please don't take this as criticism, it is your story, write it as you will. I am happy to lend whatever technical knowledge I have, but I don't care if it's used or not.
The drama having to coal at inconvenient times might be a good literary device for you.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Yeah, in her current state she's a write off in any role beyond shore bombardment.

Idunno about that. Canada has one more inch of armor and two more 14" guns than a Kongo.

This isn't Bismarck vs. Texas; unless the Kongo has a big edge in gunnery, it should be fairly even.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

My mistake. Regardless, please don't take this as criticism, it is your story, write it as you will. I am happy to lend whatever technical knowledge I have, but I don't care if it's used or not.
The drama having to coal at inconvenient times might be a good literary device for you.

Worry not, I wasn't interpreting it as criticism.

Idunno about that. Canada has one more inch of armor and two more 14" guns than a Kongo.

This isn't Bismarck vs. Texas; unless the Kongo has a big edge in gunnery, it should be fairly even.

Kongo had much greater gun elevation and Canada is pretty lacking in deck armour, plunging fire from a range Canada can't reply at (and can't close the gap due to the speed differences) would be a massive threat.