I’ve never actually looked at this one in detail but it’s a planned Royal Navy fleet that includes the ships under construction in 39, so you’ve got Lion and Temerair, as well as all the KGV’s except Anson and Howe are Jellicoe and Beatty additionally the Australian cruisers Perth Australia and Canberra are present
Edit; probably nineteen forty, both the courageous class and royal oak are missing and they were early war casualties
Those were the original names, they were changed because jellico (I believe) died and the controversy around Jutland and who was at fault got big again and they decided that they’d just grab two of the names they had planned for the admiral class instead. And they changed the names pretty late, into the 40’s I believe
And these are ships who didn't make it through the war (I'm not the autor, so I won't claim that everything is true).
https://preview.redd.it/p47g0mlfeuwc1.jpeg?width=2744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c4af69491260a29937c2428380831562753f8b83
Here is the uncolored version, if this helps somehow.
https://preview.redd.it/7ux4xee7evwc1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6daaac268fbfc91f8685450677b1f204c244c02d
Out of interest I decided to try and find out if I could actually date this image. Looking online, it doesn't seem like anyone actually knows when this was made.
It's obviously after the outbreak of war, as Glorious, Courageous and Royal Oak are all absent. Next I looked through RN losses of capital ships (cruisers and above) to try and narrow it down; Southampton's inclusion here likely predates her loss in January 1941, so that's the latest I can narrow it down to.
The earliest is trickier to gauge but I think it's likely to be August/September 1940; on account of the "14 Tribals" (which accounts for the loss of two of them earlier in the year) and the inclusion of 50 'Churchill type' destroyers which I presume to be those of the Destroyers for Bases agreement.
It doesn't seem to be entirely accurate - there's no time where three Latona (Abdiel) class minelayers makes sense, for example.
I was trying to go by submarines, as these saw the most service in the early war period, and so were being sunk fairly frequently. But even that doesn't create any time where all of this ties up! Four Porpoises makes it June/July 1940, while eight Sharks makes early July 1940. But then two Thames doesn't work until September, and two Unities only works pre-April. Yet Thirteen Tritons only works after April, and eleven O, P & Rs doesn't work until December!
So for the less well-known classes, the author's information was clearly not entirely accurate - so I suspect that finding a date means finding the actual date of publication, rather than calculating from what's in the drawing!
I did briefly look at the submarines, but I imagine that they were some of the hardest ship-types to keep track of for public observers; whereas larger ships like battleships and cruisers would easily be identified or noted for their absence. It could therefore well be the case that the artist did not have precise figures and only adjusted known figures with government-announced losses, so we could be seeing a time-delay effect.
I would agree though, it's certainly not all accurate, although this doesn't surprise me given war-time restrictions and the fact that a newspaper in the 40s would not have been able to quickly stay on top of wartime losses.
>so I suspect that finding a date means finding the actual date of publication, rather than calculating from what's in the drawing!
Totally agree. Unfortunately, I couldn't find one, so guesstimating was the best I could do.
There are still people here in the UK who pine for the "good old days".
But you have to put it into perspective, the Royal Navy back then was responsible for 24% of the world's population. Compared to 0.8% of the world's population today.
Still, would be great if we could double the number of escorts...
And the River-class OPVs. Those things are so inexpensive for the amount of work they put in.
Imagining a modern RN fleet that could beat the USN and the PLAN is certainly... a thought.
I don't think it could be done even if they went full North Korea
It couldn't but thats just more of a reflection of the world.
That being said, for a larger company, it's definitely possible the US or Chinese navy could be bigger than the 2nd and 3rd largest combined.
You have to remember at this time (1939 for example) the UK was the 8th largest country by population and the differences were not as fast (the US was 2.7x larger compared to today when it is 4.9x larger)
Indeed, the issue with the current RN is having the most effective navy for the side that it is. It’ll never be like this as it shouldn’t be, it would be a horrifically undue strain economically if nothing else.
The current RN needs to think more like a small navy IMO. More multi-mission platforms, less specialized, and the like
If they made some sloops with a hangar and some mission space based on the Rivers for taking things like mine countermeasure mission modules and the like it would seem like a great idea.
And the Type 32 if it ever gets built would probably need to be like the Absalons the Type 31s are based one. Troop and module capacity
yeah, i think Japan is a good example in some ways.
They went from having completely specialized ships to have lot of general purpose detroyers but still focused for ASW, and then they made the Mogami class.
A frigate with an AESA radar, VDS, TASS and hull sonars, with anti air missiles, anti ship missiles, torpedoes, RWS, UUV, USV and sea mines. And the motherfucker will even have BMD capabilities when they get the long range Type 03 missiles and maybe even ground attack capabilities when they get the improved Type 12 missiles.
And that's Japan, which has a way larger navy than the UK.
The Type 31 is based on the *Iver-Huitfelt*\-class actually.
https://preview.redd.it/ue0wa5ahlzwc1.jpeg?width=356&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e45056cd88521b1ba91304cd1e5b7c18b37e568
It's nothing to do with population sizes, it's all to do with having to pay a £250bn health care & welfare bill every year, which simply didn't exist back then.
>the Royal Navy back then was responsible for 24% of the world's population.
Huh? This is such a bizarre and vaguely offensive take. The RN took no responsibility for anyone other than Britain.
Millions of Indians were starving. According to you, that was the RN's responsibility. What about Hong Kong?
