WW1 Taranto type attack

Would having the RN carry out its planned airstrike against the High Seas Fleet base have allowed the navy to succesfully argue that they either retain control of the R.N.A.S in 1918 or regain control of the Fleet Air Arm in 1923.

To enable the strike to be launched would require some changes to get the Argos and Sopwith Cuckoo in service by spring 1918. Construction of the Argos would have to either start sooner or be carried out faster. Earlier construction could be justified by the Campaniers poor condition. She was afterall bought from the breakers. Getting the Cuckoo in service earlier only needs the contract for it construction to be awarded to a company with experience building aircraft.
 

Art

Monthly Donor
How about a successful Mas attack on Pola,

or the Italians use their jumping tank effectively? The Mas boats did sink the Szent Istvan, you know.
 

Deleted member 9338

To enable the strike to be launched would require some changes to get the Argos and Sopwith Cuckoo in service by spring 1918. Construction of the Argos would have to either start sooner or be carried out faster. Earlier construction could be justified by the Campaniers poor condition. She was afterall bought from the breakers. Getting the Cuckoo in service earlier only needs the contract for it construction to be awarded to a company with experience building aircraft.

It is also possible that the strike would happen in 1919. There was a plan to convert merchants to carriers. If you have the aircraft for a strike I would think converting the ships would be easy.
 
Would having the RN carry out its planned airstrike against the High Seas Fleet base have allowed the navy to succesfully argue that they either retain control of the R.N.A.S in 1918 or regain control of the Fleet Air Arm in 1923.

To enable the strike to be launched would require some changes to get the Argos and Sopwith Cuckoo in service by spring 1918. Construction of the Argos would have to either start sooner or be carried out faster. Earlier construction could be justified by the Campaniers poor condition. She was afterall bought from the breakers. Getting the Cuckoo in service earlier only needs the contract for it construction to be awarded to a company with experience building aircraft.

Peg Leg Pom

Possibly the latter although I doubt that you could avoid the 1-4-18 forming of the RAF without an earlier ending of the war. A spectacular victory in such an attack would increase the prestige of the RN but the basic argument for the forming of the RAF was financially to avoid duplication by having both army and navy ordering a/c, engines etc. This worked technically but did mean bureaucratic duplication as we got a 3rd service. Also it meant that the older services got side-lined on their needs for air support while they also lost the vast bulk of the export staff and knowledge they have built up during the conflict.

I think you need something to end the war earlier to prevent the RAF being formed. That would be the best bet to prevent the RN losing the FAA. Or some factor to persuade the politicians not to form it. Since the basic incentive was financial I doubt a big naval victory would be that effective on the issue.:(

Steve
 
I think a hugely successful ship launched air strike in WW1 wouldn't have stopped the formation of the RAF but it could have allowed the RN to argue for retention of ship based aviation with the RAF getting all the land based planes.

For me the POD is the Christmas Day 1914 raid by RNAS seaplanes on the Zeppelin sheds at Cuxhaven. IOTL it was a total shambles but if they'd succeeded in blowing up some Zeppelins then this would have beenhuge WW1 equivalent of Taranto or Pearl Harbour and would have given the development of the first true carriers a huge spur.
 
Last edited:
I think a hugely successful ship launched air strike in WW1 wouldn't have stopped the formation of the RAF but it could have allowed the RN to argue for retention of ship based aviation with the RAF getting all the land based planes.

For me the POD is the Christmas Day 1914 raid by RNAS seaplanes on the Zeppelin sheds at Cuxhaven. IOTL it was a total shambles but if they'd succeeded in blowing up some Zeppelins then this would have beenhuge WW1 equivalent of Taranto or Pearl Harbour and would have given the development of the first true carriers a huge spur.


really? i bet the raf will still be born...

you need something really BIG, but that would be asb...

and for the navy, if they held the naval planes, nothing is won - or do i overlook something?
 
really? i bet the raf will still be born...

you need something really BIG, but that would be asb...

and for the navy, if they held the naval planes, nothing is won - or do i overlook something?

The RAF would still be born, most of the RNAS's strength was land based fighters and bombers it makes sense for roles such as the air defence of Britain, strategic bombing and tactical air support to be included innthe new service. But ship based aviation, that is the planes on the carriers and the scouts on the battleships and cruisers should have stayed with the RN. One of the reasons why the Fleet Air Arm was so feeble at the start of WW2 was because while the RAF had control over it they didn't regard it as a priority and this meant it was underfunded leading to outdated designs remaining in service and a widespread belief that carrier aircraft would always be inferior to land based equivalents. The RN during this time wasn't happy at the situation and was pressing to regain the FAA so it could upgrade it. This finally happened just before the war started but obviously too late to make a difference.

