Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

I doubt it. ships like that are too precious, and too vulnerable to aircraft or artillery to be worth risking in such a way.


They could be potentially useful in tying down Japanese forces on the Thailand-Burma border.
The opinion of the Royal Navy is that ships are there to be used.
 

Mark1878

Donor
The opinion of the Royal Navy is that ships are there to be used.
Yes but you need a fleet in being as well to deal with other possible enemies, it takes many years to rebuild.

Thus losing cruisers and below or slow battleships is not an issue. Modern capital ships are an issue, for example the losses of aircraft carriers have affected their operations.
 
Yes but you need a fleet in being as well to deal with other possible enemies, it takes many years to rebuild.

Thus losing cruisers and below or slow battleships is not an issue. Modern capital ships are an issue, for example the losses of aircraft carriers have affected their operations.
the slips are full of new ones on the way.......then of course the reserve fleet from america is a building.
 
The opinion of the Royal Navy is that ships are there to be used.
Used, but not abused, sending a handful of rare and rather precious amphibious warfare ships and enemy (comparative) stronghold is not a smart move.

They also can't fly without fuel, and if the convoys aren't getting through to Tripoli it's running out quickly.
True. OTOH, I suspect they've got at least some reserves of av-gas.
 
Last edited:
Yes but you need a fleet in being as well to deal with other possible enemies, it takes many years to rebuild.

Thus losing cruisers and below or slow battleships is not an issue. Modern capital ships are an issue, for example the losses of aircraft carriers have affected their operations.
But that is not the way the RN thinks
 
Whatever the traditions of the RN, they're not keen on losing ships without need. Risking ships to save an embattled battalion, fine, risking them to insert a battalion into a fight that's already over bar the shouting, maybe not so much.
 
Whatever the traditions of the RN, they're not keen on losing ships without need. Risking ships to save an embattled battalion, fine, risking them to insert a battalion into a fight that's already over bar the shouting, maybe not so much.
They'd be risking them to cut off the retreat of the enemy to a position in a nominally neutral country from which they can potentially continue the fight and widen the war.
 
They'd be risking them to cut off the retreat of the enemy to a position in a nominally neutral country from which they can potentially continue the fight and widen the war.
Except they wouldn't, because you suggested (post #1483) an amphibious assault on Tripoli itself.
 
There's smart risk and not so smart risk. As of now it in my opinion is not a smart risk for 2 reasons. One is that I doubt the British are really worried one way or another about the Vichy French at this point. Two If I am right most of the Italian forces are mostly not motorized so are petty much stuck in their locations now.
 
So...your an Italian infantryman.........the war is frankly not going well , somewhere out there in the dark are the British.......lots of them.......and they always win!.
But it's worse than that...those English men have those huge Australians with them....and those scary men in turbans......those small men who smile but have big knives.....you been told they have lots of angry Greeks out in the desert ....... the British have brought all the world to fight poor little Italy.....its not fair..................though they do take prisoners, and they feed you, give you water , they look after you.
They have tanks, lots of tanks, lots and lots of tanks. Bigger tanks than ours. Faster tanks than us ...tanks so strong poor italy can't kill them. They hzve trucks..... so many trucks they say no man has to walk in the British army any more.....poor Italy, we didn't stand a chance.
Poor Italy, wish the British would come soon. Im here in this dammed desert, i could surrender, nobody will blame me, they are so strong everyone else has given in, why should i fight?


Im sure a lot will fight, but im also sure at this point the thoughts above are going through the majority of them out there,
 
Just my opinion, but if you're a British Planner and believe that a massive invasion of Sicily is required in the near future, then doing a test run of equipment, tactics and C&C on a depleted force in North Africa, makes a ton of sense, even if only structured as raids on the weakest possible defenses.
 
Just my opinion, but if you're a British Planner and believe that a massive invasion of Sicily is required in the near future, then doing a test run of equipment, tactics and C&C on a depleted force in North Africa, makes a ton of sense, even if only structured as raids on the weakest possible defenses.
Doing something entirely different,on the hop ,never having planned for it just really doesn t sound like a good idea,especially when everything is going just fine.
 
Doing something entirely different,on the hop ,never having planned for it just really doesn t sound like a good idea,especially when everything is going just fine.
Yeah, better to try it somewhere on the coast if Cyrenaica, where the 'enemy' won't be so unsporting as to use live ammunition.
 
Just my opinion, but if you're a British Planner and believe that a massive invasion of Sicily is required in the near future, then doing a test run of equipment, tactics and C&C on a depleted force in North Africa, makes a ton of sense, even if only structured as raids on the weakest possible defenses.
Rhodes. (Assuming that the Axis still have it.)
Which Churchill probably insisted that plans be prepared for months earlier.
And Churchill will be most upset if a Rhodes operation gets called off because the shipping gets damaged in North Africa...
 
Top