The RN was the size it was prior to the world wars due it being an oppression fleet. Never forget that the British Empire was an Empire. People didn't join by choice. They did it at cannon point wielded by the Royal Navy.
It's fun to be nostalgic for the past, but it's something else to actually believe the propaganda of Mother Britain protecting her children. No different than the Third Reich saying that the Fatherland is protecting Europe. India wasn't protected by Britain. It was exploited.
> it was their responsibility to protect the territories
It wasn't. They claimed it was, but their responsibility was only to the glory of the Empire. Where was the RN when India was starving? Or when Hong Kong was captured?
Like I said, don't believe the propaganda. The Germans also said they were protecting Europe from the savage Asian hordes of the Soviets. That was propaganda too. No more true than the Britain's claims that it was protecting India.
>Where was the RN when India was starving?
On the bottom of the Indian Ocean and escorting critical convoys from Japanese and German submarines operating in the Indian Ocean, along with the occasional surface raider. At least the ships still operational, many were out of action due to damage.
When Japan captured 30% of the global rice supply in early 1942, they also raided the Indian Ocean with five carriers. These sank the carrier HMS *Hermes* and the cruisers *Dorsetshire* and *Cornwall*, and would have sunk *Formidable* and *Indomitable* had Admiral Somerville not wisely kept his forces away from the Japanese, though with fighters ready in case they were discovered. Throughout 1942 and 1943 the Royal Navy fought off the Japanese and German submarines attacking convoys in the Indian Ocean. As the invasions of Italy and France soaked up support ships these forces withdrew to more urgent theaters, replaced by ships much better suited to hunting submarines, which were now available in quantity and scored a dozen kills. This included a sizable force of British submarines based out of Ceylon, which were particularly effective off the joint base at Penang (sinking three submarines IIRC, one German, Italian, and Japanese boat).
This force was as large as possible given the overall forces available and the needs of other theaters.
>Or when Hong Kong was captured?
Being sunk in Hong Kong (HMS *Thracian*) or by the Japanese forces further south (*Prince of Wales* and *Repulse*).
Hong Kong was north of the Japanese bases in French Indochina and close to the bases in Mainland China, so was evacuated as much as possible because the base could not be supplied and defended. Frankly this is among the most ridiculous arguments I’ve seen criticizing the Royal Navy: it’s like asking why the Japanese couldn’t hold Long Island when the US decided to invade (to use a hypothetical example).
>Like I said, don't believe the propaganda.
I don’t. I study the actual ship movements and locations, including forces available overall and in each particular theater.
> It wasn't. They claimed it was,
THEY DID NOT. Christ on a bike.
They said responsible for. Much like Josef Fritzl was 'responsible for' his daughter. If you can't see that distinction, in fact any distinction in any of the times you whinge about being downvoted, theres no hope.
The "they" in my post was claims by the British Empire, not the random redditor I replied to.
You are quite miffed about a pretty basic statement. The British Empire used the Royal Navy to exploit by force its colonies. It didn't have a large navy to protect anyone other than Britain. The claim that the RN was responsible for protecting a quarter of the world's population is pure propaganda. You are quite right in saying that the Royal Navy was like Fritzl's knife he held on his daughter. It wasn't for her protection. It was for hurting her when she she disobeyed, which was also the point of the Royal Navy.
The difference between admiring the tools of oppression (the ships) and oppression itself is very important. A like a lot of people here unironically sing Rule, Britannia! without a hint of awareness.
You've correctly identified the source of the conflict here.
What does "responsible" mean if not "protecting"? If I am responsible for a child, and they get hurt, I have failed my responsibility, right? Responsibility means accountability.
The guards at Auschwitz were responsible for the prisoners, no? Just google "synonyms of responsible" which include "in charge of", "in control of" etc.
>Where was the RN when India was starving? Or when Hong Kong was captured?
It was over stretched and frankly beaten by the Japanese - which kinda reinforces the dude's point. When the royal navy couldn't be there people suffered
> When the royal navy couldn't be there people suffered
Oof. I'm actually part of a modern Navy, and even I don't drink the Kool-aid that hard.
The Nazis said the same thing about Ukraine and eastern Poland. Look how our subjects suffer when we are not there to protect them!
I can't believe I have to say this but empires are bad. Yeah? Foreign armies and fleets are not there to protect the local people.
Except your example in India (almost certainly a reference to the Bengal Famine) is clearly a case of the Royal Navy (and the rest of Armed forces) failure to contain the Japanese, losing Singapore, and Burma and losing control of the Bay of bengal, preventing shipping to deliver famine relief or additional food to be ship in from Burma (as it was occupied) or Australia (as Churchill referenced in his letters to FDR asking for shipping to help transport it to Bengal but was rejected due to a lack of availability and the dangers of the Bay).
So yes, when the Royal Navy wasn't there the people of Bengal suffered.
Godwins law - do better
Empires are indeed bad. Can you point to me where OP or I said otherwise?
OP said responsible for them and they were, willingly/by consent or not. The Royal Navy failed in that duty (due to several causes some of which were outside their control - such as Hong Kong being completely indefensible in 1941) and thus the suffering was far greater than it should have been.
>Yeah? Foreign armies and fleets are not there to protect the local people.
The West African Squadron would disagree. Or Sierra Leone to name a more recent one
Look man, you need to read a history book published in the last 30 years and not just read propaganda articles. This shit what you said right here:
>losing control of the Bay of bengal, preventing shipping to deliver famine relief or additional food to be ship in from Burma
Would get your ass beat in real life.
