Surely the technical aspect of who has what ships or planes needs to be viewed within a strategic context?
Japan is fighting in her own backyard , so to speak. This gives her several advantages. Supply lines from Japan to "wherever the fighting is" are bound to be shorter than Britain to ditto. But , conversely, Britain could hope to , relatively easily, cut off Japan's supply lines, even mount a traditional close blockade. Whereas Japan has no way of seriously interfering with British production or economy (they might be able to interdict the SEA bases of course)
For Japan such a war is REALLY important - life or death for the Japanese Empire. Whereas for Britain it's just a colonial war. So Japan is probably going to be willing to throw a LOT more effort into the fight, make a lot more sacrifices.
But on the other hand, the strategic advantage of Britain is immense. Look at it this way - it would be very feasible to imagine that, if the battles went against Japan, Britain could end up bombarding/bombing Japanese cities , even mounting an invasion (unwise, to be sure, but not unimaginable). But the idea of Japan doing the reverse, and bombarding or bombing Britain, let alone an invasion, is, frankly, ASB territory.
So Japan HAS to win. Which will be an enormous motivation for her. But Britain can't really lose.
Which would predicate a negotiated peace. The war would probably much more resemble one from the 18C or early 19C than a WWn.
That makes the IJN a bargaining counter - whether it wins battles or not is less important than how much it can extract in the way of "pay me off and I'll go away and stop being a nuisance" concessions from Britain.
It would be illogical for the Japanese to seek major fleet engagements. The British only have to win once - but the Japanese would have to win every time. Much more sensible to maintain a guerre de course, and attacks on lightly defended territories - even if they had to be quickly evacuated.
BTW what part are the Dutch East Indies playing?
Japan is fighting in her own backyard , so to speak. This gives her several advantages. Supply lines from Japan to "wherever the fighting is" are bound to be shorter than Britain to ditto. But , conversely, Britain could hope to , relatively easily, cut off Japan's supply lines, even mount a traditional close blockade. Whereas Japan has no way of seriously interfering with British production or economy (they might be able to interdict the SEA bases of course)
For Japan such a war is REALLY important - life or death for the Japanese Empire. Whereas for Britain it's just a colonial war. So Japan is probably going to be willing to throw a LOT more effort into the fight, make a lot more sacrifices.
But on the other hand, the strategic advantage of Britain is immense. Look at it this way - it would be very feasible to imagine that, if the battles went against Japan, Britain could end up bombarding/bombing Japanese cities , even mounting an invasion (unwise, to be sure, but not unimaginable). But the idea of Japan doing the reverse, and bombarding or bombing Britain, let alone an invasion, is, frankly, ASB territory.
So Japan HAS to win. Which will be an enormous motivation for her. But Britain can't really lose.
Which would predicate a negotiated peace. The war would probably much more resemble one from the 18C or early 19C than a WWn.
That makes the IJN a bargaining counter - whether it wins battles or not is less important than how much it can extract in the way of "pay me off and I'll go away and stop being a nuisance" concessions from Britain.
It would be illogical for the Japanese to seek major fleet engagements. The British only have to win once - but the Japanese would have to win every time. Much more sensible to maintain a guerre de course, and attacks on lightly defended territories - even if they had to be quickly evacuated.
BTW what part are the Dutch East Indies playing?