Hot Suez 1956

Scott Kenny said:
They'd be a credible threat to the FDR (Midway-class), but likely not credible threat to Forestall.
Click to expand...

Caryina2642 said:
According to rn organisation and shil deployments 1947 to 2013 https://www.naval-history.net/xGW-RNOrganisation1947-2013.htm , the royal navy had 4x S class and 3x T class boats in the mediterranean bases at malta. While be WW2 vintage they are still are credible threat to the carriers especcially through the straight at gibraltar. It only takes 1 boat to get luckly. Correct me if im wrong but CVA didnt carry an ASW aircraft in there airwings too
Click to expand...
They really aren't. As noted if the carriers scream through the strait at 25-30 knots there's basically nothing the submarines can do about it.

Martes said:
Night attack with land-based torpedo bombers?
Click to expand...
I would not want to try and pull a Night Cats on an alert carrier with an onboard night squadron while I'm flying Shackletons armed with Dealer ASW torpedoes. Which, I might add, are an 18" electric ASW weapon and so hilariously unsuited for sinking capital ships of any stripe.

And this is assuming that the carriers don't just bomb the airfields at Malta before they have a chance to fly.
 
CV12Hornet said:
And this is assuming that the carriers don't just bomb the airfields at Malta before they have a chance to fly.
Click to expand...
You mean the French had no long range aviation (that could base on Toulon or Marseilles) whatsoever at the moment?
 
Martes said:
You mean the French had no long range aviation (that could base on Toulon or Marseilles) whatsoever at the moment?
Click to expand...
Okay, I double-checked, and they do have several Neptune squadrons. But those have all the same problems as RAF Shackletons, with the added bonus of relying on American torpedoes since the French have never bothered to develop an air-dropped ASW torpedo.
 
CV12Hornet said:
They really aren't. As noted if the carriers scream through the strait at 25-30 knots there's basically nothing the submarines can do about it.
Click to expand...
The subs just need to get lucky and have the carrier come along the path of the sub. If the RN reinforces the sub numbers from the UK the chances 1 boat gets lucky increases. Thats all the UK needa in this scenario is for 1 to get lucky
 
Yellow Palace said:
It was seriously proposed postwar to hang on to OCEANWAY for amphibious training and development, but this didn't come to pass.
............................... The LSD was needed not to transport troops, but to transport landing craft preloaded with equipment - the limited troop capacity should be understood as essentially for vehicle crews.
Click to expand...

An LSD would be a handy compliment to the experimental helicopter assault ships.

Joint Experimental Helicopter Unit (JEHU) came into being at RAF Middle Wallop in 1955. On the 1st of October 1955 JEHU flew out over the Solent to meet the Light Fleet Carrier HMS Theseus.

845 sqn reformed on 15 March 1955, at Gosport to be an Anti Submarine unit flying the newly proved Westland Whirlwind HAS.22's, the squadron was disbanded briefly in October, before being reformed on 14 November 1955. In April 1956, the squadron deployed on Ocean and Theseus to partake in the fleet review and various training exercises. Much training was conducted with the Royal Marines in the vicinity of Malta and put them in great stead for the approaching Suez Crisis.

So, it looks as if the helicopter assault ships and helicopter squadrons were available and ready before the seizure of the Canal.
 
Caryina2642 said:
The subs just need to get lucky and have the carrier come along the path of the sub. If the RN reinforces the sub numbers from the UK the chances 1 boat gets lucky increases. Thats all the UK needa in this scenario is for 1 to get lucky
Click to expand...

Carriers aren't entirely unpredictable, especially in an enclosed sea like the Med. They have to generally steam into the prevailing wind patterns to operate their aircraft. If the prevailing winds are east to west the subs can be stationed upwind and the carriers are likely to sail into the subs more or less as they launch and recover their aircraft.
 
Martes said:
WW2 anti-ship torpedoes are already disposed of?
Click to expand...
Not entirely, but probably mostly. The lone French aerial torpedo dated back to the 1920s and I'm 95% sure they relied on American Mark 13s postwar and those would be on their carriers. The British, meanwhile, similarly, might have a stock of Mark XV/XVII torpedoes for their Wyvern carrier bombers, but it would be limited and stored mostly on their carriers.

Caryina2642 said:
The subs just need to get lucky and have the carrier come along the path of the sub. If the RN reinforces the sub numbers from the UK the chances 1 boat gets lucky increases. Thats all the UK needa in this scenario is for 1 to get lucky
Click to expand...
No, they need multiple to get lucky because the Americans are moving two carriers into position and have two already in the Mediterranean.

Not to mention the USN does have ASW capability improvements over WW2 and a Forrestal or Midway is far tougher than Ark Royal was. Practically the entire active destroyer fleet, for example, had updated sonar and twin Hedgehogs by 1956.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Not entirely, but probably mostly. The lone French aerial torpedo dated back to the 1920s and I'm 95% sure they relied on American Mark 13s postwar and those would be on their carriers. The British, meanwhile, similarly, might have a stock of Mark XV/XVII torpedoes for their Wyvern carrier bombers, but it would be limited and stored mostly on their carriers.
Click to expand...
Martes said:
Also, you can move some (maybe even carrier) planes to Gibraltar, and use them from there.
Click to expand...