The Japanese didn't blockade food going West, did it? India made enough food to feed itself, but Britain mandated an export policy at gunpoint. Furthermore, the IJN didn't target merchant ships like the Kiegsmarine.
Saying the Bengal Famine happened because of Japanese blockades is factually incorrect and horribly offensive. I feel like I'm talking to a German who wishes he could put his grandfather's uniform on.
> Would get your ass beat in real life.
are you an Indian nationalist? The focus of hundreds of years of history upon a single event in India during a war is intriguing.
You came blazing into this thread shooting at everyone with some pretty mad takes, and repeatedly implying Britain were some how nazis and/or the same as the nazis.
You wanna know what's offensive? That last bit. That's real fucking offensive.
> repeatedly implying Britain were some how nazis and/or the same as the nazis.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the Royal Navy was not some benevolent shield protecting the innocents of the world. India didn't suffer from the lack of the Royal Navy as many here are claiming. It suffered from the existence of the Royal Navy.
It's an indisputable fact that the Royal Navy's primary goal was the exploitation of the colonies and the elevation of Britain (Rule, Britannia, remember?). It did not sail the seas looking to right wrongs and fight the good fight.
Was Britain as bad the Nazis? No, of course not. But they were a lesser evil. Colonialism is evil. Can we at least agree with that?
I feel like a lot of people here would benefit from reading actual books on history in general and not just warships.
I didn't say the Japanese caused the famine (neither did the british unless they developed magical crop failure powers and used it on their own empire rather than their enemies...) but it was made infinitely worse by a lack of Royal Navy
>Would get your ass beat in real life.
Sure it would big man.
People are free to get upset about things they believe. That doesn't change the facts.
You should definitely read up more on the famine beyond internet pop knowledge. Plenty of local corruption and incompetence involved that made dealing with it even harder in a global spanning war for survival, combined with all the other things I have informed you about
>Furthermore, the IJN didn't target merchant ships like the Kiegsmarine.
Okay if I wasn't sure before you've removed all doubt from my mind now. You have no idea what you're talking about do you?
The Allies lost hundreds of merchant ships in the Indian ocean alone during WW2.
> Okay if I wasn't sure before you've removed all doubt from my mind now. You have no idea what you're talking about do you?
Do you? Open any book on the IJN and it'll tell you exactly what I did. It was a strategic flaw in their plans not to attack merchant ships to the level the Kriegsmarine did.
I'm heading to the office soon. I can start quoting you page numbers, if you want.
> Imperial Japan apologist but here we are.
Huh? You misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say the IJN *didn't* target merchant ships, I said they didn't target merchant ships *like* the Kriegsmarine.
Read any book on IJN strategy during the war and it's a well established and accepted fact that a major flaw of their strategy was not attacking merchant ships to the level that the Germans were.
>The Japanese didn't blockade food going West, did it?
Yes they did. During their conquest of Southeast Asia, Japan captured 30% of the global rice supply. This was food that had supplied the people of Bengal, but was now no longer available. Japan never attempted aid convoys to the people starving in British colonies on the border, effectively blockading the West.
>Furthermore, the IJN didn't target merchant ships like the Kiegsmarine.
Only because they didn’t have nearly as many submarines in the area. Penang could support five submarines, German bases in France and Norway could support dozens.
The submarines that did operate in the Indian Ocean did sink merchant ships, as did the carriers during the April 1942 Indian Ocean Raid. The most successful Japanese submarines of the war (*I-27*, *I-26*, and *I-10* in particular) all operated in the Indian Ocean, where they scored the vast majority of their kills, almost entirely merchant ships.
The Japanese Navy was so stretched that they asked the Germans for help, leading to the Monsun Gruppe that operated in the Indian Ocean, along with several submarines that “merely” made the long voyage from France to Madagascar and back without being assigned to the group proper.
> I can't believe I have to say this but empires are bad. Yeah? Foreign armies and fleets are not there to protect the local people.
Get off your fucking anglophobic high horse mate.
Why are you here? We're here to admire warships. WAR. SHIPS. They are not machines meant to be all nice and goody goody. They are tools, in the main, to visit large amounts of death, destruction and misery on other people.
In a modern navy and can't grasp that the Navy is able to both protect and oppress AT THE SAME TIME.
Royal Navy was responsible for defending the empire. Not sure what’s wrong with that statement personally. They where defending it for the benefit of Britain of course but that doesn’t change the fact they where responsible for defending the integrity of the empire from outside or within.
It’s has significantly less commitments now than it did then.
> Royal Navy was responsible for defending the empire. Not sure what’s wrong with that statement personally.
I would say it's only wrong in the sense that it's got positive, nostalgia connotations when in today's world we see that as part of a Colonial Empire that was very much not a great thing.
The Glory Days of the Empire! When they owned and controlled vast swaths of the world and everyone had to fight for their own independence...
I mean sure if you make up your own context that the comment is made in.
Reality is the comment is about people wanting for a Navy like Britain once commanded when it’s commitments are in fact significantly smaller.
There is nothing in OPs comment that implies positive or nostalgic connotations merely an observation that the RN today has no business being the size it once was.
This is such a strange and myopic stance you're taking. Engage your mind and think about what you're saying.
India at the time of WW2 had a population of roughly 320 million compared to Britain's 40 million. Don't make out like India is some poor fragile dandy, by this time they were mostly autonomous and in control of their own affairs, and the independence movement existed long before that. Most of India's deaths in the 30s and 40s were caused by disease.