I wonder how Norway, Crete and Malaya would have turned out if the RN had posessed a carrier force of equal strength to the IJN's?!
 
Last edited:
The RAF would still be born, most of the RNAS's strength was land based fighters and bombers it makes sense for roles such as the air defence of Britain, strategic bombing and tactical air support to be included innthe new service. But ship based aviation, that is the planes on the carriers and the scouts on the battleships and cruisers should have stayed with the RN. One of the reasons why the Fleet Air Arm was so feeble at the start of WW2 was because while the RAF had control over it they didn't regard it as a priority and this meant it was underfunded leading to outdated designs remaining in service and a widespread belief that carrier aircraft would always be inferior to land based equivalents. The RN during this time wasn't happy at the situation and was pressing to regain the FAA so it could upgrade it. This finally happened just before the war started but obviously too late to make a difference.

I wonder how Norway, Crete and Malaya would have turned out if the RN had posessed a carrier force of equal strength to the IJN's?!


hm, how should a few gloster fighters impress the german airforce?
also, if the brits build a carrier force of this strengh, what do you give up?
the cruisers? the heavy bombers? what kind of war industry is not established for 6 large aircraft carriers with 450 air planes.... if you want modern air planes, what kind of land based planes you want to give up? the spitfire? the manchester (and so the lancaster?)

no fleet will survive in the range of landbased air force, if the latter is strong - for the germans such scenario would be great
they sink a la midway 4 flaptops but the brits have give up some really important land based plane (for sure the spitfire, it was privat development and expensive (compared to the hurricane...)

so for germany it is a great chance.., even if bob is a failure, it will be funny if the brits try to improve the hurry to someting worth a dogfight with FW 190A....
 
hm, how should a few gloster fighters impress the german airforce?
also, if the brits build a carrier force of this strengh, what do you give up?
the cruisers? the heavy bombers? what kind of war industry is not established for 6 large aircraft carriers with 450 air planes.... if you want modern air planes, what kind of land based planes you want to give up? the spitfire? the manchester (and so the lancaster?)

no fleet will survive in the range of landbased air force, if the latter is strong - for the germans such scenario would be great
they sink a la midway 4 flaptops but the brits have give up some really important land based plane (for sure the spitfire, it was privat development and expensive (compared to the hurricane...)

so for germany it is a great chance.., even if bob is a failure, it will be funny if the brits try to improve the hurry to someting worth a dogfight with FW 190A....

Well if the RN had had it's way over carrier aircraft development in the interwar years then there probably wouldn't have been Sea Gladiators in front line service. The Vickers Venom is often suggested as a big WI for the FAA, with a modified wing design it could have been a very effective fighter. Even a properly developed Seafire would have been a big improvement over the Fulmar.

The Japanese showed that if you massed your carriers and had enough powerful aircraft then you could overwhelm land based airpower, certainly off Norway in 1940 had the RN had better fighters then they could have denied the Germans air superiority. The 110's used in that campaign had a good time against a piece of crap like the Gladiator. But the Battle of Britain proved that against high performance fighters like the Spitfire and Hurricane and without the 109 to help out it was easy meat.

As to what I'd have given up, I wouldn't have put so much effort into heavy bombers, strategic bombing had an important role to play but the return it produced in terms of resources committed and aircrew lost it wasn't justified.
 
Well if the RN had had it's way over carrier aircraft development in the interwar years then there probably wouldn't have been Sea Gladiators in front line service. The Vickers Venom is often suggested as a big WI for the FAA, with a modified wing design it could have been a very effective fighter. Even a properly developed Seafire would have been a big improvement over the Fulmar.

The Japanese showed that if you massed your carriers and had enough powerful aircraft then you could overwhelm land based airpower, certainly off Norway in 1940 had the RN had better fighters then they could have denied the Germans air superiority. The 110's used in that campaign had a good time against a piece of crap like the Gladiator. But the Battle of Britain proved that against high performance fighters like the Spitfire and Hurricane and without the 109 to help out it was easy meat.

As to what I'd have given up, I wouldn't have put so much effort into heavy bombers, strategic bombing had an important role to play but the return it produced in terms of resources committed and aircrew lost it wasn't justified.


well, you gave up the victory... but in the med your large fast carriers will be sunk anyway

just try this scenario: Pearl with the american airforce fully alerted.
do you think the japanese had had succsess? How many losses will they have?
and here we have the superior japanese zero against inferior P40...
in the med-scenario you have superior me109 against what ever (hurricanes at best)
because the brits lacked any long range fighter, they will have only short range hurries, so they are fully in the range of german medium bombers, just - because they are so large and need so much planes they cannot be so armored, to be sunk. the illustrious was seriously damaged, with armored deck - no think about some large non armored akagi-style carriers.... whooopppp

the stratetic bombers are needed to do something, without a large industry here, the germans will produce more, will need less heavy guns to defend the cities and free around 200.000 men. They will produce a lot ammo for artillery (the time fuse was expensive, normal artillery shells are much easier to produce)... so more ammo for the germans in the east... ouch.

better planes for the navy means hurricanes, no real improvement
maybe the germans loose more me110, they still will win here... but maybe avoid to use the me110 in the bob, so it is a big surplus for the germans...
 
well, you gave up the victory... but in the med your large fast carriers will be sunk anyway

just try this scenario: Pearl with the american airforce fully alerted.
do you think the japanese had had succsess? How many losses will they have?
and here we have the superior japanese zero against inferior P40...
in the med-scenario you have superior me109 against what ever (hurricanes at best)
because the brits lacked any long range fighter, they will have only short range hurries, so they are fully in the range of german medium bombers, just - because they are so large and need so much planes they cannot be so armored, to be sunk. the illustrious was seriously damaged, with armored deck - no think about some large non armored akagi-style carriers.... whooopppp

the stratetic bombers are needed to do something, without a large industry here, the germans will produce more, will need less heavy guns to defend the cities and free around 200.000 men. They will produce a lot ammo for artillery (the time fuse was expensive, normal artillery shells are much easier to produce)... so more ammo for the germans in the east... ouch.

better planes for the navy means hurricanes, no real improvement
maybe the germans loose more me110, they still will win here... but maybe avoid to use the me110 in the bob, so it is a big surplus for the germans...

There was one huge advantage Allied navies had over the IJN in the early years of the war, radar. The reason why the Japanese lost so many carriers at Midway was that the USN dive bombers were able to sneak up undetected and attack when the Japanese were about to launch a strike wave. Allied carriers wouldn't have been caught out in the same way.

I take your point about how the scale of the strategic bombing campaign forced the Germans to divert so many resources into countering it, that was probably it's greatest contribution to the war effort. But consider this scenario, more money pre-war for British carrier aviation could mean the Luftwaffe fails to gain air supremacy over Norway, therefore the British are able to hold Narvik and Northern Norway. In turn this limits Swedish iron ore supplies to German industry causing it's production to be curtailed which was the objective of the strategic bombing campaign! ;)
 
You all seam to have missed the bigest blow stripping the navy of its air arm caused. The loss of their professional air minded officers to the R.A.F. This had truely disaaterous consequences for the Fleet Air Arm. Not only was the F.A.A at the back of the que for modern aircraft, but the best R.A.F officers were sent to the Bomber Squadrons, then the Fighter Squadrons and so on down the line. The R.A.F was in charge of training and Airforce pilots wern't trained in over water navigation. Airforce officers on the carriers insisted that the flight deck be treated as a land runway so aircraft could only be stored in the hanger reduceing aircraft capacity, no deck parks. When the F.A.A was finaly returned to Naval control there were no senior officers with flight experiance. If Glorious's captain had been a flyer then she would have had patrols up and not been caught by Scharnhaust. Considering the Fleet Air Arms handicaps it's amazing that they did so well.

I Don't see there been any great bottle neck in aircraft production, even OTL Fairey and Blackburn were mostly have produceing naval aircraft. Just give them better specifications to work from. Don't force the Skua to be used as a fighter as well as a dive bomber. It was useless as a fighter but just about adequet as a dive bomber. Not the best but it did well in Norway. Forget about the Roc just build them as Skuas. Have Fairey build the Fulmer as a Dive Bomber, and have Boulton and Paul build the Defient as a single seat carrier fighter, have Glosters produce the Wildcat under licence.

As reguards to carriers I don't see there being much differnce to OTL untill the Illustrious class when with war all but inevitable the navy might have convinced the treasury to pay for ships more like the Implacicable sub class but with 16ft high hangers instead of the displacement saving 14ft ones. This would also make them suitable for post war conversions.
 
Last edited:

You sum it up very well, the RNAS was the most powerful and innovative naval air arm in the World at the time of it's disbandment. All that skill and experience was pissed away in the inter war period, as you say it's a tribute to the skill and professionalism of the aircrews that they achieved as much as they did but that just underlines the fact that if it had been properly resources in the previous years then they could have achieved even more. The potential was there the carrier force IOTL was potentially as good as anything else innthe World but it didn't have the modern aircraft necessary. It wasn't until the closing months of the War and flying American aircraft that the FAA was finally able to show what it could do. That's why I think a more successful Cuxhaven Raid would have made such a difference, had naval aviation achieved a "spectacular" in WW1 then it would have had more resources thrown at it.

