Remember the Rainbow Redux: An Alternate Royal Canadian Navy

Well i sure hope some of those politicians got bombarded, this is the consequences of disregarding national defence for the sake of pathetic political point scoring (something i hate the most about Democracy) looking forward to the national awakening and realization that Canada needs a navy as much as Australia does.
 
All political decisions are calculated risks. I do not begrudge my nation's leadership for not taking coastal defense, especially on the west coast, seriously before the war as there simply wasn't anything to defend against besides smugglers or illegal fishing.
Many failings are only revealed in hindsight or in a moment of crisis, I can only truly claim disgust with leadership if those moments come and the lessons appear to have not been learned.
That certainly isn't going to be the case in this timeline, so I'd cut Borden and the rest of Ottawa some slack.
 
Well, the problem is that once the German cruisers are out of ammo there will again be nothing to defend against. So any spending on a Pacific fleet is a waste of money until Japan turns more hostile towards Britain and the US in the late 20s and early 30s (Plenty of time to start thinking about naval defence before WW2) but at that point, you're better off with an airforce.
 
Well, the problem is that once the German cruisers are out of ammo there will again be nothing to defend against. So any spending on a Pacific fleet is a waste of money until Japan turns more hostile towards Britain and the US in the late 20s and early 30s (Plenty of time to start thinking about naval defence before WW2) but at that point, you're better off with an airforce.
The main issue with that point is that it’s clearly utilizing hindsight. Even considering the fact that the Germans will eventually be pushed out of the area by the Japanese and British, simply assuming minimal threats going forward is the same attitude that almost caused this exact situation IRL. The Americans are questionable allies, the British cannot respond quickly enough and the Japanese were saw as potentially dangerous as early as before the WNT. The Airforce is an interesting idea but the lacklustre nature of aircraft capacity in the interwar era makes it not a wholly reliable defense by itself.
 
There is a reason why I chose this particular quote for my forum signature...

The Airforce is an interesting idea but the lacklustre nature of aircraft capacity in the interwar era makes it not a wholly reliable defense by itself.
Now there's an understatement. I find it equally parts amusing and frustrating how easily people seem to forget that military aviation between the world wars was effectively on pause, especially when compared with civil aviation.
 
There is a reason why I chose this particular quote for my forum signature...


Now there's an understatement. I find it equally parts amusing and frustrating how easily people seem to forget that military aviation between the world wars was effectively on pause, especially when compared with civil aviation.
makes me wonder if there is going to be a spat between the airforce and the navy during the period between ww1 and ww2 about who can best defend the coast and canada from threats, such things happenend in other countries around this period if i am not mistaken.

looking forward to the next chapter!
 
PILOT: I can defend the coast better because I can see a long way at altitude and can cover long distances quickly!
SAILOR: I can defend the coast better because I can bring actionable force to bear and don't have to stop and refuel every couple of hours!
OBSERVER: What if you put the plane on the boat and did both?
PILOT/SAILOR: Pshaaawww!

I do wonder about the assumption of a separate air force as default, but that's down to my personal biases and open question on if the RAF and the example it set were actually a bad thing (and a topic worthy of a timeline of its own, perhaps).
 
The main issue with that point is that it’s clearly utilizing hindsight. Even considering the fact that the Germans will eventually be pushed out of the area by the Japanese and British, simply assuming minimal threats going forward is the same attitude that almost caused this exact situation IRL. The Americans are questionable allies, the British cannot respond quickly enough and the Japanese were saw as potentially dangerous as early as before the WNT. The Airforce is an interesting idea but the lacklustre nature of aircraft capacity in the interwar era makes it not a wholly reliable defense by itself.
So we both agree the main threats to the Canadian West Coast are Japan and America. What do you expect a Canadian navy on the west coast is going to do to stop the US? If Japan attacks Britain then BC will not be a priority target initially, the Priority target will be Singapore and the British navy bases there. Japan has just won a war against Russia using its decisive battle doctrine and it will use that same doctrine as the basis for pearl harbour. It knows that the main threat to Japanese naval dominance in a war against Britain is not Canada but British naval bases in Singapore and that area, so it will concentrate its forces there. There is no point in BC focussing on naval matters because it only makes them a bigger target. IF the Japanese manage to defeat the British in the South Pacific then they will go after BC. I am not advocating for BC to be unprotected but I am saying that having a navy is a waste of time and you'd be better suited with static defences or an airforce (Which I admit is obviously hindsight talking but it doesn't make my point any less valid)
 