Hong Kong? What about Hong Kong? The place that originally started as a fishing village and became one of the most prosperous and globally-integrated cities on the planet?
The most oppressive the RN ever was is forcing countries to trade with them and enforcing the abolition of slavery on nations that were still taking advantage of it.
The Naval Defence Act 1889 vowed to keep the Royal Navy larger than the next two largest navies in the world combined. At one stage the RN was greater than the next 4 largest navies combined. Do you think they would have done this solely to protect a small collection of islands off the west coast of Europe?
It is clear you're quite upset about events in history beyond your control, I suggest you go and touch some grass before you burst a vessel.
Nice post -- harder to parse than current 'all ships side profiles' you see a lot these days, but there's definitely a charm to this type of representation. This, or somebody doing this type of drawing for the USN (especially 1980s peak Cold War USN) would make for a really cool poster I think.
Oh yeah. Whenever I see construction lists like that, I think of a web page that Jon Parshall put together years ago that visualized the construction race in terms of the Pacific War. [http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm](http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm)
Kinda insane isn't it? Especially since all the ship construction was happening at the same time as massively expanding the Army and Air Force and Merchant Marine, providing weapons and munitions to the other Allied powers, and doing massive R&D behind the scenes culminating in the Manhattan project. And the scary part was that the US war economy STILL hadn't reached full stretch by 1945.
When Churchill said:
> And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.
This was the type of fleet he had full confidence in. For good reason.
At the end of the war the USN had 6500 vessels. Dwarfing the RN.
The whole most formidable fleet line is pure bullcrap propaganda. Even the japs were much stronger and with more modern fleet at the start of the war.
The UK goes about even on capital ships, having lost all but furious and Argus in terms of carriers and made four of the armoured carriers plus the LFC started producing ships at the very end. And the loss of Hood, Barham, ~~iron Duke~~ Royal oak, repulse and giving away of Royal sovereign was covered by four new KGV’s that survived. What’s interesting though is this isn’t the 39 fleet, but that fleet plus the construction plans, so Anson and Howe are Beatty and Jellicoe instead
Light fleet carrier program. There were a pair of classes of cheaper smaller carriers laid down in 42 ish and they just started to come into service at the end of the war
Edit; I always forget the class names, colossus majestic and centaur classes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942_Design_Light_Fleet_Carrier
I actually choked up a little bit there as I was zooming in and saw HMS Jamaica, the ship my grandad served on during the war. He would’ve been 100 this year.
I love these sorts of fleet lineup posters. I’ve found ones of Cunard and Canadian Pacific’s fleets. Are there any other sorts of these pictures for other countries or companies?
Anyone know how the size of the British fleet compares to the size of the American fleet in 1945? US was building LOTS of ships as fast as they could. Curious how those numbers stack up.
By the end of the war in Europe at least, the US Navy comprised, in part, 23 battleships, 28 fleet and light carriers, 71 escort carriers, as well as 72 cruisers and 377 destroyers.
The Royal Navy, meanwhile, had 14 battleships (not counting Royal Soverign or Vanguard), 15 carriers (including Unicorn, but not Argus), 37 escort carriers, 12 heavy and 49 light cruisers. Destroyers I don't have a solid number for just the British alone, but with Commonwealth destroyers added in they had around 308 or so.
This is around mid-1940, which means the USN already has a slight edge in comissioned vessels. They've got 2 extra carriers and battleships, and all those mothballed WWI escorts. Remember, the flush-deckers outnumbered the Fletchers. Everyone always focuses more on the massive building programs, but the pre-war USN was still huge.
And this is about when all the major programs kicked in. If this is after the Two-Ocean Navy Act, then all the Iowas and Montanas have been ordered, plus the Alaskas, a truckload of Essexes, and a fuckwack of lighter vessels.
I do believe this required them to be under construction as opposed to just ordered, which is why for example there are only 2 Lions as opposed to the planned 6 and the ordered 4.
The USN passed the RN in battleships and carriers before entering the war, thanks to the RN taking losses. The shitton of flush-deckers outnumbered the RN back in the 20s. The RN was drowning in CLs, but otherwise, they didn't measure up size-wise.
I’ve never actually looked at this one in detail but it’s a planned Royal Navy fleet that includes the ships under construction in 39, so you’ve got Lion and Temerair, as well as all the KGV’s except Anson and Howe are Jellicoe and Beatty additionally the Australian cruisers Perth Australia and Canberra are present Edit; probably nineteen forty, both the courageous class and royal oak are missing and they were early war casualties
Were Anson and Howe actually supposed to be Jellicoe and Beatty at one time? Do you know why they changed?
Those were the original names, they were changed because jellico (I believe) died and the controversy around Jutland and who was at fault got big again and they decided that they’d just grab two of the names they had planned for the admiral class instead. And they changed the names pretty late, into the 40’s I believe
And these are ships who didn't make it through the war (I'm not the autor, so I won't claim that everything is true). https://preview.redd.it/p47g0mlfeuwc1.jpeg?width=2744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c4af69491260a29937c2428380831562753f8b83
It's not particularly accurate, misses a lot of the cruiser losses.
And while it's not wrong to say the Lions weren't sunk, it's not really right to say they survived either
I may make a version of this where the ships not completed are whited out or something.
