How would the Royal Navy of WW2 stack up against the IJN in 1942

Ijn is never ever striking into the Atlantic, UK can just wait and develop their carrier fleet and then come and btfo them

>>31107308
>How would the Royal Navy of WW2 stack up against the IJN in 1942 if there was no war in Europe?
Did you want to say "no USN"?
Go down faster than Repulse and Prince of Wales. Official WWII Navies rating:
1. USN.
2. IJN.
3. Power gap.
4. Power gap.
5. Power gap
6. RN.

>>31109934
not the OP but really? Maybe it's been the heavy anti-weab sentiments, but I always thought otuside of suicide attacks and suckerpunching countries who didn't think they were at war with them, the Imperial Japanese anything was pretty fucking incompetent from start to finish of WWII.

>>31109934
That's some convincing argument you have there.

The Royal Navy by 1939 had fallen significantly behind the IJN and USN in carrier warfare doctrine. Although they invented it, the British for a variety of reasons did not fully develop it until the end of WW2, when the British Pacific Fleet began operating with the USN carrier fleet.

For one thing, the Fleet Air Arm was staffed by navy personnel but was part of the RAF rather than the RN, which meant nobody wanted to go into naval aviation because it was a career dead end with little opportunity for promotion. As a result British carrier aviation was much worse than Japan or America. The RN's big carrier success, the Taranto raid, was an off-the-shelf plan drawn up in the 1930s and had few lessons for carrier on carrier battle.

The RN could win, but the Japs would kick them in the dick hard. There would be no Midway equivalent turnaround because the British simply did not have the carrier expertise to do what Nimitz did.

>>31113732
I must admit a lack of knowledge in this area of warfare, I much prefer land to sea but I'd point out that OP states "no war in Europe". This pretty much spells doom for the Japs as the British industry comes at them full strength, rather than having to maintain a war effort in Europe.

Given enough time to bring all of the naval assets they'd raise from the nations of the commonwealth and they win. No doubt in my mind.

Also as ineffective as non-carrier assets would really be, the RN would also suddenly have a bunch more small vessels which otherwise would be protecting transports from america and such.

>>31114356

There being no war in Europe is why I say Britain could win, but it would be difficult and costly and could turn on a couple of decisive naval battles - which the Japanese would have a better chance of winning than they did against the USN.

It depends in part on whether Britain sees the war coming and has the RN deployed in force to the Far East beforehand. If they don't, there's little they could do to prevent the Japanese taking their forward bases simply because the navy takes time to sail around the world.

Given the British admiralty's continued faith in naval gunnery over aviation I doubt they would send a significantly stronger deterrent than Force Z in response to a Japanese war scare, so the IJN would have a stronger starting position in the theater under most circumstances. Certainly I doubt the British would win a decisive, unconditional surrender victory.

>>31107308
New hanzo skin is fucking weird

>>31113732
>>31114356
>>31115716
the british carrier plane were pretty awful. Assuming there's no lend lease, I doubt the british can do much against the Japanese.

the Albacore and swordfish would just be easy picking for the Zeros.

>>31115958

UK had SeaFires and Sea Hurricanes by then.

>>31109934
>>31113732

But that's wrong.

The RN has the 2nd largest fleet in 1942 and had more variety of ships and better logistics than the IGN.

The IJN would be out manouvered, outgunned and the British would easily be able to maintain the inatitive and choose when to engage.

>>31116039

Even if they have large numbers of seafires at the start, the British simply aren't very good at using them in 1942. They did not practice carrier warfare like the IJN and USN did in the interwar period. This is a disadvantage which cannot be overstated.

The RN would have its nose bloodied by carrier aviation in the initial battles and probably loses several capital ships. If the admiralty internalizes the lessons of carrier warfare fast enough they might make good, or if the IJN for some reason risks its battleships in an early kantai kessen against a superior RN surface fleet but I don't see why they would. The IJN simply has a very strong advantage at the outset.

File: hqdefault.jpg (25KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x360px

Semi-related

The Yamato and Musashi vs the Bismarck and the Tirpitz

https://warisboring.com/a-clash-between-german-and-japanese-battleships-would-have-been-mighty-ef51002ace1f#.ccj8mgter

>>31116039

RN doesn't have the fighters, and it's battle line is no better than that of the IJN despite more ships overall.

Most lacking the fleet air arm. The Kido Butai would shit all over the fleet air arm until Seafires/Lend Lease Corsairs started appearing in numbers.

Without air superiority, the Brits really don't have an answer for the two Yamatos.

File: image.png (39KB, 855x717px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 855x717px

This thread

Brit planes
have
RADAR
Guyz

Brits can attack in the dark of night.

>muh zero always win
Zero can't win shit if it can't see shit.

>>31107308

Bad at first because British carrier planes were utter pieces of shit thanks to the RAF taking over carrier aviation from the RN.

However, Britain's industrial capability was way ahead of that of Japan's, and Britain could buy planes from the US as well. The RN would recover and be able to strike back.