If Wyvern can land with a torpedo, of course.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Not entirely, but probably mostly. The lone French aerial torpedo dated back to the 1920s and I'm 95% sure they relied on American Mark 13s postwar and those would be on their carriers. The British, meanwhile, similarly, might have a stock of Mark XV/XVII torpedoes for their Wyvern carrier bombers, but it would be limited and stored mostly on their carriers.


No, they need multiple to get lucky because the Americans are moving two carriers into position and have two already in the Mediterranean.

Not to mention the USN does have ASW capability improvements over WW2 and a Forrestal or Midway is far tougher than Ark Royal was. Practically the entire active destroyer fleet, for example, had updated sonar and twin Hedgehogs by 1956.
Click to expand...
Theres been plenty of excerises where the us carrier escort group has been penetrated by submarines, so while difficult its not inpossible.
Also they dont need to sink the Carrier if they can mission kill them to the point they can do flight operations. That makes life a lot easier for the RN
Makes an night time air strike more sucessfull
 
Yellow Palace said:
If the USN is particularly worried, all it has to do is scream through the strait at 30 knots. Unless the submarine is in the exact right place, the only thing it can do is send rude messages on the Aldis lamp.
Click to expand...
That is still a target set within a WW2 subs design engagement envelope.

It would take good luck to be in the right place as the US carrier group goes past, yes. But it wouldn't take blind luck, the RN could surge their home-based subs to Gibraltar, and then let the 7 subs based in Malta go hunting the carriers in the Med.
 
And US likely wouldn't expect a submarine attack at earnest, not at the first stage.
Nor aerial attack, likely. Buzzing, yes. Torpedoes - no.
 
Last edited:
Rule of cool said:
I'd point out that the RAF had a couple of dozen squadrons of combat aircraft in Malta and Cyprus, including Valiants, Canberras and Hunters which would not make the USN carrier's lives comfortable.
Click to expand...
If only blue boar wasnt cancelled would have been perfect in this scenario with the Valiants and possibly canberras
 
Martes said:
And US likely wouldn't expect a submarine attack at earnest, not at the first stage.
Click to expand...
Doesn't help that a submarine torpedo attack is usually first discovered when something explodes out of nowhere.

Even the old WW2 torpedoes are not necessarily easy to see.



Martes said:
Nor aerial attack, likely. Buzzing, yes. Torpedoes - no.
Click to expand...
I think the pilots would be making sure to get in the way of bombers. Planes buzzing each other etc. But as soon as someone started obvious attack preps like opening bomb bays or standing into a dive bombing stoop the fighters would start shooting.
 
A question of more strategic nature, but - did the Americans have any nuclear devices in UK territory at the moment?
 
Martes said:
So, in case of greenlighting a military response, those devices would have to be captured secured, more or less simultaneously with the first carrier attack. Or at least that would have to be a part of the options presented to the PM.
Click to expand...

US nukes would be at USAFE bases guarded by US troops, it would be a hard job securing them. Then there's the US nukes in Germany and France, perhaps the French could secure the ones in France.
 
Rule of cool said:
hard job securing them
Click to expand...
Hard, and yet absolutely necessary, when things get serious it's the ultimate trade card. Or a literal weapon. Still, I suppose by numbers alone the Army could manage it (if SAS fails for some reason).
 
Martes said:
So, in case of greenlighting a military response, those devices would have to be captured secured, more or less simultaneously with the first carrier attack. Or at least that would have to be a part of the options presented to the PM.
Click to expand...
More like "prevented from being used", but yes.
 
In general, I think most of first anglo-french moves, if implemented with any level of competency and timing, would likely be successful, simply because of total surprise. Nobody would expect such outright lack of deference to the big boss. It's the American response that may be beyond painful, as it usually happens, and something has to be planned to withstand or prevent it. And going for the nukes is a start.
 
Last edited:
There were some 10 US airbases in the UK and 11 in France plus numerous other sites. These would all have to be overrun in the opening phase of any conflict with the US where USN carriers were going to be attacked. Even after than the US has a lot of forces in Germany and could launch nuclear attacks from CONUS.

The British and French going to war with the US would be a massive undertaking, likely harder than going to war with the Soviet Union.
 
Rule of cool said:
likely harder than going to war with the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

Arguably, Soviet army doesn't have to cross the ocean to arrive at full force, only the DDR border.

It doesn't make the venture less hard, of course.

I wonder if West Germans can be lured to join this kind of eurorebellion on short notice, it might have made things easier, on one hand, but could provoke the bear on the other. But even proclaiming total neutrality, playing the pacifist card and denying the Americans the use of their territory to attack France (if possible) would be something.

Still, I think we already can see that there were options. Not ideal and requiring a lot of coordination and resolve, but not completely absent.
 
Rule of cool said:
There were some 10 US airbases in the UK and 11 in France plus numerous other sites. These would all have to be overrun in the opening phase of any conflict with the US where USN carriers were going to be attacked. Even after than the US has a lot of forces in Germany and could launch nuclear attacks from CONUS.