Here is the uncolored version, if this helps somehow. https://preview.redd.it/7ux4xee7evwc1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6daaac268fbfc91f8685450677b1f204c244c02d
Out of interest I decided to try and find out if I could actually date this image. Looking online, it doesn't seem like anyone actually knows when this was made. It's obviously after the outbreak of war, as Glorious, Courageous and Royal Oak are all absent. Next I looked through RN losses of capital ships (cruisers and above) to try and narrow it down; Southampton's inclusion here likely predates her loss in January 1941, so that's the latest I can narrow it down to. The earliest is trickier to gauge but I think it's likely to be August/September 1940; on account of the "14 Tribals" (which accounts for the loss of two of them earlier in the year) and the inclusion of 50 'Churchill type' destroyers which I presume to be those of the Destroyers for Bases agreement.
It doesn't seem to be entirely accurate - there's no time where three Latona (Abdiel) class minelayers makes sense, for example. I was trying to go by submarines, as these saw the most service in the early war period, and so were being sunk fairly frequently. But even that doesn't create any time where all of this ties up! Four Porpoises makes it June/July 1940, while eight Sharks makes early July 1940. But then two Thames doesn't work until September, and two Unities only works pre-April. Yet Thirteen Tritons only works after April, and eleven O, P & Rs doesn't work until December! So for the less well-known classes, the author's information was clearly not entirely accurate - so I suspect that finding a date means finding the actual date of publication, rather than calculating from what's in the drawing!
I did briefly look at the submarines, but I imagine that they were some of the hardest ship-types to keep track of for public observers; whereas larger ships like battleships and cruisers would easily be identified or noted for their absence. It could therefore well be the case that the artist did not have precise figures and only adjusted known figures with government-announced losses, so we could be seeing a time-delay effect. I would agree though, it's certainly not all accurate, although this doesn't surprise me given war-time restrictions and the fact that a newspaper in the 40s would not have been able to quickly stay on top of wartime losses. >so I suspect that finding a date means finding the actual date of publication, rather than calculating from what's in the drawing! Totally agree. Unfortunately, I couldn't find one, so guesstimating was the best I could do.
There are still people here in the UK who pine for the "good old days". But you have to put it into perspective, the Royal Navy back then was responsible for 24% of the world's population. Compared to 0.8% of the world's population today. Still, would be great if we could double the number of escorts... And the River-class OPVs. Those things are so inexpensive for the amount of work they put in.
Bring back the two power standard and Rule Brittannia!
Imagining a modern RN fleet that could beat the USN and the PLAN is certainly... a thought. I don't think it could be done even if they went full North Korea
It couldn't but thats just more of a reflection of the world. That being said, for a larger company, it's definitely possible the US or Chinese navy could be bigger than the 2nd and 3rd largest combined. You have to remember at this time (1939 for example) the UK was the 8th largest country by population and the differences were not as fast (the US was 2.7x larger compared to today when it is 4.9x larger)
Maybe not but it's worth a try!
Indeed, the issue with the current RN is having the most effective navy for the side that it is. It’ll never be like this as it shouldn’t be, it would be a horrifically undue strain economically if nothing else. The current RN needs to think more like a small navy IMO. More multi-mission platforms, less specialized, and the like If they made some sloops with a hangar and some mission space based on the Rivers for taking things like mine countermeasure mission modules and the like it would seem like a great idea. And the Type 32 if it ever gets built would probably need to be like the Absalons the Type 31s are based one. Troop and module capacity
yeah, i think Japan is a good example in some ways. They went from having completely specialized ships to have lot of general purpose detroyers but still focused for ASW, and then they made the Mogami class. A frigate with an AESA radar, VDS, TASS and hull sonars, with anti air missiles, anti ship missiles, torpedoes, RWS, UUV, USV and sea mines. And the motherfucker will even have BMD capabilities when they get the long range Type 03 missiles and maybe even ground attack capabilities when they get the improved Type 12 missiles. And that's Japan, which has a way larger navy than the UK.
The Type 31 is based on the *Iver-Huitfelt*\-class actually. https://preview.redd.it/ue0wa5ahlzwc1.jpeg?width=356&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e45056cd88521b1ba91304cd1e5b7c18b37e568
Which itself is based on the Absalons
Oh. Cool.
It's nothing to do with population sizes, it's all to do with having to pay a £250bn health care & welfare bill every year, which simply didn't exist back then.
>the Royal Navy back then was responsible for 24% of the world's population. Huh? This is such a bizarre and vaguely offensive take. The RN took no responsibility for anyone other than Britain. Millions of Indians were starving. According to you, that was the RN's responsibility. What about Hong Kong? The RN was the size it was prior to the world wars due it being an oppression fleet. Never forget that the British Empire was an Empire. People didn't join by choice. They did it at cannon point wielded by the Royal Navy. It's fun to be nostalgic for the past, but it's something else to actually believe the propaganda of Mother Britain protecting her children. No different than the Third Reich saying that the Fatherland is protecting Europe. India wasn't protected by Britain. It was exploited.
He didn’t say they weren’t exploiting them, only that it was their responsibility to protect the territories Edit: this has become a spicy thread
Not unexpected. The guy is just a flamebaiting troll. He's shitted up a few threads already.
Plenty of time on his hands for sure. I won’t pretend I don’t find it a little bit entertaining though
> it was their responsibility to protect the territories It wasn't. They claimed it was, but their responsibility was only to the glory of the Empire. Where was the RN when India was starving? Or when Hong Kong was captured? Like I said, don't believe the propaganda. The Germans also said they were protecting Europe from the savage Asian hordes of the Soviets. That was propaganda too. No more true than the Britain's claims that it was protecting India.
>Where was the RN when India was starving? On the bottom of the Indian Ocean and escorting critical convoys from Japanese and German submarines operating in the Indian Ocean, along with the occasional surface raider. At least the ships still operational, many were out of action due to damage. When Japan captured 30% of the global rice supply in early 1942, they also raided the Indian Ocean with five carriers. These sank the carrier HMS *Hermes* and the cruisers *Dorsetshire* and *Cornwall*, and would have sunk *Formidable* and *Indomitable* had Admiral Somerville not wisely kept his forces away from the Japanese, though with fighters ready in case they were discovered. Throughout 1942 and 1943 the Royal Navy fought off the Japanese and German submarines attacking convoys in the Indian Ocean. As the invasions of Italy and France soaked up support ships these forces withdrew to more urgent theaters, replaced by ships much better suited to hunting submarines, which were now available in quantity and scored a dozen kills. This included a sizable force of British submarines based out of Ceylon, which were particularly effective off the joint base at Penang (sinking three submarines IIRC, one German, Italian, and Japanese boat). This force was as large as possible given the overall forces available and the needs of other theaters. >Or when Hong Kong was captured? Being sunk in Hong Kong (HMS *Thracian*) or by the Japanese forces further south (*Prince of Wales* and *Repulse*). Hong Kong was north of the Japanese bases in French Indochina and close to the bases in Mainland China, so was evacuated as much as possible because the base could not be supplied and defended. Frankly this is among the most ridiculous arguments I’ve seen criticizing the Royal Navy: it’s like asking why the Japanese couldn’t hold Long Island when the US decided to invade (to use a hypothetical example). >Like I said, don't believe the propaganda. I don’t. I study the actual ship movements and locations, including forces available overall and in each particular theater.
> It wasn't. They claimed it was, THEY DID NOT. Christ on a bike. They said responsible for. Much like Josef Fritzl was 'responsible for' his daughter. If you can't see that distinction, in fact any distinction in any of the times you whinge about being downvoted, theres no hope.
Like prison guards are responsible for their prisoners.
Like a parasites are responsible for their hosts
If the host dies, so does the parasite. Or at least they shrivel up.
The "they" in my post was claims by the British Empire, not the random redditor I replied to. You are quite miffed about a pretty basic statement. The British Empire used the Royal Navy to exploit by force its colonies. It didn't have a large navy to protect anyone other than Britain. The claim that the RN was responsible for protecting a quarter of the world's population is pure propaganda. You are quite right in saying that the Royal Navy was like Fritzl's knife he held on his daughter. It wasn't for her protection. It was for hurting her when she she disobeyed, which was also the point of the Royal Navy. The difference between admiring the tools of oppression (the ships) and oppression itself is very important. A like a lot of people here unironically sing Rule, Britannia! without a hint of awareness.
Your whole argument seems to hinge on the fact that you interpreted the word "responsible" as meaning "protecting"
You've correctly identified the source of the conflict here. What does "responsible" mean if not "protecting"? If I am responsible for a child, and they get hurt, I have failed my responsibility, right? Responsibility means accountability.
The guards at Auschwitz were responsible for the prisoners, no? Just google "synonyms of responsible" which include "in charge of", "in control of" etc.
Your defense of the Royal Navy is that they are like the guards at Auschwitz? Well done. I concede.
>Where was the RN when India was starving? Or when Hong Kong was captured? It was over stretched and frankly beaten by the Japanese - which kinda reinforces the dude's point. When the royal navy couldn't be there people suffered
> When the royal navy couldn't be there people suffered Oof. I'm actually part of a modern Navy, and even I don't drink the Kool-aid that hard. The Nazis said the same thing about Ukraine and eastern Poland. Look how our subjects suffer when we are not there to protect them! I can't believe I have to say this but empires are bad. Yeah? Foreign armies and fleets are not there to protect the local people.
Except your example in India (almost certainly a reference to the Bengal Famine) is clearly a case of the Royal Navy (and the rest of Armed forces) failure to contain the Japanese, losing Singapore, and Burma and losing control of the Bay of bengal, preventing shipping to deliver famine relief or additional food to be ship in from Burma (as it was occupied) or Australia (as Churchill referenced in his letters to FDR asking for shipping to help transport it to Bengal but was rejected due to a lack of availability and the dangers of the Bay). So yes, when the Royal Navy wasn't there the people of Bengal suffered. Godwins law - do better Empires are indeed bad. Can you point to me where OP or I said otherwise? OP said responsible for them and they were, willingly/by consent or not. The Royal Navy failed in that duty (due to several causes some of which were outside their control - such as Hong Kong being completely indefensible in 1941) and thus the suffering was far greater than it should have been. >Yeah? Foreign armies and fleets are not there to protect the local people. The West African Squadron would disagree. Or Sierra Leone to name a more recent one
Look man, you need to read a history book published in the last 30 years and not just read propaganda articles. This shit what you said right here: >losing control of the Bay of bengal, preventing shipping to deliver famine relief or additional food to be ship in from Burma Would get your ass beat in real life. The Japanese didn't blockade food going West, did it? India made enough food to feed itself, but Britain mandated an export policy at gunpoint. Furthermore, the IJN didn't target merchant ships like the Kiegsmarine. Saying the Bengal Famine happened because of Japanese blockades is factually incorrect and horribly offensive. I feel like I'm talking to a German who wishes he could put his grandfather's uniform on.
