The Royal Navy vs. the IJN, 1940

It's a site where certain AH.net denizens do... I don't know. But they decided to troll this thread, for some reason.

Must admit I'm still confused here.

That's a good point. But my concern is that India and Australia both didn't raise that many troops prior to 1939. This was despite both Hitler and Japan.

Were troops withdrawn from East Asia after war broke out in Europe, or was it just a matter of them not being sent there? The distinction seems crucial, IMO.

Australia didn't have large peacetime land forces but India had substantial ones. A lot of those were in N Africa along with many of what ANZAC units had been raised. Not to mention that the British army was a lot more concentrated in Britain and N Africa than traditional in peace time. If it wasn't for Hitler the standard forces in the east, especially with Japan becoming more and more hostile, would have been larger.

Also, with no insult meant to the forces that did fight in Malaya, and sometimes did an amazing job despite all their problems, it was seen as very much a back-water during the crisis in Europe. As a result there was a trimming off of the 'best' troops and equipment. So there would be a substantial qualitative as well as quantitative improvement in the defence.

Where were they based before 39? But that's true. (Although the fall of the Philippines, with over a hundred thousand US & Filipino troops, seems an ominous analogy).

I don't know about armour as the 1st armoured division was only formed in ~1938 in Egypt but I think some would definitely be there for the west coast area where it could be very useful. Also would expect that a lot of the planes would be modern rather than obsolete. Don't forget that the presumption is the Japanese won't be attacking totally out of the blue as there has been growing tension and the establishment of embargoes on Japan. Hence some forces will have been sent out there as a precaution.

With the bulk of the RN sub force it was designed for operations in the Pacific region. They are actually thought to have lost some ships because the larger designs, with a slower dive speed were more vulnerable in the shallow and clearer Med waters.


I agree that Japan is absolutely fucked if it can't take Singapore; but if it can (and the people who came up with OTL's plans during this period are not individuals I'd automatically discount), it might be a different sort of beast.

Even if it can, which under the circumstances I think is a very long shot, unless it can take the entire Dutch archaeology, then it will still need to repair the oil facilities and then ship the oil back to Japan. This will not be easy and given the amount of thought Britain had put into strategic [as opposed to tactical] planning before the war I think they will fairly quickly realise that. Coupled with aid to China via Burma and help from France and the Netherlands there is simply too much going against Japan. This all presumes that neither America or Russia gets involved either.

Steve
 
Also, with no insult meant to the forces that did fight in Malaya, and sometimes did an amazing job despite all their problems, it was seen as very much a back-water during the crisis in Europe. As a result there was a trimming off of the 'best' troops and equipment. So there would be a substantial qualitative as well as quantitative improvement in the defence.

The problem I have, see, is that in OTL the BEF was "only" 300,000 men, and the forces present in Singapore were not that far off from what Britain thought would be sufficient to hold the Malay Penninsula.

http://www.britain-at-war.org.uk/WW2/Malaya_and_Singapore/html/singapore_defences.htm
 
The problem I have, see, is that in OTL the BEF was "only" 300,000 men, and the forces present in Singapore were not that far off from what Britain thought would be sufficient to hold the Malay Penninsula.

http://www.britain-at-war.org.uk/WW2/Malaya_and_Singapore/html/singapore_defences.htm

Faeelin

Several points:

a) The BEF may be only 300k but by definition it is available to be deployed where needed, including in the Far East if not busy in Europe or elsewhere. Britain could get a lot of that there fairly quickly, either after an attack or possibly before if political will allows with rising tension.

b) The BEF is the home army so to speak but it's not the only force. The Indian army is pretty large and a lot nearer with probably some units being based in Malaya as OTL. Furthermore there could easily be locally organised forces, if only from the European and Chinese elements in the population.

c) As I said the numbers may be not much larger but their bound to be much better equipped. Likely to be some armour and more artillery and support arms. Also since it may be seen to be a hot spot rather than a back-water you're likely to have more attention from London and probably a different commander.

d) The ground forces may not be much larger but the air force is bound to be. The plan was for the RAF to be the primary force for defence of the region with a number of large modern airfields. [Have read that without capturing some of those the Japanese could have struggled to supply air support from distant Indo-China or the poorer quality Thai fields in the Kra isthmus]. Initially the plan was 600+ modern a/c which was later downgraded to 360+ modern a/c because of the demands of the European conflict. As it was in reality there were ~160 a/c all classified as elderly/obsolete. [Checking you're link that has some slightly different figures. I was working from memory so could be wrong there].

e) Also with a crisis in Europe there will be the subs and probably more surface naval units along with the knowledge of a lot more on the way quickly. This could be dangerous on it's own but more so if with a strong land based air cover. They could get a very nasty shock from the range and effectiveness of the IJN a/c but even so will cause the Japanese a lot of problems with their vulnerable supply lines.