You make a very good point about ocean navigation. IIRC one of the reasons why the RN was stuck with twin seat awarded that were uncompetetive was the view that navigation over the seas was impossible for a single pilot. But how come Charles Lindbergh and other aviation pioneers managed it?! It's difficult yes, but with enough training a competent pilot can manage it.
 
You sum it up very well, the RNAS was the most powerful and innovative naval air arm in the World at the time of it's disbandment. All that skill and experience was pissed away in the inter war period, as you say it's a tribute to the skill and professionalism of the aircrews that they achieved as much as they did but that just underlines the fact that if it had been properly resources in the previous years then they could have achieved even more. The potential was there the carrier force IOTL was potentially as good as anything else innthe World but it didn't have the modern aircraft necessary. It wasn't until the closing months of the War and flying American aircraft that the FAA was finally able to show what it could do. That's why I think a more successful Cuxhaven Raid would have made such a difference, had naval aviation achieved a "spectacular" in WW1 then it would have had more resources thrown at it.

You make a very good point about ocean navigation. IIRC one of the reasons why the RN was stuck with twin seat awarded that were uncompetetive was the view that navigation over the seas was impossible for a single pilot. But how come Charles Lindbergh and other aviation pioneers managed it?! It's difficult yes, but with enough training a competent pilot can manage it.

The additional crewman operated the radio which found the carrier after a mission. It was considered too complex to be operated by a single crewman. Lindbergh just had to find a continent.
 
The additional crewman operated the radio which found the carrier after a mission. It was considered too complex to be operated by a single crewman. Lindbergh just had to find a continent.

But the IJN had introduced the single seat A5M in 1937 and it was probably the equal of most land based fighters of that time. How did it's pilot manage to find his way back to the carrier?
 
Would having the RN carry out its planned airstrike against the High Seas Fleet base have allowed the navy to succesfully argue that they either retain control of the R.N.A.S in 1918 or regain control of the Fleet Air Arm in 1923.

To enable the strike to be launched would require some changes to get the Argos and Sopwith Cuckoo in service by spring 1918. Construction of the Argos would have to either start sooner or be carried out faster. Earlier construction could be justified by the Campaniers poor condition. She was afterall bought from the breakers. Getting the Cuckoo in service earlier only needs the contract for it construction to be awarded to a company with experience building aircraft.

The RN had such an attack planned but the armisitice came and spoiled it.

Given the level of technology and the ability of German ships to survive torpedo hits plus they were in the Jade and close to repair facilites it is unlikely that the practical results would be impressive.

Post war Navies may show more interest in carriers.
 
But the IJN had introduced the single seat A5M in 1937 and it was probably the equal of most land based fighters of that time. How did it's pilot manage to find his way back to the carrier?

The A5M carried a pilot-operated radio for the purpose. It was located forward of the cockpit, behind the engine. The antenna mast on the rollover pylon would be the giveaway indication of a radio-equipped Claude.
 
As reguards to carriers I don't see there being much differnce to OTL untill the Illustrious class when with war all but inevitable the navy might have convinced the treasury to pay for ships more like the Implacicable sub class but with 16ft high hangers instead of the displacement saving 14ft ones. This would also make them suitable for post war conversions.

Bad form quoting myself but.

I see 1 possible exception to otl carrier progam before the construction of the Ark Royal. A sucessful carrier airstike on the German fleet bases or Airship hangers,( and by that I mean the aircraft were able to launch, find their targets do enough damage be applauded in the international press and return to their motherships without unaceptable losses) might have been able to justify fully converting H.M.S Vindictive to a carrier. I could also see H.M.S Unicorn been completed quicker and used as a prototype light fleet carrier rather than a one off aircraft maintenance ship.

Vindictiveascarrier.jpg

Vindictiveascarrier.jpg
 
If the RNAS does not get trashed, could see Coastal Command being a Navy affair - specially since most of long range maritime air was seaplanes until late 30s. As I recall, maritime air/recon/ASW was not high on the RAF's list of "things to do". Even if the RN does not have a significantly larger carrier force in 1939 (though would expect a little larger) their aircraft and tactics would be better. You might even see some exchanges between the RN & USN of pilots - navy to navy.

The needs of the RN led it to make smaller & shorter legged carriers than USN or IJN, although in this scenario might see one or two built for Pacific conditions...
 
Top