Last edited:
So we both agree the main threats to the Canadian West Coast are Japan and America. What do you expect a Canadian navy on the west coast is going to do to stop the US? If Japan attacks Britain then BC will not be a priority target initially, the Priority target will be Singapore and the British navy bases there. Japan has just won a war against Russia using its decisive battle doctrine and it will use that same doctrine as the basis for pearl harbour. It knows that the main threat to Japanese naval dominance in a war against Britain is not Canada but British naval bases in Singapore and that area, so it will concentrate its forces there. There is no point in BC focussing on naval matters because it only makes them a bigger target. IF the Japanese manage to defeat the British in the South Pacific then they will go after BC. I am not advocating for BC to be unprotected but I am saying that having a navy is a waste of time and you'd be better suited with static defences or an airforce (Which I admit is obviously hindsight talking but it doesn't make my point any less valid)
just going to point out yes what you say makes sense but you have to remember the province just came under a naval bombardment and there is going to a sense of never again ingrained into both the people and government so that's what going to dictate policy that will probably lead to a massive expansion of the pacific fleet and the building of naval fort all along the coast for the one and only reason of never again British Columbians have a long memory and the mineral wealth to force the issue at the national level
 
Canada did consider the US to be a threat militarily into the '20s. It was acknowledged that nothing could be done in the way of coastal artillery or naval forces to defend against the overwhelming force of the US.

Canada also considered Japan to be a threat, even at the same time that Japan was an ally who saved the day in OTL World War One, by showing up with warships to scare the Hun away. Part of this enmity towards Japan was because racism, but part was a geopolitical reading that turned out to be correct.

The OTL coastal artillery of World War 2 was about right, in my appraisal, but it could have been finished a few years earlier to be fully ready for 1941.
 
There is no point in BC focussing on naval matters because it only makes them a bigger target.
Not sure of the logic of this. If we don't arm ourselves, maybe they will leave us alone. As World War One continues, and into the next war, BC is going to be a ship building centre, have the only British Empire dry docks on the west coast of North America, and have the railheads and seaports that import and export everything from the west coast of Canada, navy or not.

Exactly what naval forces BC would want is not clear to me, but at least a robust anti-submarine capacity. If the wisdom coming forward is that future wars will unfold like the last one, then much better coastal guns for Victoria, Vancouver, and Prince Rupert: basically what was done OTL. A pair of light cruisers and a flotilla or two of destroyers should serve to protect the coast. The Canadian navy built to project power would be harder to sell politically, if the climate is "Never Again!" the events of the last few chapters ITTL.
 
And the East Coast is likely to want some kind of capital ship program (even if it's just a CB or CVE), because they're actually sharing an ocean with Germany and have realized that they can't rely on the RN... and if so, the West Coast is going to scream "neglect" and want one too. Round that off with a better submarine fleet, and Canada's more than ready for the next round.
 
just going to point out yes what you say makes sense but you have to remember the province just came under a naval bombardment and there is going to a sense of never again ingrained into both the people and government so that's what going to dictate policy that will probably lead to a massive expansion of the pacific fleet and the building of naval fort all along the coast for the one and only reason of never again British Columbians have a long memory and the mineral wealth to force the issue at the national level
Obviously, but I'm saying that effort will be a waste of time and resources better spent elsewhere.
 
Top