Hence I would say, if no war in Europe and barring serious complacency in London, crap leadership and a lot of bad luck, then it would be just about impossible for the Japanese to successfully attack Malaya, even if somehow they got bases in French Indo-China prior to a war with Britain.

Steve
 
Faeelin,

take a look at Condors "Operation Compass succeeds" or the rewrite "The Major and the General". The TL touches a lot of your questions.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=132267&highlight=operation+compass

Also, in 1931 the UK dropped its "ten year rule" that no big war would start within ten years - and it was Japan that was the enemy. So the British did upgrade their asian defences. If the threat in Europe was lesser more money would be spent on Malaya, Burma etc than IOTL. Malaya was one of the few colonies that was clearly profitable. The Dutch East India (todays Indonesia) was in the same spot - I have heard that 25% of Netherlands BNP came from East India. That was colonies that would be defended not only for prestige but also income.

With French Indochina and Dutch East India defended by great european powers instead of being abandoned by the motherland as IOTL they would fight far longer and better, giving UK and France time to bring reinforcements from both UK/France and their colonies/dominions. Also, IOTL UK had only had defeats for almost two years when the Japanese invaded. The mindset of the british generals and soldiers were depressed by all losses. Not to mention that the best equipment of the british army were left on the beaches of Dunkirk and Greece.

ITTL the British Empire were as strong as ever, without humiliating defeats and no need to divert troops all over the Empire stamping down revolts like IOTL Iraq.
 
It's worth noting that the single largest UK military investment in the inter-war period was the upgrading of Singapore, which was directly aimed at containing Japan.
 
It is also worth noting that the force which ultimately took Singapore was exhausted - short on supplies and ammunition, and at the end of their tether.

If they had not taken Singapore swiftly, they would have been forced to withdraw up the Malay peninsula.

To quote the Japanese commander, Yamashita:
"My attack on Singapore was a bluff – a bluff that worked. I had 30,000 men and was outnumbered more than three to one. I knew that if I had to fight for long for Singapore, I would be beaten. That is why the surrender had to be at once. I was very frightened all the time that the British would discover our numerical weakness and lack of supplies and force me into disastrous street fighting." (from wiki).

Therefore if the defences are stronger in any way that affects the ground fighting, chances are pretty good that Yamashita's gamble wouldn't pay off.
 
It is also worth noting that the force which ultimately took Singapore was exhausted - short on supplies and ammunition, and at the end of their tether.

Well, yes, and there were also some eighty thousand troops in the Philippines (and the accompanying logistics) which I am positing to be available for the assault on Singapore.

I'm not sure you're persuading me by saying the British at Singapore were beaten by a force they outnumbered which was riding around on bicycles. That seems more a condemnation of the British.

This is sort of what bothers me. There's almost an impression that the Japanese didn't fight fair; that they managed to attack and overrun a garrison at the end of its supply lines. Which just happened to be made up of 80,000+ men.

It's worth noting that the single largest UK military investment in the inter-war period was the upgrading of Singapore, which was directly aimed at containing Japan.

Right. This is one of the points that's bothering me. The British did invest heavily in Singapore. They just lost.


Also, in 1931 the UK dropped its "ten year rule" that no big war would start within ten years - and it was Japan that was the enemy. So the British did upgrade their asian defences. If the threat in Europe was lesser more money would be spent on Malaya, Burma etc than IOTL.

Does this follow? There was a threat to the far east in OTL after 1931 (the 10 year rule was dropped for a reason).

It's possible Britain would have raised more forces for the far east, but the BEF is to me an obvious analogy. In 1940 the UK could only send 300,000 men to France. Are we seriously going to say the British would stick that many troops in the Far East? I could also see Britain using the lack of war to lower taxes. More Mars Bars instead of battleships.

Also, IOTL UK had only had defeats for almost two years when the Japanese invaded. The mindset of the british generals and soldiers were depressed by all losses. Not to mention that the best equipment of the british army were left on the beaches of Dunkirk and Greece.

Surely you're not arguing that Britain in 1941-1942 was defeatist, are you?
 
Lets say the Japanese take Singapore and the rest. They take Burma as per OTL.

What stops the British building overwhelming superiority in India and the Indian Ocean untill such time they are able to push on and drive the Japanese back? Its not terribly pleasant but you can essentially get to Singapore from Calcutta on foot. Its not clear the Japanese can operate against either. As it is their logistical capacity to defend what they have taken is not good. If the British can retake Singapore the Japanese Empire south of China looks somewhat vulnerable.

The plan works on the theory that the British shall promptly surrender. This seems unlikely unless the Japanese are far more moderate in their ambitions than they were in OTL.
 