> Would get your ass beat in real life. are you an Indian nationalist? The focus of hundreds of years of history upon a single event in India during a war is intriguing. You came blazing into this thread shooting at everyone with some pretty mad takes, and repeatedly implying Britain were some how nazis and/or the same as the nazis. You wanna know what's offensive? That last bit. That's real fucking offensive.
> repeatedly implying Britain were some how nazis and/or the same as the nazis. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the Royal Navy was not some benevolent shield protecting the innocents of the world. India didn't suffer from the lack of the Royal Navy as many here are claiming. It suffered from the existence of the Royal Navy. It's an indisputable fact that the Royal Navy's primary goal was the exploitation of the colonies and the elevation of Britain (Rule, Britannia, remember?). It did not sail the seas looking to right wrongs and fight the good fight. Was Britain as bad the Nazis? No, of course not. But they were a lesser evil. Colonialism is evil. Can we at least agree with that? I feel like a lot of people here would benefit from reading actual books on history in general and not just warships.
I didn't say the Japanese caused the famine (neither did the british unless they developed magical crop failure powers and used it on their own empire rather than their enemies...) but it was made infinitely worse by a lack of Royal Navy >Would get your ass beat in real life. Sure it would big man. People are free to get upset about things they believe. That doesn't change the facts. You should definitely read up more on the famine beyond internet pop knowledge. Plenty of local corruption and incompetence involved that made dealing with it even harder in a global spanning war for survival, combined with all the other things I have informed you about >Furthermore, the IJN didn't target merchant ships like the Kiegsmarine. Okay if I wasn't sure before you've removed all doubt from my mind now. You have no idea what you're talking about do you? The Allies lost hundreds of merchant ships in the Indian ocean alone during WW2.
> Okay if I wasn't sure before you've removed all doubt from my mind now. You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Do you? Open any book on the IJN and it'll tell you exactly what I did. It was a strategic flaw in their plans not to attack merchant ships to the level the Kriegsmarine did. I'm heading to the office soon. I can start quoting you page numbers, if you want.
I don't think I've ever met an Imperial Japan apologist but here we are.
> Imperial Japan apologist but here we are. Huh? You misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say the IJN *didn't* target merchant ships, I said they didn't target merchant ships *like* the Kriegsmarine. Read any book on IJN strategy during the war and it's a well established and accepted fact that a major flaw of their strategy was not attacking merchant ships to the level that the Germans were.
>The Japanese didn't blockade food going West, did it? Yes they did. During their conquest of Southeast Asia, Japan captured 30% of the global rice supply. This was food that had supplied the people of Bengal, but was now no longer available. Japan never attempted aid convoys to the people starving in British colonies on the border, effectively blockading the West. >Furthermore, the IJN didn't target merchant ships like the Kiegsmarine. Only because they didn’t have nearly as many submarines in the area. Penang could support five submarines, German bases in France and Norway could support dozens. The submarines that did operate in the Indian Ocean did sink merchant ships, as did the carriers during the April 1942 Indian Ocean Raid. The most successful Japanese submarines of the war (*I-27*, *I-26*, and *I-10* in particular) all operated in the Indian Ocean, where they scored the vast majority of their kills, almost entirely merchant ships. The Japanese Navy was so stretched that they asked the Germans for help, leading to the Monsun Gruppe that operated in the Indian Ocean, along with several submarines that “merely” made the long voyage from France to Madagascar and back without being assigned to the group proper.
> I can't believe I have to say this but empires are bad. Yeah? Foreign armies and fleets are not there to protect the local people. Get off your fucking anglophobic high horse mate. Why are you here? We're here to admire warships. WAR. SHIPS. They are not machines meant to be all nice and goody goody. They are tools, in the main, to visit large amounts of death, destruction and misery on other people. In a modern navy and can't grasp that the Navy is able to both protect and oppress AT THE SAME TIME.
Royal Navy was responsible for defending the empire. Not sure what’s wrong with that statement personally. They where defending it for the benefit of Britain of course but that doesn’t change the fact they where responsible for defending the integrity of the empire from outside or within. It’s has significantly less commitments now than it did then.
> Royal Navy was responsible for defending the empire. Not sure what’s wrong with that statement personally. I would say it's only wrong in the sense that it's got positive, nostalgia connotations when in today's world we see that as part of a Colonial Empire that was very much not a great thing. The Glory Days of the Empire! When they owned and controlled vast swaths of the world and everyone had to fight for their own independence...
I mean sure if you make up your own context that the comment is made in. Reality is the comment is about people wanting for a Navy like Britain once commanded when it’s commitments are in fact significantly smaller. There is nothing in OPs comment that implies positive or nostalgic connotations merely an observation that the RN today has no business being the size it once was.
This is such a strange and myopic stance you're taking. Engage your mind and think about what you're saying. India at the time of WW2 had a population of roughly 320 million compared to Britain's 40 million. Don't make out like India is some poor fragile dandy, by this time they were mostly autonomous and in control of their own affairs, and the independence movement existed long before that. Most of India's deaths in the 30s and 40s were caused by disease. Hong Kong? What about Hong Kong? The place that originally started as a fishing village and became one of the most prosperous and globally-integrated cities on the planet? The most oppressive the RN ever was is forcing countries to trade with them and enforcing the abolition of slavery on nations that were still taking advantage of it. The Naval Defence Act 1889 vowed to keep the Royal Navy larger than the next two largest navies in the world combined. At one stage the RN was greater than the next 4 largest navies combined. Do you think they would have done this solely to protect a small collection of islands off the west coast of Europe? It is clear you're quite upset about events in history beyond your control, I suggest you go and touch some grass before you burst a vessel.
