Royal Navy retains control of its air components

[PMN1]

There will probably be some who demand my instant burning at the stake but I've been there before, at work today for instance,:D but its got to be asked.


I’m assuming the main roles of the RNAS in 1917/1918 were Air Defence of the fleet at sea and sea and land based Patrol and Anti shipping attacks, were there any others?

How did it lose the argument that many of its roles were Navy specific so should remain under RN control as long as it did not encroach on the newly formed RAF's roles – Strategic Bombing, Air Defence of the UK, Strategic Bombing, Transport, Strategic Bombing……?

Given the money available wouldn’t have been any different, would the RNAS/FAA have had better carrier aircraft or did the Navy’s own requirements and procedures mean its aircraft would always be behind its opponents.

Looking at most of the aircraft it was equipped with, Coastal Command appears to have been the poor relation in the RAF, would the land based patrol and anti-shipping force be any better equipped had it remained under RN control?

[B-24WillowRun]

Ok I will try to look it up. But looking at the USN air wing they seemed to get top line aircraft, but because of the demands of carrier operations it takes a little longer to develope. But also Coastal comand seems to get the second class airframes becaue it was thought to be a lower priority. The RAF seems to have the same thought as the USAAC. But then atleast the RAF did not let U-boats sit off the beaches of US cities while citizans could watch it. We lost a lot of ships that could have been saved with even just a few B-18s to fly up and down the shore. Yes they did but we were horrid at Coastal Deffence.:(

[simon]

I don't think the Fleet Air Arm would have been in a fantastically better position to be honest. Firstly they would have had to compete for funding against the politically powerful Battlecruiser and Battleship exponents, both of which believed to be the pinacle of warship design, whereas the Aircraft carrier was still viewed with suspicion if not outright contempt.

However, if they got more autonomy I would expect the Fleet Air Arm to start the war with the Skua as a dedicated dive bomber rather than having to double as a fighter, whilst the latter role was occupied by the Fulmar (Earlier Entry dates), or perhaps something with the capabilities of the Sea Gladiator. It's especially hard to play "What ifs...?" with aircraft whose specifications were never even considered! :D

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by B-24WillowRun

Ok I will try to look it up. But looking at the USN air wing they seemed to get top line aircraft, but because of the demands of carrier operations it takes a little longer to develope. But also Coastal comand seems to get the second class airframes becaue it was thought to be a lower priority. The RAF seems to have the same thought as the USAAC. But then atleast the RAF did not let U-boats sit off the beaches of US cities while citizans could watch it. We lost a lot of ships that could have been saved with even just a few B-18s to fly up and down the shore. Yes they did but we were horrid at Coastal Deffence.:(



The subject of the US response to the U-boats of the east coast is a hot topic which usually requires moderator response:D[}:)] - Electric Joe is one of the mderators on the page.

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm1

Look down the page until you hit the post about E J King for President

[B-24WillowRun]

PMN1 thanks for the link. i looked around but did not find anything that would relate to our disscussion. That said, I could have looked and just missed it.

I still think the air arm should have fought for more when the USN was showing how well it could be used. But then this would have been post 1940 so things might not have been so cut and dry. [B)]