How many of you realize that with out the war in Europe the RN would have as many Carriers as the Japanese had in 1940 . The British pushed back carrier aircraft designs because they were need of land base aircraft and could Buy American aircraft instead for there Carriers . I could also see the Black Prince class of the Dido Class CLA being much larger just because they would need larger bunkers for the pacific . I can also see the RN laying down more large CV like the Ark Royal Class CV . The RN's would not have to spend as much on ASW Ships as they did in 1940 . The RN by 1944 in this world would look a lot different then the RN was in 1944 historical earth . They would not need to build almost 140 Frigates that they did or the 160 Flower class Corvettes she build . You have to remember the RN , RCN , RAN , RNZN were ASW navies with some anti surface ships build to fight in the Med and north Sea .
 
Faelin,

In 1941

a) The French and Dutch were de facto worthless from a military standpoint. Their home countries had been invaded and occupied, the colonies had not gotten any reinforcements since 1939 and they knew they wouldn't get any help at all from the motherland. Morale sucked. But without a german invasion 1940 (and even without a big threat of a german invasion) the non-british forces in SE Asia would be better equipped and, most important, have far better morale. Japan would not be able to squeeze into French Indochina, and would have to fight for airbases. How much air cover could the japanese get from the bases in Taiwan?

b) The british/Dominion troops that were planned and trained to defend Malaysia and Singapore against Japanese invasion were in december 1941 fighting in the Western Desert against Rommel. The new troops were not trained in djungle warfare, lower proportion of experienced troops, less coordinated and with lower morale. Not to mention that a lot of military hardware, from aircrafts to tanks, were missing from TOE due to losses in Europe against the Germans. But ITTL Singapore would have the troops and equipment needed to defend Malaysia.

c) If the british morale were low? How else do you explain the British lack of activity and passivity both at Crete and Singapore/Malaysia 1941? Churchill himself was against all cross-channel invasion plans until the US got pissed off in 1943 and forced it through. ILLT the British haven't suffered any defeats since 1918.

d) The Japanese invasions 1941-early 1942 was a HUGE gamble that succeeded to a degree and length of time I believe is unmatched in history. Practically everything went exactly (or better) than planned. But the success was incredebly fragile - just some small changes (the Pearl Harbour radar sounds an air raid warning, Singapore holds out some more days, an allied sub torpedoes two japanese aircraft carriers etc) and the whole offensive breaks down. The invasion was run on a shoestring budget - very few troops, no logistical backup, no dedicated ampibious ships and almost no tanks. If any of the many invasion areas (Philipines, Wake, Guam, Malaysia, Hong Kong etc) had failed reinforcements had to been taken from other invasion areas, thereby weakening the Japanese forces in that area and highten the potential for failure in another place. It would be a row of falling dominoes.
 
Well, yes, and there were also some eighty thousand troops in the Philippines (and the accompanying logistics) which I am positing to be available for the assault on Singapore.

I'm not sure you're persuading me by saying the British at Singapore were beaten by a force they outnumbered which was riding around on bicycles. That seems more a condemnation of the British.

This is sort of what bothers me. There's almost an impression that the Japanese didn't fight fair; that they managed to attack and overrun a garrison at the end of its supply lines. Which just happened to be made up of 80,000+ men.

That's precisely my point. The Japanese fought with every advantage they could wring and near-lunatic boldness, and they only just won.
A little more training, and slightly more aggressive leadership on the British side - most especially troops more comfortable with fighting in the jungle - and things could have been very different.
If we're adding in no war in the West, so better supported and more capable Dutch and French forces in the Far East, and more modern aircraft on the Malayan airbases to defend the area...

Well, things could still have gone either way. There's no reason Singapore and/or Malaya would necessarily hold, but the Japanese weren't exactly unstoppable either. If air superiority and the jungles on either side of the roads were contested, I'm not sure that those 80,000 Japanese in the Philippines would do much more than add to the logistical problems Yamashita (or whoever actually ended up commanding in Malaya if the force were expanded) would face.
 
Faeelin

Other people have answered the points you raised but it seems like you are assuming that because Malaya fell in one set of circumstances OTL it will fall in a radically different set of circumstances without a crisis, let alone a war in Europe. As other people have said the Japanese attacks in 41-42 were made on a shoestring with any problems having knock on impacts.

While the Japanese would have the forces OTL committed to fighting the US available TTL they also need to fight the French and a more adequately defended Dutch Indies. The former is especially important because they will probably provide more ground and possibly air forces in the short term than the US and even more so because the Japanese will have to fight to take the French colonies before they can seriously threaten Malaya. Also Britain will have a radically better position simply because it's not desperately fighting for it's life in Europe and the ME.

I can see Britain and probably her allies, suffering some nasty shocks at sea due to the IJN a/c and carrier force but I can't see substantial losses on land simply because, with the commitment in China, shipping constraints and inadequacies in their industrial base, the Japanese can't get enough forces into play in the key areas.

Steve
 
Top