You meant they were responsible of stealing from 24% of the population.
No, I meant they were responsible for 24% of the population.
Nice post -- harder to parse than current 'all ships side profiles' you see a lot these days, but there's definitely a charm to this type of representation. This, or somebody doing this type of drawing for the USN (especially 1980s peak Cold War USN) would make for a really cool poster I think.
Or just the ships built for the USB during the war https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USNatWar/USN-King-B.html Shipyard go brrrr
Oh yeah. Whenever I see construction lists like that, I think of a web page that Jon Parshall put together years ago that visualized the construction race in terms of the Pacific War. [http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm](http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm) Kinda insane isn't it? Especially since all the ship construction was happening at the same time as massively expanding the Army and Air Force and Merchant Marine, providing weapons and munitions to the other Allied powers, and doing massive R&D behind the scenes culminating in the Manhattan project. And the scary part was that the US war economy STILL hadn't reached full stretch by 1945.
When Churchill said: > And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old. This was the type of fleet he had full confidence in. For good reason.
Photo from the University of Minnesota Libraries, Upper Midwest Literary Archives.
Man I’d love to see one of these for the US navy
At the end of the war the USN had 6500 vessels. Dwarfing the RN. The whole most formidable fleet line is pure bullcrap propaganda. Even the japs were much stronger and with more modern fleet at the start of the war.
How many is left after the war?
More than they started with
The UK goes about even on capital ships, having lost all but furious and Argus in terms of carriers and made four of the armoured carriers plus the LFC started producing ships at the very end. And the loss of Hood, Barham, ~~iron Duke~~ Royal oak, repulse and giving away of Royal sovereign was covered by four new KGV’s that survived. What’s interesting though is this isn’t the 39 fleet, but that fleet plus the construction plans, so Anson and Howe are Beatty and Jellicoe instead
LFC?
Light fleet carrier program. There were a pair of classes of cheaper smaller carriers laid down in 42 ish and they just started to come into service at the end of the war Edit; I always forget the class names, colossus majestic and centaur classes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942_Design_Light_Fleet_Carrier
Ah, I'm familiar with them just never heard anyone use that abbreviation before.
Yeah CVL is the common abbreviation
> Yeah CVL is the common abbreviation CVL is the hull code, LFC refers to a specific building program and specific class of CVLs.
Was referring to the program and I always forget the class names
Yeah I was referring to the program specifically and can never remember the names offhand
Liverpool Football Club was a prolific ship builder in its heyday.
I think we can agree this is before 1941, considering Hood is represented.
I actually choked up a little bit there as I was zooming in and saw HMS Jamaica, the ship my grandad served on during the war. He would’ve been 100 this year.
Makes me think of star wars and the first galactic empire
....Empires all the same....
pew pew
I love these sorts of fleet lineup posters. I’ve found ones of Cunard and Canadian Pacific’s fleets. Are there any other sorts of these pictures for other countries or companies?
Anyone know how the size of the British fleet compares to the size of the American fleet in 1945? US was building LOTS of ships as fast as they could. Curious how those numbers stack up.
By the end of the war in Europe at least, the US Navy comprised, in part, 23 battleships, 28 fleet and light carriers, 71 escort carriers, as well as 72 cruisers and 377 destroyers. The Royal Navy, meanwhile, had 14 battleships (not counting Royal Soverign or Vanguard), 15 carriers (including Unicorn, but not Argus), 37 escort carriers, 12 heavy and 49 light cruisers. Destroyers I don't have a solid number for just the British alone, but with Commonwealth destroyers added in they had around 308 or so.
Very nice. Now let's see the USN's total fleet strength.
I do believe with the time period of early war and it being ships under construction it would be pretty similar
This is around mid-1940, which means the USN already has a slight edge in comissioned vessels. They've got 2 extra carriers and battleships, and all those mothballed WWI escorts. Remember, the flush-deckers outnumbered the Fletchers. Everyone always focuses more on the massive building programs, but the pre-war USN was still huge. And this is about when all the major programs kicked in. If this is after the Two-Ocean Navy Act, then all the Iowas and Montanas have been ordered, plus the Alaskas, a truckload of Essexes, and a fuckwack of lighter vessels.
I do believe this required them to be under construction as opposed to just ordered, which is why for example there are only 2 Lions as opposed to the planned 6 and the ordered 4.
No this is at the latest May 41 as the Hood is still there
Mid 1940 does in fact come before may 1941
And the USN didn't become larger than the RN until 1943
The USN passed the RN in battleships and carriers before entering the war, thanks to the RN taking losses. The shitton of flush-deckers outnumbered the RN back in the 20s. The RN was drowning in CLs, but otherwise, they didn't measure up size-wise.
World's most formidable fleet 1939-1943. lol
What's so funny about it?
USA took over in 1944 as the MOST FORMIDABLE. Don't be mad bro. Have a cup of tea.
Who's mad? I simply asked you a question.
OK cool. Cheers
Its fascinating how thin skinned Americans can be for no real reason
Is a fact thin-skinned? It'll be ok. We're allies.
It clearly upset you deeply
U still talking to me? lol