The British and French going to war with the US would be a massive undertaking, likely harder than going to war with the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...
Though Britian and France have just increased the number of nukes they have.
Germany is a possiblity britian and france might have to sweeten the deal for it to happen. Maybe if the european defence community treaty didnt fail.
I wonder how Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other commonwealth countries would react?
I think canada would try to stay neutral. Though Australia and New Zealand are interesting cause they are probably mkre pro British than american during this time
 
Caryina2642 said:
Though Britian and France have just increased the number of nukes they have.
Click to expand...

My assumption here is that if this thing goes more or less smooth (one of the carriers damaged, US bases overrun, nukes secured) in the most mild scenario it would be possible to trade further US non-interference in European matters for release and repatriation of US troops, and either keep the nukes or release part of them in exchange for cancelling debt to the US, which may bring some new political reality and avoid all-out war. But it's a mild scenario and mostly depends on how much casualties would be there during the opening phase.

Caryina2642 said:
I wonder how Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other commonwealth countries would react?
I think canada would try to stay neutral. Though Australia and New Zealand are interesting cause they are probably mkre pro British than american during this time
Click to expand...
Canada, I am afraid, is lost at that point and would probably be occupied. British popularity in AU and NZ can certainly go up, but would Britain be able to hold to them if America begins to exert it's influence, I am not sure. The same about Caribbean possessions.
 
Martes said:
My assumption here is that if this thing goes more or less smooth (one of the carriers damaged, US bases overrun, nukes secured) in the most mild scenario it would be possible to trade further US non-interference in European matters for release and repatriation of US troops, and either keep the nukes or release part of them in exchange for cancelling debt to the US, which may bring some new political reality and avoid all-out war. But it's a mild scenario and mostly depends on how much casualties would be there during the opening phase.


Canada, I am afraid, is lost at that point and would probably be occupied. British popularity in AU and NZ can certainly go up, but would Britain be able to hold to them if America begins to exert it's influence, I am not sure. The same about Caribbean possessions.
Click to expand...
I don't think Canada is lost more like Switzerland in this scenario very neutral to avoided US aggression. AU and NZ should be able to hang on with British help. Caribbean possessions say good buy too, probably means no west indies cricket team then.

It would be an interesting world where the UK and France seized US Nukes and bases.
 
Caryina2642 said:
It would be an interesting world where the UK and France seized US Nukes and bases.
Click to expand...
IMO, the way historical US intervention after Suez was done was enough to justify something like this. And it is an obvious weak link if - IF - British and French army are still adequate to the task.
 
Martes said:
IMO, the way historical US intervention after Suez was done was enough to justify something like this. And it is an obvious weak link if - IF - British and French army are still adequate to the task.
Click to expand...
I would say the British army in 1956 was more combat experience then the US army, having been fighting in more colonial wars post WW2 compared to the US which had only really fought in Korea. I'm guessing the same for the French as well. It would come down to political will really.
 
Martes said:
I meant more numbers and logistic organization, something I have too little info about.
Click to expand...
A quick wiki search, in 1956
UK Had
  • 1st Infantry Division in the UK
  • 2nd Infantry Division in Germany
  • 3rd Infantry Division was to take part in Operation Musketeer
  • 4th Infantry Division in Germany
  • 6th Armoured Division in Germany
  • 7th Armoured Division in Germany
  • 17th Gurkha Division in Malaya
  • 42nd (Lanchasire) Infantry Division (Territorial Army)
  • 43rd (Wessex) Infantry Division (Territorial Army)
  • 44th (Home Counties) Infantry Division (Territorial Army)
  • 49th (West Riding and Midland) Infantry Division (Territorial Army)
  • 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division (Territorial Army)
  • 51st (Highland) Infantry Division (Territorial Army)
  • 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division (Territorial Army)
  • 53rd (Welsh) Infantry Division (Territorial Army)
  • 56th (London) Infantry Division (Territorial Army)
 
Given France expelled the US forces in its territory in 1966, if the US gets too nasty over Suez the UK and France don't need to overrun their bases, just expel them. SAC in particular was making extensive use of UK bases in the 50s with the B47 force, so was extremely valuable to the US.
 
TBH, I cannot see this scenario working out at all. Should the bleedership get frisky, I fully expect the military high ups to 'just say no'.
There might have been a bit of a Cuba disco but not much else.

Illogical imho.
 
IIRC, the amount of anti-american sentiment in at least in RN, but possibly also in British intelligence circles (can't say anything about the army or RAF) was rather high and they did regard the pressure as a break of an alliance, so I would not be so sure.
 
Dare we mention Imperial Obituary?
On the matter of older senior Army figures views on America?

Republished recently I understand.
 
Foo Fighter said:
TBH, I cannot see this scenario working out at all. Should the bleedership get frisky, I fully expect the military high ups to 'just say no'.
There might have been a bit of a Cuba disco but not much else.

Illogical imho.
Click to expand...

I agree, the NATO alliance was far more important to the British and French than the Suez canal. Similarly NATO was more important than whatever aims the US pursued at Suez. If the British in particular had been able to withstand the US financial pressure the US' next step isn't to shoot its allies and destroy NATO.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom