# Carriers!!



## MP-Willow (May 27, 2005)

This is to continue the discussion on the carriers that we had in the Aircraft section.

I hope we can keep this topic going, as it is a main force in Wold War two events.

I hope this is not oversteping others who were going to start this topic.

Plan_D, the British are not the sole developer for the flat top just as it is not only the RN atack on the Italians that helped The IJN plan it's attack t Pearl. Yamamoto was developing that before durring and affter and it helped to show a harbor could be hit as they planned. 

I am interested in the thought of them being used in WWI, I do not think ty would have been much help, but for convoys maybe


----------



## BombTaxi (May 27, 2005)

There was little need for carriers in a convoy escort role during WW1. Airships could carry a greater load and remain on station longer. And as there was no air threat to convoys, fighter cover was irrelevant.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 27, 2005)

Besides the anti sub bombs then weren't really good enough


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2005)

The British invented the AIRCRAFT CARRIER and the first purpose built AIRCRAFT CARRIER was the H.M.S Ark Royal. All those before it were either converted ships or LIGHT CARRIERS. 

On top of that, the British invented the angled-deck, steam-catapult, ski-jump and mirror sight. 

Yamamoto's chief of Staff was in Taranto at the time of the raid. You honestly think he didn't go tell Yamamoto how successful it was?!


----------



## trackend (May 28, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The British invented the AIRCRAFT CARRIER
> honestly think he didn't go tell Yamamoto how successful it was?!


The first purpose built Carrier was HMS Hermes laid down In 1918 D. As MP rightly said the Taranto raid proved the concept of shallow water torpedo attacks in confined harbours, although the Japanese official did as you very correctly point out did report back his findings how ever the Japanese had already war gamed the Pearl Habour raid, as had indeed the Taranto raid been before the middle east campaign had commenced.
Development of the carrier was very much a international thing The US introduced the crash barrier and deck landing control officer (batsman)
it also produce the most efficient recovery and launch systems indeed before the US had sent observer/officers to advise the British the normal interval between take offs was 30 seconds this fell too 10 seconds by adopting US methods.
The US navy was far in advance of the British in there Officer training and recruitment of flyer's where as the British had gone about it piece meal in fact large numbers of trained pilots ended up transferring over to the RAF this left the Royal Navy with a big short fall in flyer's just before the start of hostilities.and senior ranks with flying Knowledge where virtually unknown on the other hand the USN had Admirals who had been flyer's this gave them a huge advantage in tactical awareness.


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2005)

H.M.S Hermes had the armament of a Cruiser. It wasn't a sole Aircraft Carrier, it had extra armament. The H.M.S Ark Royal was the first purpose built Aircraft Carrier with no other intended role. 

I never stated the Pearl Harbour raid was a sole invention from their viewing of the Taranto raid. The raid had been war-gamed but it was the Taranto raid that proved to the Japanese that it would work.


----------



## trackend (May 28, 2005)

The Ark Royal completed 1938 had 16x 4.7inch 32x 2pdr Pom Poms the first Ark royal was a Seaplane carrier completed in 1914 The Hermes had 10x 6 inch 4x4inch AA it was designed as the first purpose built flush deck carrier the weapon size was a reflection of the difference in time with the Idea of having some self defense against other surface ships more than against aircraft attack. With the Ark it was the other way round as carriers never sailed without escort protection against surface raiders.
HMS Hermes is indeed recognised as the worlds first purpose built carrier.
The USS Ranger 1934 was (I believe) the first American purpose built carrier.
Im not 100% on this but I believe the Soryu 1937 was Japans first purpose built carrier. The Hosho 1922 although desribed as Japans first purpose built carrier was based on a fleet oiler hull.


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2005)

The Ark Royal was the first purpose built Fleet Carrier then. You will notice with the H.M.S Hermes that is was not originally being built as an Aircraft Carrier, or at least the CRUISER hull wasn't. 

Also, the Hermes was designated a Fleet Carrier but as you well know, it wasn't built as one originally. Also, I would class the Hermes as a Light Carrier as it was remarkably small and light compared to modern Fleet Carriers of the late '30s.


----------



## trackend (May 28, 2005)

I disagree D the Hull of the Hermes was based on the design of a Cruiser hull as no one had come up with a specific carrier hull shape but when the keel was laid it was always intended to be a carrier and nothing but a carrier. It was not as you say D designated a fleet carrier as really this is a US term adopted later on. In the UK carriers where light or heavy the only different ones at the time of Hermes commisioning where the sea plane carriers and tenders. so using the US Carrier classification you are probably correct D.
The Escort carrier was a WW2 hostilities only convoy protection vessel usually based on a suitable merchant vessel the UK aquired 43 of these vessels 37 coming from the US under lend lease and 6 converted in the Uk. The first UK built one was HMS Audacity which was a converted captured German merchantman it was sunk by torpedo in 1941.
Nick names for the escort carriers where in the US Jeep carriers or Baby Flat tops and in the UK Woolworths carriers.


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2005)

The Hermes was built to be able to act on it's own in a war situation. This was quickly realised as a flaw in an aircraft carrier design, the Ark Royal was designed from the start to be a part of a Fleet. The other surface vessels providing the guns for protection instead of the carrier itself. 

The fact that they didn't know what an Aircraft Carrier hull would look like doesn't take away the fact that it wasn't an Aircraft Carrier hull. The main thing is, also, the Hermes is a Light Carrier in comparison to the later Carriers. By 1937, when Ark Royal was laid down, the Hermes was Light. 

By modern standards the Ark Royal was the first modern carrier with minimal surface defence systems, and relying on other surface vessels in the fleet to provide protection.


----------



## trackend (May 29, 2005)

From the keel to the top of the Island Hermes was designed to be a carrier the hull shape does not detract from the fact that the Hermes was the first and smallest fleet carrier operated by the Royal Navy.


> from D Wragg. *Seeking the Ideal Carrier*. The design features introduced on HMS Eagle were continued with the fourth British carrier. HMS Hermes the first to be designed from the keel upwards as an aircraft carrier. Laid down in 1918 the construction of Hermes was delayed while while the ideal layout for an aircraft carrier was finalized and she was not completed until 1924 Her starboard Island Incorporated a single large funnel. at 10,850 tons Hermes was the smallest fleet carrier ever operated by the Royal Navy


Blimey D this could go on for ever perhaps some one else could put their two pence worth in and help resolve our stale mate  me fingers are starting to wear out


----------



## BombTaxi (May 29, 2005)

Eagle was, AFAIK,not a BC conversion. Glorious and Courageous were; they were completed as BCs and were derogatorily referred to as Spurious and Outrageous by the Fleet. Thier conversion to CVs was as much about strangling Fisher's dangerous battlecruiser dream as providing the fleet with air striking power. 

Eagle was built hull-up as a CV. Her tonnage is far too great to suggest she was designed as a CL or CA (even the late '20s Berwicks were only 8000 tons with a full complement of 8" guns), and far too small to suggest BC origins - HMS Renown weighed in at 36080 tons. Furthermore, it would not have made sense to convert a BC laid down in 1918 as a CV - it could either be completed as a BB or scrapped - a far more sensible option, which was the fate of a number of capital units under construction in 1918-19.


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2005)

It wasn't a conversion, it had a Cruiser hull though. Yes, we'll just have to leave it here, Trackend.


----------



## R Leonard (May 30, 2005)

> The Ark Royal was the first purpose built Fleet Carrier then.



HMS Ark Royal was launched 13 April 1937 and commissioned 16 Nov 1938. Pre-dating Ark Royal into fleet service as designed and built for purpose fleet carriers were USS Ranger, USS Yorktown, and USS Enterprise. Ranger was launched 25 February 1933 and commissioned 4 June 1934. Yorktown was launched on 4 April 1936 and commissioned on 30 September 1937. Enterprise was 3 October 1936 and commissioned 12 May 1938.


----------



## trackend (May 31, 2005)

I did think R (and Im sure you will be able to verifie or deny it) that the USS Ranger was the first US purpose built carrier of any size, as I believe all the ones previous to this where based on other vessels or hulls. Also have you any info on UK carrier categories as all mine say that HMS Hermes 10,750 tons was the first and smallest Fleet carrier operated by the RN where I believe in the US it has to be over 20,000 tons and carry over a set number of aircraft before it is rated as a fleet carrier. This appears to be quite a grey area especially prior too 1930.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 31, 2005)

On the subject of carriers, I saw some today. 


They weren't from WW2, rather in service but docked in San Diego harbor.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

The H.M.S Hermes was the first carrier into fleet service but it wasn't built for fleet service. It was built for independant action. 

Do you know which ones they were, GrG?


----------



## trackend (May 31, 2005)

The last US carrier I saw in the flesh GRG was USS Wasp on Navy day docked in Portsmouth some years ago I walked through the dock yard gates no one challenged me so I stood by the quay side looking at her. As it was Navy day she was fully decked out and she looked quite a sight. I was there for about 30mins before a shore patrol guy came up and ask me sarcasticlly "hey where did you come from" "Brentwood in Essex" I said for some reaon he didnt smile and escorted me back out through the gates.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 31, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Do you know which ones they were, GrG?




No idea, but they appeared to be secondary/escort carriers since it looked like they had straight decks, not the port angled catapult like on the Nimitz.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 31, 2005)

To be fleet was to be the bigest and carry I think to remember over 80 aircraft. By 45 they had three wings each. But I am not going to say that is true, so read over the navy history. The officail website has a good history of the carriers, I just have not read it recently.

The Escourt carriers held around 25 or so craft  If I am wrong, please let me know.

The carrier trived because of the peace treaties to stop the battleships.


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 1, 2005)

> I did think R (and Im sure you will be able to verifie or deny it) that the USS Ranger was the first US purpose built carrier of any size, as I believe all the ones previous to this where based on other vessels or hulls. Also have you any info on UK carrier categories as all mine say that HMS Hermes 10,750 tons was the first and smallest Fleet carrier operated by the RN where I believe in the US it has to be over 20,000 tons and carry over a set number of aircraft before it is rated as a fleet carrier. This appears to be quite a grey area especially prior too 1930.



Yes, Ranger was the first designed for purpose US aircraft carrier, fleet or otherwise. Langley was converted from the collier USS Jupiter. Lexington and Saratoga were converted from battle cruisers as a result of the naval limitation treaties. Yorktown, Wasp and Essex class were designed for purpose. The Independence class light carriers were converted from light cruisers. Saipan class light carriers were designed for purpose.

There is no hard and fast tonnage rule that divides fleet carriers from light carriers. That being said, we can look at how the USN made its distinctions in the WW2 era. 

Lexington Class (2) – fleet carrier, 33000 tons, 34 knots speed, 80-120 aircraft
Ranger Class (1) – fleet carrier, 14500 tons, 29.5 knots speed, 80 aircraft
Yorktown Class (3) – fleet carrier, 19900-20000 tons, 34 knots speed, 80-100 aircraft
Wasp Class (1) – fleet carrier, 14700 tons, 29.5 knots speed, 80 aircraft
Essex Class (24) – fleet carrier, 27100 tons (average), 32.7 knots speed, 110 aircraft
Independence Class (9) – light carrier, 11000 tons, 31.6 knots speed, 45 aircraft
Midway Class (3) – fleet carrier, 45000 tons, 33 knots speed, 137 aircraft
Saipan Class (2) – light carrier, 14500 tons, 32.5 knots speed, 50 aircraft

The distinction appears to be based more on aircraft complement than tonnage. Note that displacement for the Saipan class is the same as for Ranger, yet they carried 30 less airplanes, thus falling into the CVL classification. Confirming the aircraft complement theory of distinction, note the Altamaha class, Sangamon class and Commencement Bay class CVEs. These classes of escort carriers all displaced more than the Independence class CVLs, but carried only 18, 35, and 35 aircraft, respectively. The rated speed of the CVLs when compared to CVs and CVEs also serves to distinguish the CVLs from the CVEs in that the CVLs could keep pace with the CVs and the CVEs could not. The deciding factors, then, are an ability to keep station with the CVs and the size of the aircraft complement.

Early Japanese carriers were conversions, Hosho from a hull that started as a tanker; Akagi, from a battle cruiser; and Kaga from a battleship. Shoho class carriers were converted from submarine tenders as was Ryuho. Hiyo class was converted from liners that were designed with the conversion in mind. Chitose class were seaplane tender conversions. And, of course, Shinano was converted from the Yamato class battleship. Hosho remains an oddity. Considered to be a fleet carrier when built, its primary purpose was as an experimental platform. It remained, despite small tonnage and aircraft complement on the Japanese books as a fleet carrier even though, in practice it was smaller than most escort carriers and carried even less aircraft. Had Hosho been built in 1943 it would have been considered a CVE.

Hosho Class (1) – fleet carrier, 7470 tons, 25 knots speed, 21 aircraft
Akagi Class (1) – fleet carrier, 36500 tons, 31.5 knots speed, 90 aircraft
Kaga Class (1) – fleet carrier, 38200 tons, 28.3 knots speed, 90 aircraft
Ryujo Class (1) – light carrier, 10600 tons, 29 knots speed, 48 aircraft
Soryu Class (1) – fleet carrier, 15900 tons, 34.5 knots speed, 73 aircraft
Hiryu Class (1) – fleet carrier, 17300 tons, 34.3 knots speed, 73 aircraft
Shokaku Class (2) – fleet carrier, 25675 tons, 34.2 knots speed, 84 aircraft
Shoho Class (2) – light carrier, 11262 tons, 28 knots speed, 30 aircraft
Hiyo Class (2) – fleet carrier, 24140 tons, 25.5 knots speed, 53 aircraft
Ryuho Class (1) – light carrier, 13360 tons, 26.5 knots speed, 31 aircraft
Chitose Class (2) – light carrier, 11190 tons, 29 knots speed, 30 aircraft
Taiho Class (1) – fleet carrier, 29300 tons, 33.3 knots speed, 53 aircraft
Shinano Class (1) – aircraft transport, 64800 tons, 27 knots speed, 47 aircraft
Unryu Class (3) – fleet carrier, 17150 to 17460 tons, 32 knots speed, 65 aircraft

Japanese CVEs of the Chuyo class had a displacement of 17830 tons, a speed of 21 knots and an aircraft complement of 27. Kaiyo class was 13000 tons, 23.75 knots, and 24 aircraft. Shinyo class was 17500 tons, 22 knots, and 31 aircraft. The primary distinction, then, for the Japanese, if you ignore Hosho, appears to be, as with the USN, speed first, then aircraft complement.

With all that in mind, we can take on the Royal Navy’s distinctions between CVs, CVLs, and CVEs. Furious began life as a battle cruiser, first with the flight deck forward, then extended aft and finally converted to flush decl. Vindictive was built on light cruiser Canvandish with a forward flightdeck, not really an aircraft carrier. Argus was converted from an Italian liner. Argus was rated as CV, and for the period in which it was built, was indeed so. By later standards of speed and complement she was closer to a CVE then anything else. Eagle started as a dreadnought battleship. Another early carrier rated CV, 20 years later, on speed and aircraft complement, she would probably be rated a large CVE. Hermes, since the Japanese Hosho started as a tanker, is generally regarded as the first designed and built for purpose aircraft carrier. Courageous class carriers were converted from battle cruisers. All CVs and CVLs that followed were also designed and built as carriers.

Furious Class (1) – Not Typed, 22450 tons, 32.5 knots speed, 33 aircraft
Vindictive Class (1) – Not Typed, 9750 tons, 29 knots speed, 6 aircraft
Argus Class (1) – fleet carrier, 15775 tons, 20.75 knots speed, 20 aircraft
Eagle (I) Class (1) – fleet carrier, 22600 tons, 24 knots speed, 21 aircraft
Hermes Class (1) – fleet carrier, 10850 tons, 25 knots speed, 25 aircraft
Courageous Class (2) – fleet carrier, 22500 tons, 32 knots speed, 48 aircraft
Ark Royal Class (1) – fleet carrier, 22000 tons, 31.5 knots speed, 72 aircraft
Illustrious Class (4) – fleet carrier, 23000 tons, 31 knots speed, 36 aircraft
Implacable Class (2) – fleet carrier, 23000 tons, 32 knots speed, 72 aircraft
Eagle (II) Class (2) – fleet carrier, 36800 tons, 31.5 knots speed, 100 aircraft
Unicorn Class (1) – light carrier, 14750 tons, 24 knots speed, 35 aircraft
Colossus Class (10) – light carrier, 13190 to 13350 tons, 25 knots speed, 48 aircraft

A quick look at RN CVEs leads us to:
Audacity, a conversion from merchant vessel, 5537 tons, 15 knots, 6 aircraft. 
Pretoria Castle, merchant conversion, displaced 17392 tons, speed 17 knots, and 15 aircraft.
Activity, merchant conversion, displaced 11800 tons, speed 18 knots, and 15 aircraft.
Campamia, merchant conversion, displaced 12450 tons, speed 17 knots, and 15 aircraft.
Vindex, merchant conversion, displaced 13455 tons, speed 17 knots, and 15 aircraft.
Nairana, merchant conversion, displaced 14500 tons, speed 17 knots, and 15 aircraft.
and then the Tracker class (26), merchant hulls, 11420 tons, speed 17 knots, 24 aircraft.

It would appear that for the RN the distinction, generally based on speed, CVL speeds vary from 24 to 25 knots. The CVEs are all at 17 and lower knots except for HMS Activity at 18 knots. Separation from CVs is a little more difficult due to the specifications of some of the early carriers. And then there’s the fact that none of the CVLs of the Unicorn and Colossus, were completed during the war. Looking at the data, it would appear that speed was the determining factor. If your carrier had a top speed over 20 knots you were either a CV or a CVL without regard to aircraft complement. Tonnage wise, Unicorn and Collossus classes displace somewhat less than the contemporary CVs. If I had to make the call, I’d say the RN looked at speed. Less than 20 knots and it is a CVE. More than 20 knots, but less than 15000 ton displacement then, if you do not count pre 1925 carriers, would seem to define the CVL. 

As a youngster and I do mean young, I spent a little time on aircraft carriers. Spent about a week on USS Ranger (CVA-61) back in 1961. I was all of nine years old. In 1965 I went out for a day on USS Enterprise for a dog and pony show. And in 1966 I went out on USS Wasp (CVS-18) a couple of times, once on a two day equipment check and then again for about a week or so for one of the Gemini recoveries. Being a kid on a carrier . . . good duty if you can get it. 

Regards,

Rich


----------



## trackend (Jun 1, 2005)

Thanks for that intresting read Rich. I've never been on a carrier but I must admit I wouldn't mind a nose around the Nimitz.
I believe (I'm sure you will be able to correct me Rich) the arrestor wire and Steam catapult came from the RN where as the crash barrier and Deck Landing Officer (batsman) where a USN innovation. 
Do you believe top hamper a reason for the lack of deck armour on USN carriers or was it in your opinion to make the deck a sacrificial weak point as I noted that although the protection afforded by an armoured deck proved to be very useful in some cases , it was a two edged sword as found out by HMS Illustrious when attacked by the German airforce. After the success of operation Judgment at Taranto the Illustrious suffered severe damage having its lift blown out of the deck and a bomb exploding in the hanger deck where the pilots where mustered. As a fire precaution steel curtains divided the hanger space these where turned into shrapnel and accounted for many of the deaths it also proved very hard to fight the fires that raged below her decks even with the advanced sprinkler systems she carried.
One statement I found made by a member of the USN said "when a Kamikaze hits a US carrier its out of action for weeks. when it hits a British carrier they just send for the sweepers" obviously this is a tongue in cheek statement, I just wondered what your take on it was. Im much obliged for your fascinating posts Rich.

All the best
Lee


----------



## Glider (Jun 1, 2005)

PLan D I am afraid that you are wrong. There is no doubt that the Hermes was the first RN carrier designed from the start as a Carrier. Any decent book on the history of aircraft carriers will back that up. That the lessons learnt were incorporated into the Ark Royal which was the best pre war carrier is also correct. 
The Hermes was designed for fleet service and it should be remembered that Fleet was then seen as being scouting with the possibility of slowing down an opposing warship. Nearly all carriers carried surface to surface guns at that time, as in the scenario outlined above there was the chance that a destroyer would get through. The planes of 1920 ish didn't carry weapons big enought to sink large warships. Hence the 5.5 in.


----------



## Glider (Jun 1, 2005)

If it helps. British carrier design treated the Hanger deck as a magazine with the fire fighting, segmentation, enclosed box design and not forgetting ventilation. This accounted for the heavier weight of the ships compared to the US carriers who tended to be lighter.
I think its generally considered that we went to far with the Illustrious class which had heavily armoured sides (4.5inches) to the Hanger and as a result only had one hanger deck. We later went back to the approach in the Ark Royal which had an armoured deck but didn't have armoured sides. As a result you went to two hanger decks and the compliment went back up to 72.
American carriers (up to the Essex) were less robust and the statement quoted about geting out the sweepers wasn't too far from the truth. The average time out of actio to a suicide plane was about three-five hours on a British carrier. On a US Carrier you were back in dock for weeks. Remember they had wooden decks.

The damage sufferred by the Illustrious would have sunk almost any other carrier in any other navy. The fires were hard to fight but they were fought, didn't spread and that was the key.

One observation about the number of planes carried. Things changed as the was progressed even on the same ship.

For Example the Illustrious Nominal Compliment 36 aircraft

Sept 40 15 Fulmars and 18 Swordfish
May 42 20 Wildcat and 20 Swordfish
Sept 43 28 Martlet, 10 Seafires and 10 Barracuda
May 44 28 Corsair and 21 Avengers
Mar 45 36 Corsair and 16 Avengers

Quite a difference


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2005)

The USN had unarmoured decks on their carriers so they could be easily repaired and the carrier put back in action quickly. That's what I've heard about it. A wooden deck is much easier to replace.


----------



## trackend (Jun 1, 2005)

All this is very intresting fellas cheers lads


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 1, 2005)

I make it a practice not to indulge in the great armored, or armoured, depending on your point of view, flight deck debate. All too often it results in extremely unkind things being said by the partisans of both sides and a whole lot of inaccurate numbers and analysis being tossed about with great conviction. I can see the advantages and disadvantages to the armored flight deck and the same for the unarmored flight deck/armored hangar deck combination. And, indeed, I do have my opinion, but you won’t see it here. In all due respect to all, I’ll just decline to comment on that particular subject.

So, what else?

Arrestor wire systems? USN origin, for sure.
Catapults, generally? USN origin, powder charges, hydraulics and the like.
Steam catapults specifically? RN origin - an what a vast improvement over all before in performance and safety!
Crash barrier? from my reading USN origin, but willing to entertain other opinions.
Landing Signal Officer (LSO) - USN origin (kind of goes along with arrestor systems)
Angle Decks - RN origin
Fresnel landing systems - IJN origin

Rich


----------



## trackend (Jun 2, 2005)

That's cleared Up a few points rich cheers.
Jumping ahead 60years or so for a second I found this on the two new Proposed carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales (Personally I would prefer Ark Royal and Illustrious for names)
I noticed with some interest that they are considering using electro magnetic catapults if development is successful. I shall wait and see if the construction of these ships takes place with the way things are in the world I think we need them badly but cost is always a constraining factor.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

it's just not gonne be right without atleast one named Ark Royal, we've always had an Ark Royal!! it's just wrong!!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

You forgot the mirror-sight and ski-jump, RN origin. 

Of course we'll still have the Ark Royal. The Royal Navy can't sail without the Ark Royal. Plus, it's our flagship now.


----------



## trackend (Jun 2, 2005)

It may sound over patriotic but I think the British have always had in general the best ship names the Bismark was a great ship but the name Warspite sounds better Or Revenge,Repulse, Illustrious. Indefatigable,Victory,Ark Royal they all sound like they could whack anything afloat even before they fired a shot and the little ships like the old flower class Corvettes had the opposite, dainty names to go with their small size like Snowberry,Eyebright,Mayflower or Bittersweet.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

H.M.S Wolverine was a Corvette, not really a soft name.  

I agree, the Royal Navy has the best names.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

For ships, yes. Some of the WWII airplane names were not so good though.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

Well, the fighters were normally storms - the bombers cities. It's quite a simple naming process.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

I was talking more about some of the others like gannett, etc. But I am off topic, my bad. Please continue...


----------



## maxs75 (Jun 2, 2005)

> On the other hand, there were authorized prior to the US entry in to WWII thirteen Essex class carriers. Authorized in June 1940 were
> 
> three: Essex, Yorktown, and Intrepid. Another ten (Hornet, Franklin, Ticonderoga, Randolph, Lexington, Bunker Hill, Wasp, Hancock,
> 
> ...


AFAIK Bennigton and Boxer (CV-20 and 21) were authorised just after Pearl harbour in the additional 1941 (or 1942?) program.
CV-31-40 were authorised in august-september 1942 (all but CV-35 completed, Bon Homme Richard CV-31, and Shangri la' CV-38 saw action in 

WW2). CV-45-47 were probably authorised in june 1943 (only CV-45 and 47 completed) and CV-50-55 authorised in 1944 (??) and cancelled in 

march 1945, along with CVB-56-57 of the Midway class.

A popular misconception. Permanent battleship losses at Pearl Harbor were two, Arizona and Oklahoma. Most heavily damaged was West 

Virginia, then, somewhat in order of severity, were California, Nevada, Tennessee, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. All of these last six were 

repaired, some obviously taking longer than others, modernized, and returned to the fleet. 

Right. West Virginia and California were extensively rebuilt and the rejoined the US fleet in mid 1944. Just after PH only Colorado was 

operational in the Pacific, but the ships of the New Mexico class were soon transferred from the Atlantic, as well as carrier Yorktown.
The pre-treaty slow battleships had very small use in the Pacific until the Gilbert operation. Maryland and Colorado were deployed in South 

Pacific during the Guadalcanal campaign, but they didn't fight a single battle.

The first fast battleship (North Carolina) reached the Pacific carrier task force only for the Guadalcanal Operation (august 1942). Until 

after Midway the US carriers were escorted only by heavy cruisers (and from Midway by the light cruisers of the Atlanta class, designed for 

anti aircraft protection) and destroyers.
North Carolina escorted Enterprise in the battle of Eastern Solomons (aug. 1942). She was torpedoed by a japanese submarine in september. 

She was substituted by sistership Washington and by South Dakota (She was delayed by damage from and undersea reef). During the battle of 

Santa Cruz (oct. 1942) Enterprise was escorted by South Dakota, Washington was in another task group.
During november South Dakota was damagaed during a night surface battle, but Indiana arrived in south Pacific a few time later. North 

Carolina joined at the beginning of 1943, bringing the total number to 3.

Later in 1943 Washington was substituted by Massachusetts, that was involved in the north African landing at the end of 1942. The repaired 

South Dakota and the new Alabama operated with british Home Fleet in mid 1943.
At this stage of the war only Saratoga was operational (Enterprise badly needed refit, Ranger was not suited for Pacific, four other were 

sunk in 1942, the Essex was not yet ready). 3 CVE of the Sangamon class were used as auxiliary fleet carriers, and Victorious was detatched 

from Home Fleet and operated with Saratoga in south Pacific. 
They operated with mixed air Groups (fighter on Victorious, and attack planes on Saratoga). I am interested in having details of this 

operation. Could you help?

All six ships of the North Carolina and South Dakota classes were involved in the Gilbert landings (nov. 1943). Later all operations of 

fast carrier task force was escorted by 6-8 fast battleships.


Rich, just a small mistyping:



> The easiest illustration of this is Enterprise and Saratoga going out in November 1941 to ferry aircraft to Wake and Midway.



They were Enterprise (F4F to Wake) and Lexington (SB2U to Midway).



> Note that all were started before the US entered WWII, and indeed, three of them before WWII even started in Europe.


Four of them were started before WW2 (North Carolina, Washigton, South Dakota and Massachusetts).

Max


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2005)

Just to break things up - here's a photo of the USS Kittyhawk and USS Independence at Pearl Harbor in 1998. I was told this was the first time 2 US fleet carriers were docked at Pearl since WW2. When everyone got leave, downtown Honolulu looked liked a scene from the movie "1941."


----------



## trackend (Jun 2, 2005)

They sure are very imposing vessels Fly great pic, it really brings home their tremendous size.
HMS Wolverine was a V W class Destroyer D . Still a great name something that harries, gets stuck in and won't quit easily
I thought that some of the aircraft names where given by the British to American aircraft Evan. 
but as you say Thunderbolt, Lighting and Mustang sounds better than Lysander,Swordfish or Blenheim.
Spitfire,Hurricane and Typhoon ain't bad though.
Perhaps I should start a thread on pick a name for a plane say instead of Lancaster it should have been called say the Avro Obliterator.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

Mustang was the name given to the P-51 by the British. 

My bad on the H.M.S Wolverine. I've never actually seen it, I just remembered it from when I read about the U-47 and I got it mixed up with H.M.S Camellia and H.M.S Arbutus (Both Corvettes).


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

The Lightning was also a British designation. The P-38 was originally called the "Atlanta". Lighting is much better! 

That is a great shot, FBJ! Those are some Big ole boats!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Any plane thats called Lightning is great 8)


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

Did the U.S ever have a name for the P-51 or did they just accept the British name straight away? I know the A-36 was Apache but that's not the P-51. Apache is a great name.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Apache is much better than Mustang. To me, a Mustang is a car, not a plane.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

Not sure, plan_d. The car came later though, CC.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

Mustang was a horse first, plane second, car third.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Yeah but to me its the other way round


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

True.


----------



## trackend (Jun 2, 2005)

As far as capital vessels go I think many more USN higher ups where aware that the day of the big gun ship was drawing to a close and the carrier was now the master of the sea, where as the RN clung on to the power of the Grand Fleet for some time longer 
The last ever action between these type of vessels was The Battle of Surigao Strait 24th - 25th October 1944, but it had been recognised even by the British that the Battleship era had passed into history some years earlier than this final battle.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

It's like saying that Apache isn't a good name because, to me, it's the AH-64. 

Native American tribe first, plane second, helicopter third.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

Yes, trackend, that was one of the battles in the Battle of the Leyte Gulf as it has become to be known. The last of the great sea battles. I really enjoyed presenting about that battle. Plus I got to speak with a vet of that battle that put a torpedo into the Zuikaku!


----------



## trackend (Jun 2, 2005)

I wish this pond was'nt so big Evan I would be down your museum having my ear bent all the time. Oh by the way you do realise you said boat. ol Skim will be jumping up and down at that remark


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

I know. I work with several Navy vets who have corrected me many times. To me, they are all boats!


----------



## trackend (Jun 2, 2005)

EEEEK


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 2, 2005)

> Rich, just a small mistyping:
> 
> Quote:
> The easiest illustration of this is Enterprise and Saratoga going out in November 1941 to ferry aircraft to Wake and Midway.
> ...



Jeez Louise, how the heck did I get Saratoga??? I really do know better.

On the subject of Saratoga, though, let me look around for joint operations with Victorious information and get back. I think I've gone down that road before and there's scant available, but it won't hurt to look again.

Rich


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 3, 2005)

Ok all , Flyboy the two flat tops at Pearl were great, it also lets you know how deep that water at the dock is and the size f the space, to hod them side by side. 

Question: is one backed in, because the two islands are side bye side?

Here is a thought the RN contracts British firms for the ships and US bassed fo the planes. I read over the planned carriers they look interesting, two islands, and still the sky jump deck. But why are they not nukular powered, or did I miss that? The site listed sounded like the ships were only able to hold fuel, food, and the like for a week or so? I will be surprised if both make it to commission. But for the USN USS Ronald Regan, (great name for a Capital Ship), is almost ready for full service.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Ok all , Flyboy the two flat tops at Pearl were great, it also lets you know how deep that water at the dock is and the size f the space, to hod them side by side.
> 
> Question: is one backed in, because the two islands are side bye side?



Yep - one is backed in so they were able to fit in the docking area. I guess when they were being docked the whole process really perplexed those doing it!


----------



## trackend (Jun 3, 2005)

They havn't got the dosh for the nuclear power plants MP and I think there may also be some political manouvering going on behind the scenes.


----------



## Glider (Jun 3, 2005)

Just a thought but is there any point in having nuclear carrier, if the escort isn't. After all the supply ships will still need to go with the fleet.


----------



## trackend (Jun 4, 2005)

I think the idea Glider is that the carrier can be kept in the theater for extended periods as even the USN as not got a large number of super carriers so rotating them is a big problem where as changing the escorts
can be done relatively easily


----------



## Glider (Jun 4, 2005)

Trackend, Could be certainly, but there is more to keeping a ship on station than just having fuel. Either way I don't think we have had any major problems using conventional power. It was just a thought that I had.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 4, 2005)

Many of the US escort ships are nuclear too. Not all, but many of them. This doesn't include the supply ships, but they and any rotating escorts can certainly keep the primary units (carriers) on station almost indefinitely if required. Even crew change outs aren't unheard of.

Even if the carrier is conventionally powered, supply ships rotate all the time.


----------



## trackend (Jun 4, 2005)

I didnt know that Skim as I don't follow the USN fleet very closely
Shows you just how much money they spend on defence dont it.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 6, 2005)

Yes, we like our ships, and will fight even harder for our shipyards. One of the few yards left to work on 688 class subs is on the "Base closer list" 

Tracked that is a strange avitar

Carriers can if needed carry fuel and stocks for the task force for a short time.


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2005)

I hope you succeed MP in keeping the yard open as much for the jobs of the dockyard works as for anything the UK ship industry is virtually gone out of exsistance. I think the two planned RN carriers are going to be built in France, unbelievable.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 6, 2005)

That's really too bad, tracks.  
I mean that sort of nonsense has been going on here in Canada for years, but when the UK starts getting to the point where they _have_ to contract foreign companies for military contracts, I take it as a bad sign indeed.


----------



## maxs75 (Jun 7, 2005)

> On the subject of Saratoga, though, let me look around for joint operations with Victorious information and get back. I think I've gone down that road before and there's scant available, but it won't hurt to look again.



Thanks very much. I'm looking forward for your post.

Max


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 8, 2005)

Tracked, yes, that is bad. But sadder more is that the great tradition of ships and the RN is well not doing well. The aircraft I can understand, but if it is true that the two fleet carriers are really not going to be built at one of the fine and few remaining yards in Britten then well we should have a memorial for the RN


----------



## trackend (Jun 8, 2005)

I find it hard to believe. I know the UK is not in the same league as USA monetarily but its still a member of the G8 for Christ sake


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 8, 2005)

So is Canada, so that means nothing I'm afraid mate.


----------



## Andrew (Jun 10, 2005)

R Leonard Quoted


> On the subject of Saratoga, though, let me look around for joint operations with Victorious information and get back. I think I've gone down that road before and there's scant available, but it won't hurt to look again.



Maxs75 Quoted 


> Thanks very much. I'm looking forward for your post.



20th December 1942 HMS Victorious set sail for Pearl Harbour

Thursday 4th March 1943 HMS Victorious arrived at Pearl Harbour, and became a unit of the US Pacific Fleet, she was known as USS Robin

Saturday 8th May Victorious set sail from Pearl Harbour with the Battleship USS North Carolina and the Destroyers USS Smith, Pringle Case. she had on board 16 Avengers of of 832 Squadron 36 Martletts of 882, 896 898 Squadrons.

17th May she arrived at the French Island of New Caledonia, 

18th May set sail with the other units of task force 14 including the Battleships USS Massachusetts Indiana, the Cruiser USS San Juan the Aircraft carrier USS Saratoga. This was to intercept a Japanese force approaching the Coral Sea, but the force turned back to New Calenonia on the 20th May, as the Japanese force had turned around, arriving at New Caledonia on the 25th May

27th June The Task Group 36.3 HMS Victorious USS Saratoga with various other ships set sail to support the landings on New Georgia of the Solomon Islands, they arrived off New Georgia in the early hours of 30th June. The 2 Carriers opperating aircraft at a distance of 150 Miles off shore, after succesfully supporting the landings both Carriers returned to New Caledonia on the 21st July, during the return voyage both Carriers operated each others aircraft, anchoring on the 25th July.

Thursday 12th August she set sail for Pearl Harbour home as the new Essex Independance class Carriers were being commisioned, HMS Victorious arrived back in the UK on the 26th September.

This is just basic info as she did a lot of training on American Aircraft Carrier operating techniques, and also had to have her gun sponsons removed and replaced for her passage through the Panama Canal.

    

source HMS Victorious 1937 to 1969 Neil McCart 
ISBN Number 1 901225 01 1


----------



## maxs75 (Jun 11, 2005)

Thank You Andrew.
Is it possible to have additional infos about the air operation for the New Georgia landings. Did Saratoga and Victorious exchanged their planes only on the way back to Noumea? Adn did they operated CONTINOUSLY for almost a month? It would have been a very large amount of time for that period.

Max


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 11, 2005)

Just as a side note, the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle is here in Halifax for the weekend.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

nice to see the french carriers out and doing something..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

Them carriers are French...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

yes CC, well done


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

Well done to you for finding the edit button as well


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

thank you........


----------



## Andrew (Jun 13, 2005)

maxs75 said:


> Thank You Andrew.
> Is it possible to have additional infos about the air operation for the New Georgia landings. Did Saratoga and Victorious exchanged their planes only on the way back to Noumea? Adn did they operated CONTINOUSLY for almost a month? It would have been a very large amount of time for that period.
> 
> Max



Both HMS Victorious USS Saratoga cross operated their aircraft on the 16th June which was before the landings in New Georgia. The book states that they operated for 28 days in the target area by day well into the night .


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 13, 2005)

Andrew thanks. I never really read up on the RN carriers that early in S uperations. Did the Victorious go on to convoy work over the atlantic? That would have been a nice convoy to ride in?

Nonskimmer, the French carrier looks a lot different then the USN designs, I gess it is the island, so tall and square


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 13, 2005)

It's not the shape so much as the location. It's situated much further forward than on the US carriers.

Here's a better pic.


----------



## Andrew (Jun 14, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Andrew thanks. I never really read up on the RN carriers that early in S uperations. Did the Victorious go on to convoy work over the atlantic? That would have been a nice convoy to ride in?



The book just states that HMS Victorious left Norfolk Virginnia on the 16th September and arrived in Liverpool 10 days later, there is no mention about convoy work.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 15, 2005)

Well thanks again for looking it up.

Nonskimmer, that is a nice picture. I did not realize that the harbor was that deep. Are the planes on the deck MirageIIIs?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 15, 2005)

The planes are Rafales. Halifax Harbour is the second deepest natural harbour in the world, after Sydney, Australia. We get the occasional US carrier in here too, but not that often.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2005)

That's the understandable, the U.S don't want to upset you military folk by showing them a real military.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 16, 2005)

That just gets funnier everytime I hear it.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2005)

Ahaha, sorry. No one else is giving me anything to work with so I have to resort to Canada. It's sad though because what your country is now, with military, is what our country is quickly becoming. Britain the country that OWNED you!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 16, 2005)

It's a shame alright. As for the Britain owning us thing, it's not like I'm ashamed of it or anything. Why should I be? Hell, Britain owned just about everybody at one time or another. 
We still call Liz our queen too, so _in a way_ Britain still owns us I guess. 
You could say you're like our estranged parents. So with that in mind, can I have my allowance now? Huh? Can I?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2005)

No you can't but you can know that out of all Britain's children, Canada and New Zealand we loved most. We probably have owned at least some parts of everybodies country. We owned all of France at one point.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

at our peak we covered 1/3 of the globe, and we've even had part of russia.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

Have we ever had any of Italy?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> We owned all of France at one point.



Are you sure you want to admit to that?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

Yeah, its not something to be proud of


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2005)

Why isn't it? The time we owned France they were considered a strength in the world, hard to believe, eh? Henry VI - King of England and France. 
And Britain owned Sicily for sometime. We also captured a lot of Italian owned land in Africa during World War II like Libya and Abyssinia.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 18, 2005)

And there were British carriers in and out of the Med all the while.
Sorry, just trying to bring a little of the topic matter back to the conversation. 

Sometimes I hate having to be semi-responsible. Oy!


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 20, 2005)

The World was England or there about! Now if the Royal Navy could have the fleet like the USN, or maybe they can go get some slightly used russian stuff and take back the seas!


----------



## trackend (Jun 20, 2005)

I think we are reduced too 2 guys in a row boat with a BB gun at the moment MP ,we'd have trouble ruling a duck pond, in fact if Constables Haywain was around it would be commandered for coastal patrol


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 23, 2005)

plan_D said:


> No you can't but you can know that out of all Britain's children, Canada and New Zealand we loved most.




So does that make us Aussie's the Black sheep of the family?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2005)

Trakie said:


> I think we are reduced too 2 guys in a row boat with a BB gun at the moment MP ,we'd have trouble ruling a duck pond, in fact if Constables Haywain was around it would be commandered for coastal patrol



hey, we still have a strong and powerfull navy


----------



## Glider (Jun 24, 2005)

Sorry Lanc but I beg to differ. We have carriers without any fighters to defend them, and more admirals than ships.
The ships we have are as good as the best but so few. The largest ship in the fleet is an assult landing ship and we only have one of those.

Not good


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 24, 2005)

It is sad that a great and pround Navy is now just a shred of its formor self


----------



## trackend (Jun 24, 2005)

The only thing in our navy lanc that has any clout is our nuclear subs but they are just covert missile launching platforms and separate from the rest of the fleet. 
Our requirements are not the same as when the UK had an empire and gunboat diplomacy was an essential part of maintaining our power but there is a need for at least one super carrier like the Nimitz class these give a nation the ability to place a powerful air component anywhere in the world without having to have a land based infrastructure.
The US super carriers operate with impunity where ever it is deemed necessary and I believe we should have one to A. protect our own interests and B. to support our allies when our government commits to such an action. I would say that the modern Super carrier is the single most powerful conventional weapon at any nations disposal.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2005)

hey, we're getting two yes that's TWO in 2012


----------



## trackend (Jun 25, 2005)

They still aint super carriers lanc. and it looks like there gona be French made sacrebleu!!!!


----------



## Glider (Jun 25, 2005)

Lanc, I should also remind you that they haven't been ordered yet. Young Blair keeps repeating his anouncements but he hasn't signed any contracts.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2005)

you gys should order a Royal Navy promotional video.....


----------



## Glider (Jun 26, 2005)

Unfortunately we don't go to war on what is in a promotional video. You go with what you have.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you gys should order a Royal Navy promotional video.....



I ordered an Army Engineers DVD...

Should be here tomorrow, along with my Fw-190 DVD 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2005)

CC there's a better chance of me joining the USAF than there is of you joining the royal army.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 26, 2005)

I know, I just want the DVD  Its free, so why not have it?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2005)

well i can't owing to a lack of DVD player........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 26, 2005)

Then get the free video.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2005)

i can't, i haven't got the free leaflet.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 26, 2005)

Then get it from the Army Website


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2005)

you get it!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 26, 2005)

I cant, they wont send me another one because ive already sent off for one!


----------



## trackend (Jun 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> CC there's a better chance of me joining the USAF than there is of you joining the royal army.........


Since when has the army been royal lanc


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2005)

it's always been the Royal Army, it's the army of the queen, as such it's a Royal Army.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 26, 2005)

Ive never hear it referred to as the Royal Army before...Just the British Army...


----------



## red admiral (Jun 28, 2005)

There is no such thing as the Royal Army. Royal Artillery and other Royal Regiments but not the entire army. It stems back to the civil war, yes we did have one a long time ago. Royalty does not sponsor something that commits regicide.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

It's the Army Corps, not Royal Army.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 30, 2005)

I would hope the RN dose order at least one of the carriers, even if they are not the supper carrier Numits class. But here is an idea, why not ask for the new Nimitiz carrier being layed down for the USN, the Goerge W. Bush


----------



## Glider (Jun 30, 2005)

We wouldn't have enough sailors to man it.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 1, 2005)

Glinder, then that is a good reason to make a bigger Navy. The RN wonce spanned the globe in Every sea and ocean a fleet in force


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2005)

MP, I am ex Fleet Air Arm and assure you that it hurts when I think what we used to be able to do. Obviously we couldn't compare to the USN but in quality size for size, we were second to no one.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

In World War 2 the Royal Navy almost matched the USN in size at the end. At the start, the Royal Navy was larger. With the Commonwealth too, we were only one or two warships off the size of the USN. 

The days have gone when Naval supremecy meant global supremecy though. The Royal Navy doesn't need to be huge, Britain's day as world leader have been and gone. Now, we sit back and keep our say but leave the major trouble to the top dogs, America!


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2005)

I am afraid that we were nowhere near the size of the USN at the end of the war. To match the USN you would have had to combine the British, Japanese, Italian and German fleets, excluding all the losses.

But I agree with you in that our days are long gone.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

The USN only had 405 warships on V-E day. The combined Commonwealth had something like 397.


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2005)

I don't know where your numbers come from but they had over 
25 Battleships
59 Cruisers
26 Fleet carriers
65 escort carriers
Of the above I have excluded any vessel sunk during the war or transferred to the RN
Of destroyers life is too short but they built about 
175 Fletcher Class destroyers
70 Bristol Class
24 Benson Class
70 Summer Class
This excludes all the Pre war destroyers of which 199 were in commission at the start of the war and destroyer escorts built in vast numbers

The RN didn't come close


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

Warships, Glider, not capital ships only.


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2005)

Plan D The total above comes out to over 700 without going down to escorts. I doubt if the USA lost almost half their navy to get it down to 405. 
As I said the RN didn't come close


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

Strength as of September, 1939 - 332. Comissioned to August, 1945 - 553. Total in service - 885 (without escort). 

In service includes:
20 Capital vessels. 
65 Carriers. 
101 Cruisers. 
461 Destroyers. 
238 Submarines. 

Note: Total in service includes captured vessels and U.S lend lease, which was sent back. 

Warship does include all vessels with offensive capability. The numbers I got didn't include Destroyers.


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2005)

Sorry but my figures don't agree with yours. I would like to check my sources, can you tell me where your figures are from. 
I make it that during the war we only built about 30 cruisers and half of these were Dido AA cruisers. That said we started the war with more cruisers the USN basically having none in 1939
We also only built approx 140 destroyers during the war less than half the USA production and 13 Fleet carriers again less than half the USA production.

My guess is that the term destroyers includes the escorts for the RN and not for the USN.

If you could assist me in checking the details it would be appreciated


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2005)

It's not very well laid out but it's in here somewhere:

http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1939-45RN.htm


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2005)

Thanks, Apologies for the delay but my computer had problems


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 5, 2005)

Glider, I destroyer's life is not that short is it? Or maybe it is the captins like to play a lot more risks, like driving up to a beach to near beaching the boat so they can fire in support of the Marines


----------



## maxs75 (Jan 18, 2006)

Hi guys,

In no way Royal Navy was as powerful as United States Navy at the end of WW2. May we speak about Carriers, Convoy escorts, fleet oilers or LSTs? Or about embarked fighters?

Royal Navy was for sure the first Navy in the World in 1939 at war's start, but not for sure in september 1945.
Even if the lend-lease ships (LSTs, CVEs, DEs...) are counted as British, RN was still smaller than USN.


Max


----------



## Glider (Jan 18, 2006)

I am not disagreeing with you, my posting was to emphasise the difference between the two Navies.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 18, 2006)

Glider said:


> .....That said we started the war with more cruisers the USN basically having none in 1939
> ......



I show the USN had 18 heavy cruisers and 9 light cruisers in commision by 1940. All of them were considered modern having been commisoned from 1929 through 1940.

27 cruisers is far from "none"


----------



## Glider (Jan 19, 2006)

Apologies I was thinking of the Light Cruisers. I know you had a handful but they (Omaha class) were more like WW1 ships.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 19, 2006)

The US had seven BROOKLYN class light cruisers and two ST. LOUIS Class light cruisers (which were more or less BROOKLYN cruisers).

Aside for a couple of old Omaha cruisers stationed in the Philipines at the outbreak of hostilities, I dont think this class saw any action.


----------



## Glider (Jan 19, 2006)

The definition of Light and Heavy Cruisers is always a fun debate. I admit that most books quote 6in or less and you are a light cruiser, 8 in or more and you are a heavy.

However this throw up all sorts of anomalies. 
To call a 10,000 ton Brooklyn with 15 x 6in guns, 8 x 5in and 5 inches of Armour on Belt and Turrets, more in places, a Light Cruiser
and a 8,200 ton Exeter with 6 x 8in, 4 x 4in and a paltry 3 inches of armour and 2 inches on the Turrets a Heavy Cruiser is misleading to say the least.
The Brooklyn will penetrate the Exeter almost every time and stand an excellent chance of not being damaged by the Exeter.

In debates I used to take part in we used to say that
Light is Taken to be less than 6,500 tons
Medium 6,500 to 9,000 tons
Heavy 9,000 plus

Using this process 
light covered the ex WW1 cruisers, Modern AA cruisers such as Dido and Atlanta/Oakland and Italian ships
Medium covered most of the late 30's and smaller WW2 new build cruisers such as the Exeter, Leander, and others armed with about 8-9 x 6in or 6x8in. 
Heavy Cruisers were just that 8-10 x 8in or 12-15 x 6in armed cruisers.

If you wish to stick with the traditional definition, then I do not argue and agree with you. 
However you should remember that you are putting the Cleveland and Brooklyn with their massive 6 in Gun batteries and thick armour in the same category as the Atlanta with its 5in Guns and armour that was little more than splinter proof. 

I hope that explains the logic behind the definitions that I am using.


----------



## maxs75 (Jan 20, 2006)

They did! 
Omaha, Cincinnati and Marblehead were involved in southern France landing, and some others made some shore bombardment in the Pacific ocean.

Max


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 20, 2006)

The Atlanta class cruisers were designed for AA defense. They were more a "large" destroyer more than anything else.


----------



## Glider (Jan 20, 2006)

Thats why we called them light cruisers, as with the British Dido class they were considerably larger than a destroyer and had armour protection over vitals so you couldn't call them a destroyer.
Designers at the time were highly skilled at getting a lot out of a small displacement. The British Arethsa class weighed less than an Atlanta but had 6 x 6in and 8 x 4in and there are other examples such as the French Mogador class which they called a destroyer but carried 8 x 5.5, they were also considered to be light cruisers in the classification that we used.

At least these had a common basis i.e. their size. The weapons and systems carried tended to cary according to their role. The Atlanta and Dido were aa cruisers. The Arethusa designed to go after raiders. The Mogador was a shorter range vessel of great spead designed to hit hard and get away. Generally ex WW1 light vruisers were used to go after merchant raiders or were converted to AA vessels.

It made more sense than putting an ex WW1 Light cruiser in the same category as a Brooklyn. At least I have tried explained why my initial statement was that the USA basically didn't have any light cruisers at the start of the war.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 20, 2006)

I like to go with the traditional classification.

8" guns = Heavy Cruiser
6" guns = Light Cruiser
5" guns = Destroyer


----------



## Glider (Jan 21, 2006)

As I said before, if you insist on sticking to the traditional definition then I wouldn't argue but in view of the obvious anomalies can I ask Why?

The French had a good number of 5.5in armed destroyers can I ask where you would put these?

Finally the Japanese Heavy cruisers were originally armed with 15 x 6in and then rearmed with 10 x 8in. Light before the refit and heavy afterwards, just food for thought.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

I have to go with syscom here. This is just off my own opinion but I go with syscoms system here, except for maybe the Destroyers because there were light cruisers with 5 in turrets as well.


----------



## Glider (Jan 22, 2006)

Fair enough. As I said, I was explaining the logic behind the descriptions that I was using, but if people wanted to stick with the older traditional descriptions with all their anomalies then I wouldn't argue.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 22, 2006)

Part of it was also the armor ratings of the ships.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 23, 2006)

So now how would we get back to aircraft? Or really Carriers?

AS for classification of crussiers, the number and size of guns are important but also the total displacement. 

Also any one know the ships that tookplace in operation "Anvill"? This is I think the invation of Sothern France.


----------



## R Leonard (Jan 23, 2006)

No, we can't get back to carriers until I can get my 2¢ on cruisers . . .

Telling heavy cruisers from light cruisers is not all that difficult, in fact, the difference was spelled out in the 1930 London Naval Treaty:

INTERNATIONAL TREATY FOR THE LIMITATION AND REDUCTION OF NAVAL ARMAMENT, 1930 
. . . 

Article 15 

For the purpose of this Part III the definition of the cruiser and destroyer categories shall be as follows: 
Cruisers 
Surface vessels of war, other than capital ships or aircraft carriers, the standard displacement of which exceeds 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), or with a gun above 5.1 inch (130 mm) calibre.

The cruiser category is divided into two sub-categories, as follows: 
(a) Cruisers carrying a gun above 6.1 inch (155 mm) calibre; 
(b) Cruisers carrying a gun not above 6.1 inch (155 mm) calibre. 
Destroyers 
Surface vessels of war the standard displacement of which does not exceed 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), and with a gun not above 5.1 inch (130 mm) calibre.

. . .

Thus heavy cruisers had guns greater than 6.1 and light cruisers had guns greater 5.1 and both were greater than 1850 tons displacement.

Where there is some confusion is why US heavy cruisers were designated CA and light cruisers were CL. Well, we can dispense with the CL simply by saying it stands for Cruiser, Light, which, of course it does. This nomenclature stemmed from when the USN first adopted letter designation hull numbering system in 1920. In establishing the system, scouting cruisers re-named light cruisers. The folklore was that BuShips was determined that no USN ship would be designated CS, as in “cruiser, scouting”, so scouting became light. With the treaty in 1930, it just so happened that the CLs fit neatly into the light cruiser category. CA as a hull designation for heavy cruisers goes back to the first USN cruisers which were known as Armored Cruisers. This in 1920, at the same time they created the CL hull designation for light cruisers, heavy cruisers became CA, for Cruiser, Armored. Truth be known, actually there were Cruisers and Light Cruisers, “Heavy” was something that just crept into the nomenclature over time . . . obviously, if you had a "Light" cruiser, then the bigger one must be "Heavy."

You may now discuss a much better topic: Carriers

Regards,

Rich


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2006)

Thanks for the info there.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 24, 2006)

Good stuff R Leonard!


----------



## Glider (Jan 24, 2006)

Damn, thats where I have been going wrong all these years. All those scores of Fletcher destroyers were really cruisers all the time.
Japs didn't stand a chance going against cruisers in destroyers.

Seriously its interesting stuff and shows how the world moved on from 1930


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 26, 2006)

thanks for the help, I was just trying to keep us close to the topic.

So group, if we have this cruisers stuff sorted out how much firepower is needed to protect our Cariers?

Say for Tran atlantic and Pasific crossings in Spring of 1943 or so.
Was there a major differance in the group make up between the two oceans? If so why?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2006)

Carrier's are not intended to fight ship-ship in surface engagements, so cruisers with lots of AA guns would be the most usefull.

The difference between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans is the vast ranges in the Pacific dictate that ships with a large radius of action would be the most logical choice.


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2006)

Anyone would think that the USA first thought of the AA Cruiser


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2006)

MP-Willow said:


> So group, if we have this cruisers stuff sorted out how much firepower is needed to protect our Cariers?



The awnser to this one is easy. Just as much as you could carry.

Escorting BB's were also a help if for no other reason that they tended to attract incoming bombers and were generally big enough to take the hits without suffering too much. The fact that they also carried a lot of AA gear and just as importantly made for a stable gun platform didn't do any harm.

As for the Atlantic vs Pacific the threats couldn't have been more different. In the Atlantic any escort should be biased against submarines, in the Pacific against aircraft for the obvious reason that the Germans didn't have any carriers or aircraft to operate from them, and the Japenese Submarine fleet achieved very little.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Carrier's are not intended to fight ship-ship in surface engagements, so cruisers with lots of AA guns would be the most usefull.
> 
> The difference between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans is the vast ranges in the Pacific dictate that ships with a large radius of action would be the most logical choice.



Agreed because just about all Carrier engagments are fought with the enemey never seeing each others carriers. They fight each other with there aircraft. The best thing would be Anti Aircraft ships to help defend the Flat Tops and ASW ships.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 30, 2006)

thanks all, the Japs really missed out if they could have used the subs even a little like the Germans or us, that would have made for some big problums.

What do youi all think?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2006)

The IJN submarine doctrine was to use the submarine fleets to support the main fleet. It never occured to them to attack allied cargo, transports and oilers.

The IJN HQ was also a dismal failure in the operations and control of the sub fleet. Micro managing them and sending them on predictable courses and having them waste time hauling supplies. After the sinking of the USS Wasp in 1942, there was hardly one victory worth mentioning. A whole fleet of submarines with nothing to show for it.

The whole IJN submarine history can be summed up in one word..."failure".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Wasn't the Indianapolis sunk by a IJN Sub?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 4, 2006)

Yes. Unfortunatly for the IJN, it was the only notable success in two years of sub warfare


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 4, 2006)

But what it could have been. Think the IJN subs could have stayed around Pearl found the Carriers and just maybe sunk one, or hassle the fleet and repairs might have been longer 

I know that is all I strech but I agree that when compaired to the other major Sea powers the IJN's use of subs was poorly exicuted.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

They did send subs around Pearl. The small midget subs, but that was just dumb anyhow and did not accomplish anything.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

If they had sent a wolf pack to operate off of Panama and the US west coast, they might have really accomplished something.

Even operating off of southern part of Baja California, they could have cut the sea lanes between the US and Panama for several months.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

I wonder why they did not think of the same tactics like the Germans did with there U-Boots.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 5, 2006)

No one really did, the idea of a 'Wolfpack' was revolutionary and excellent. I believe the Germans told the IJN to use their submarines in the same way, but they would not listen. 

I think the British and Americans did use submarines effectively in the PTO and MTO. I don't know how they were used though, except that they were against cargo vessels.


----------



## Glider (Feb 5, 2006)

I understand that it was down to the culture. The Japenese didn't consider fighting against merchant shipping was for want of a better word, worthy of a fighting soldier.
The Japenese were aware of the tactics as the Germans were pushing them to attack supply vessels but the Japenese didn't want to know.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 5, 2006)

They also used them against warships. One of the more famous usages by the US was the very beginning of the battle of the Leyte Gulf, in the Palawan Passage, by the subs the Darter and the Dace. Here is an excerpt from one of my articles:


> The Center Force, Led by Admiral Kurita left Brunei on October 22, 1944, heading towards the Philippines. To conserve fuel he traveled through the Palawan Passage, a narrow, shallow body of water Northeast of Palawan Island. From there, his path was through the Sibuyan Sea and San Bernardino Strait into the Leyte Gulf.
> 
> The American submarines, Darter and Dace had taken up position near the Palawan Passage on October 20, to guard against any Japanese ships that may come from that direction. At 12:23 AM on October 23, while traveling southwest towards the Balabac Strait, the radar in the Darter made initial contact with Kurita’s Group. The Darter’s commander, David McClintock was a bit surprised as they showed up on the bridge repeater screen. The size of the force was an even bigger surprise. The Americans confirmed the presence of 5 battleships, 10 heavy cruisers, and 2 light cruisers. 12 to 14 destroyers screened the convoy’s flanks and center, all moving at 16 knots. What did not make sense to McClintock is why the convoy was not zig-zagging, not knowing that the Japanese were trying to conserve precious fuel.
> 
> ...


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

The US submarine force was used with little imagination in the first 2 years of the war.

Some junior officers readily saw the choke points existing between the PI and Formosa and wanted to spend their patrols concentrated there instead of wasting time patrolling ports that may or may not have shipping, and were covered by land based patrol planes.

Untill 1944, the whole story of the US submaine force is one of bravery, but of little to show for it. Most of this was due to the faulty torpedo's, but a good measure of blame can also be thrown at the admirals who deployed them with little imagination, and were prone to blame them (the skippers) for the high commands failures.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 5, 2006)

Undoubtly. But they also had some brilliant tactician minds in their submarine fleet. I thought the one who invented the B-25 raids was one of them. So they had a decent horizon, not ignoring the other arms, this speaks for themselves.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

Once the "peacetime thinking" skippers were purged from the ranks, the performance of the sub fleet began to improve.

Too often though, when their patrols were critiqued by the admirals, the skippers were faulted for anything. If they followed the "fleet doctrine", they were criticised for not being aggressive or showing intiative. If they used their initiative, they were criticised for putting their boat and crew at risk. If they fired three torpedo's at a traget, they were condemned for wasting torpedo's. If they fired two torpedo's, they were condemned for not shooting enough to ensure a kill.

It wasnt untill 1943 that some of the finer skippers were promoted to the admirals staffs and realistically critiqed the patrols. Morale began to improve when this occured.

Its also amazing that Admirals King and Nimitz tolerated this crap for as long as they did.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 6, 2006)

This sounds like a very uncomfortable situation. I wasn´t aware of such unsimilarities in tactical thinking, compared to Dönitz and his skippers...


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 11, 2006)

I liked the artical evenglider. dance and Dart nice name for a sub. A subs life is so much of a dance. Two crews on one boat, that I hope was a short trip.

The US should have been more like the Wolfpacks, as they were in the europe first mode, the subs could do a good job holding the japs off or confuse them a lot.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 11, 2006)

Heres a colorfull poem written by the torpedo officer of the USS Sargo, Doug Rhymes.

This was written about April 1942, when the sub fleet was awash with cautious "peacetime" skippers.

The captain is a rugged guy
with hair upon his chest.
O'er a glass of beer in peacetime
He's at his fighting best

He scorns far distant danger
With a scornful, scornful leer.
And never runs for cover
When everything is clear

He swings around the periscope
With firm and steady hands;
When the ship is unescorted
He has no fear of cans.

In eyes so gray and piercing
There shines a reckless gleam.
As he takes a sip of coffee
And adds a little cream.

With conversational courage
He talks a fearless fight.
He's a rough tough hombre,
When nothing is in sight.

All hazards of navigation
Cause him no loss of sleep.
He cruises along most calmly
In water one mile deep.

Hi snerves are surely made of steel,
Hi voice has a confident sound, 
And he never gets excited
When danger's not around.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 12, 2006)

Heres another great poem written by Art Taylor, a fine and agressive skipper of the USS Haddock. He had something to saya bout the morons on staff who commanded and critiqued the subs force in the Pacific.

This was written about Aug or Sept 1942.

"Squat Div 1"

Theyre on their duff from morn till nite;
Theyre never wrong, theyre always right;
To hear them talk theyre in the fight -
Oh, yeah?

A boat comes in off a patrol,
The skipper tallies up the toll
And writes it up for all concerned.
He feels right proud of the job hes done,
But the staffies say he shoulda used his gun!
Three fish for a ship of two score ton?
Outrageous! He should have used but one!
A tanker sunk in smoke and flame - 
But hes still wide open for blame.
His fish were set for twenty right - 
That proves he didnt want to fight!
Oh, yeah?

The freighter he sunk settled by the stern - 
With depth set right she'd split in two!
So tell me, what is the skipper to do?
He's on the spot and doing his best,
But thats not enough by the acid test.
The staff must analyze his case
And pick it apart to save their face.
Just because you sink some ships
Doesnt mean you win the chips -
You've got to do it according to plan;
Otherwise youre on the frying pan!

So heres to the staff with work so tough
In writing their endorsement gruff - 
Whether the war is lost or won
Depends entirely on "Squat Div One"
Oh, Yeah?


----------



## Glider (Feb 12, 2006)

I wonder if Art ever put these into a book, I would be the first in the queue to place an order


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 12, 2006)

The poems were put into the excellent 2 volume series about the US sub war in WW2

"Undersea Victory" by Clay Blair Jr.


----------



## Glider (Feb 12, 2006)

Thanks, That I will ahve to try to find


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 15, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Yes. Unfortunatly for the IJN, it was the only notable success in two years of sub warfare



What about the Yorktown. I know that she was damaged but still.

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 15, 2006)

I presume youre talking about the Yorktown sinking at Midway. That was in 1942.

It was in 1944 and 1945 that the IJN submarines simply stopped being a threat.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 17, 2006)

Agreed. But I would even venture that even by late '43 they were not a threat.

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 17, 2006)

Still, and this is going back several pages, while the RN did come up with many of the inventions and concepts of carrier warfare and hardware, even with its wooden decks, the Essex class carrier was the Cadillac of carriers. I think I argued this point on another list, the efficiency of the of the USN to launch strikes was second to none and they did have the best naval aircraft of the war.

Still it would have been interesting to see how US carrier groups would have fared against the Luftwaffe in the crampt surroundings of the Channel and the Med. And I am talking the USN of '44.

:{)


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 17, 2006)

WEll they did operate in the Med going to Malta and did well survived, but did lose one escort carrier I think. If they were to send groups in by 1944 I think that the USN could have made the Med their own pond and the Channel would still be hard, with the rockets and things. But the USN in the Med was in operation Anvil the invasion of Southern France.


----------



## Glider (Feb 18, 2006)

Personal view, I that the USN of 1944 could take on all comers with a good chance of winning. The main danger would be of course of a hit on the flight deck leaving you close to the enemy shore and unable to operate your aircraft. 
Submarines would also be a larger danger as would MTB's or E boats at night. These were not an issue in the Pacific


----------



## delcyros (Feb 18, 2006)

I can confirm. In the med or Channel they would have no surface fleet opposition and the US task forces were carefully operating, always keeping a good numerical advantage (it´s war, you don´t want a fair fight, you do want your boys getting in with the smallest possible losses). And since the RN deployed excellent anti submarine tactics and ECM (against guided bombs) as well, there truly is a favourable combat environment for them, especially in the med. The weathers of the channel are often a limiting factor for flight operations.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2006)

Quite simply, the channel is too confined for them to operate effectivly. The task force has to sail into the wind to launch and recover aircraft, and over a period an hour, at 30 knots, it would be traveling towards England and away from France.

Oerating in the North Sea or off of the maritime provences of France might be different.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 18, 2006)

This I didn´t factored correctly. You are right, Syscom.
North Sea wouldn´t be that good either... you may walk from Britain to the Low countries without getting a wet feet, so much mines were there...
But from the bay of Biscay or a little further in the Atlantic, that would be good operation evironment for US CVA.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 18, 2006)

MP-Willow said:


> WEll they did operate in the Med going to Malta and did well survived, but did lose one escort carrier I think. If they were to send groups in by 1944 I think that the USN could have made the Med their own pond and the Channel would still be hard, with the rockets and things. But the USN in the Med was in operation Anvil the invasion of Southern France.



I actually meant the big Essex class carriers. I know the USN operated carriers in the Med but none of them by 43-44 were fleet carriers. I am also aware that the Wasp delivered aicraft to Malta. I was just wondering how much more effective amphib ops in the Med would have been if a task force centered around Essex class carriers would have been. Also I would also surmise that, for example Omaha, may have been less of a hell hole if carrier dive bombers were able to supress positions above the beach.

My whole point is that if these types of operations were done like many of Amphib ops in the pacific I would venture to say, while not cake walks they would have been smoother.

:{)


----------



## plan_D (Feb 18, 2006)

Why use aircraft carriers in the carrier? There's one big one already there called The United Kingdom of Great Britain, and it can house, hold and launch more aircraft than any U.S Admiral could ever dream of on his aircraft carrier. It's always easier to find ...


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 18, 2006)

But I will argue that the mission of aircraft out of England, for example, would have been to not nessesarily to carry out strikes in close support to the assault troops but to isolate the beach heads from the interior. I am not saying that the USAAF and the RAF could have not been trained in this job, and they were when the Allies were racing across France. So my point is this, and yes they could have been stationed in England, carrier dive bombers such as the SBD or the Helldiver, would have been a lot more effective in supressing the German defenses on June 6 than heavies or off shore bombardment. 

I guess my whole argument, and its something that has been bugging me since time memorial, is that it seemed to me that the OVERLORD planners seemed to have igonored the lessons that the USN/USMC learned in the Pacific by 44. For example Omaha and Tarawa had so many things in common. Just ranting I guess.

:{)


----------



## plan_D (Feb 18, 2006)

Are you saying that the European air forces did not operate close support missions? You couldn't be more mistaken if you believe that. And no Pacific landing was anything like the Normandy invasion. Size alone makes that point mute. And the weather. And the opponent. And the situation. 

Come on, be real, if you wanted these Carrier aircraft you could have just operated them from ground strips in England. But why bother? The USAAF and RAF had CAS able aircraft along with their tactical and strategic bombers.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2006)

I agree. The usage of aircraft carriers in the Normandy campaign would had added little.

Remember too, that aircraft carrier task forces need lots of cruisers and destroyers for escort duties. The escorts would have been far better employed in shore bombardment duties.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 19, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Are you saying that the European air forces did not operate close support missions? You couldn't be more mistaken if you believe that. And no Pacific landing was anything like the Normandy invasion. Size alone makes that point mute. And the weather. And the opponent. And the situation.
> 
> Come on, be real, if you wanted these Carrier aircraft you could have just operated them from ground strips in England. But why bother? The USAAF and RAF had CAS able aircraft along with their tactical and strategic bombers.



1st, read my post, I said the Allies did do close air support but once the allies were on French soil. 2nd, if you look at Okinawa, Leyte, and Iwo, thier scale was just as big as OVERLORD. In fact in number of ships, Okinawa was bigger than OVERLORD. 

Also heavies do not make good tactical aircraft especially if you have to knock out just one gun emplacment. Tarawa was an eye opener for the USN/USMC and by the time they attacked the Marshalls they were a machine. All I am saying is that if they would have applied some of the lessons of Tarawa, for example Omaha while not a cake walk would have been easier.

Here are some points:
1. Like I said SBDs and Helldivers over the beach, for the Allies had air supremacy, whould have been very effective. AA and AAA fire would have not been no worse than any heavily defended Japanese instalation. The Allies knew where each German bunker was, why not use tactical aircraft to kill these positions. Once in France the Allies called in aircraft closer than the distances would have been on the beach so attacking tactical aircraft could have feasably destroyed the positions as the assault troops were assembling and coming inbound. Also it can be argued that dive bombers would have been more accurate than lets say Typhoons and 'Bolts.

2. DD tanks were really a poor man's Amtrac/Alligator. Even at Omaha, if the 2 leading regiments of the 29th Division had landed in Amtrac/Alligators, thier losses may have been much lower, not to mention they also would have had armor on the beach in the form of Amtracs that had guns. Also don't tell me that German bunkers were harder than Japanese ones because in reality they were not. Japanese bunkers, if you read Robert Sherrod's Tarawa and Graham's Mantle of Heroism, the Pacific sun cured concrete to an incredible hardness. Also they would have been able to navigate over the shell holes that the shorts from the ships off shore and the misses from the "tactical" heavies.

3. Also the Navy in the Pacific realized that HE shells were useless against bunkers. In fact there are pics from Tarawa to Bogainville to Cape Glousester (Sp?) of BB HE shells just laying on the beach. But I will admit that at Tarawa AP shells were the same. Omaha for example, besides being saved literally by 16 individuals (Read Balkoski's Omaha Beach) many vets credit DDs from saving thier collective asses. So I again stress that Omaha may have not been the shambles it was if Amtracs and dive bombers had been used. 

But again all if this is REALLY what if stuff. As it was the COSSAC planners had enough problems securing C-47s and Higgins boats, much less getting the Marines to give up on thier precious Amtracs. Also I am sure the Navy would have given up squadrons worth of dive bombers (read sarcasm in this statement). Still in reading about D-Day it seems to me that the COSSAC planners in many cases ignored what was happening in the PTO and so the grunts had to pay this price.

:{)


----------



## plan_D (Feb 19, 2006)

You cannot compare any Pacific assault to OVERLORD. The scope of OVERLORD dwarved anything in the Pacific, from planning to execution. The weather, opponent, area and sea lanes were all completely different. 

Who said anything about "heavies" being used in the CAS role? The RAF and USAAF had plenty of tactical and dive bombers to do this job. The ground over which OVERLORD was fought was completely different to that in the Pacfic island hopping. It just plainly cannot be compared. 

Do you know how close the assaulting forces were to the German bunkers and positions? In the Pacific assaults it was known that the Japanese would allow the US Marines to assemble on the beach and only be attacked while moving inland. During OVERLORD the Germans attacked them on the beaches and in the sea. Any CAS would have been extremely close and dangerous to the inbound troops. That said, have you see any pictures of Point Du Hoc? 

Why use US Navy aircraft when you've got plenty of USAAF and RAF aircraft to do the job just as well if not better? There were few aircraft as accurate as a Mosquito in the bombing role, it could have just as easily bombed every single German bunker, not that it'd have destroyed them all. 

You do realise that no DD Shermans made it ashore on Omaha? That was one of the reasons the losses were so great. If the DD Shermans on that beach were let out later and made it ashore, there would have been less losses. 

Omaha was not a shambles, it was accepted from the outset that Omaha would suffer the most casualties. It was only a linking beach for Utah and the Commonwealth beaches. It was well known to be far from ideal. 

Japanese bunkers were tough? Did it take a Grand Slam or Tallboy to bring them down? No, it took a few 500 lbs bombs. The German bunkers could withstand 4000lbs landing on them and continous bombardment from ground and naval artillery fire. To put it lightly ...they were fucking tough!


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 19, 2006)

Yes I know that MANY of the DD tanks did not make it to Omaha. That was my argument for the Amtracs. And actually tanks did land on Omaha, that is one of the major myths about the beach. Of 741st Tank Batt company B, out of the 16, 5 made it to the beach. Of the 743rd, which the LCTs they were on took a chance because of the swells and did not launch thier DDs but brought them directly on to the beach. Out of 32 tanks all were landed on the beach with four being destroyed out right whien thier LCT was knocked out. Granted many of these tanks became prime targets but they still got on the beach.

Also Okinawa was larger by a lot than OVERLORD:

OVERLORD- 150,000 men, 284 ships, 570,000 tons of supplies for June 6th

AVALANCHE-183,000 MEN, 327 ships, 750,000 tons of supplies for April 1, 1945.

Also using a Tallboy or a Grandslam bomb on the beaches would have had drawbacks. 1- Advertize where the landings were therefore all the deception plans would have gone south. 2. to use these bombs on the morning of June 6 would have complicated the crater problem if the bomb missed. 3. Bad bomb for tactical cover.

Meduims and heavies can not do pinpoint attacks like were needed to kill bunkers. Only single seat tac aircraft could have done it. I never said 9th AF aircraft planes could have not done the job but all I was arguing was that dive bombers of who's ever airforce could have done a more accurate job.

Also lets take Tarawa, the DDs and Divebombers were shooting targets that were just as close than the grunts were to the German bunkers at Omaha. In fact on Easy Red, USN Destroyers were scraping thier keels to get at the bunkers. Sherrod and Graham talk in thier books of 16in shells bouncing off Japanese bunkers like "tennis balls". Ambrose, Ryan do tell about USN and RN cruisers knocking out bunkers with thier guns. In fact, in the last part of "The Longest Day" has a heart wrenching account of the last moments of a German position and how off shore guns killed most of the positions.

And the damage of Point Du Hoc was caused by heavies and and off shore bombardment.

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 19, 2006)

By DDs at Tarawa. I meant destroyers not tanks.

:{)


----------



## plan_D (Feb 19, 2006)

The seaborne invasion of Normandy was called Operation NEPTUNE. It used 6, 939 vessels of all types and landed 133,000 men from the sea. 

Operation AVALANCHE was the landings at Salerno and have nothing to do with this discussion. The invasion of Okinawa was called Operation ICEBERG. It involved approx. 1,300 vessels of all types. 365 of which were amphibious vessels. (NEPTUNE used 4,126)

I was not indicating that Grand Slams (which were not in operation June 6th 1944) or Tallboy bombs should be used. I was stating that they were really the only bombs capable of destroying some of the large German fortifications. Most, if not all, Japanese bunkers would collapse under a 4,000 lbs 'Cookie'. 

Point Du Hoc was attacked by B-26s (Not "heavies") of the 9th Air Force and the DDs USS Satterlee and HMS Talybont. The destroyers continued firing while the 2nd Ranger Battalion climbed the slopes.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2006)

I think youre right that if the Tallboys and cookies were used on Omaha beach, it might have collapsed quite a few bunkers and pillbox's.

Besides that, SHAEF completely ignored the recommendations and warnings from those officers with the Pacific invasion experiences...... namely they needed large guns at point blank range.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 19, 2006)

I'm sure a few Tallboys well placed would have done a lot of damage to the German defences. Which would have provided a great aid to the assault troops. But as I see it, Operation NEPTUNE was a complete success. 

Maybe some extra fire support from Cruisers and Battleships would have been nice. But what was used worked well. Remember that Omaha was the worst beach. The others suffered very little casaulties in comparison to most PTO landings and Omaha.

Utah - 200 (MIA - KIA)
Omaha - 3000 (MIA - KIA)
Juno - 1000 (MIA - KIA)
Gold - 400 (MIA - KIA)
Sword - 630 (MIA - KIA)

See? Not that bad!


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2006)

The situation on Omaha was so bad, that Gen Bradley considered withdrawing.

All the USN/RN had to do to prevent this debacle was to have had some cruisers or battleships up close and firing point blank at the pillbox's and bunkers as they were discovered.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 19, 2006)

All that was needed were a proper release of the DD Shermans, which would have given the troops the armour support that provided effective passage on the other beaches. The heaviest losses were expected on Omaha from day one, it was nothing of a shock to COSSAC. 

There was the idea to land all other waves on Utah beach, but thankfully they did not. That would have left Utah cut off, which is why Omaha was chosen in the first place. 

Possibly a few Battleships would have given the troops a greater chance. But let's be honest, a loss of 3,000 is not bad in comparison to the PTO operations.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 19, 2006)

I don't know where AVALANCHE came from.  Alzimers maybe, yes its ICEBURG. Maybe the whole snow subject got me all mixed up. The 6,000+ number for OVERLORD and its subplan NEPTUNE is if you include all of the LSTs, LCIs, DUWKs, rowboats, bamboo rafts, and so on and so forth. My numbers did not include these since I thought we were talking about ships LSTs and bigger. 

I will concede the point that the losses on June 6th were less compared to some PTO ops such as Tarawa but still more if you compare the landings done in the Marshalls and Leyte. But like syscom said COSSAC planners did not take into consideration the lessons of the PTO. I still will stick to my argument that if those lessons had been taken to heart, Omaha would have not been the blood bath it was.

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2006)

The Duplex Drive tanks were a gamble. They were known to be easily swamped in high seas, and they could easily be knocked out by the existing German guns.

Just having naval support at point blank range would have changed the situation on that beach. I would aslo say that converting some of the LST's or even destroyers to carry a battery of howitzers for close up indirect support would have helped things along on all of the beaches.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 19, 2006)

plan_D said:


> All that was needed were a proper release of the DD Shermans, which would have given the troops the armour support that provided effective passage on the other beaches.



In some of the other beaches the DDs worked pretty good. I read a German account where they did not recognize the DDs for what they were in the water, just as these canvas "bathtubs" I think was the adjective until they churned out of the water, down came the canvas, and OH  its a Sherman! Yes I know how many feel about the Sherman but my pucker factor would be high if I suddenly saw platoons of Shermans coming out of the water shooting 75mm shells and popping .50 and .30 cal caps.

:{)


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Duplex Drive tanks were a gamble. They were known to be easily swamped in high seas, and they could easily be knocked out by the existing German guns.
> 
> Just having naval support at point blank range would have changed the situation on that beach. I would aslo say that converting some of the LST's or even destroyers to carry a battery of howitzers for close up indirect support would have helped things along on all of the beaches.




Couple of points:

1)Few captains would be willing to risk a capital ship in that close. E-boats, midget submarines and mines as well as underwater obstacles, shoals, sand bars and the like were considered to be major threats to cruiser operations. We now know that the threat wasn't as great as imagined, but that was the feeling at the time.

2) Destroyer gunfire was judged to be more accurate for direct fire support than the larger guns of the cruisers and battleships. There WAS direct naval firesupport at point blank range at Omaha, but it was provided by the 5 inch guns of the destroyers. The cruisers and larger battlewagons were engaged in flinging rounds at the bluffs and targets further inland.

3) The smaller German guns and emplacements were so well camoflaged or concealed that it was almost impossible to have any effective firesupport until shore-to-ship communications had been established. Most of the beach communication parties were lost very eaerly in the landing. Commander W. J. Marshal, captain of the destroyer _Satterlee_ summed up the situation: 
"It was most galling and depressing to lie idly a few hundred yeards off the beaches and watch our troops, tanks, landing boats and motor vehicles being heavily shelled and not able to fire a shot to help them just because we had no information as to what to shoot at and were unable to detect the source of enemy fire" 

4) Without effective communications, eventually the captains began to act on their own initiative. They closed with the beach, often coming to less than 900 meters and risking running aground, and began to engage any targets they could find. _ Shubrick, McCook, Satterlee, Frankford_ and _Harding_ all fired between 500 and 1000 rounds of 5 inch ammunition ammunition. _Carmick_ fired close to 1,200. The few DDs that arrived on the beach would fire at concealed emplacements and then the destroyers would aim at their targets.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 20, 2006)

The 1,300 figure for ICEBERG includes all minor vessels, and it still falls short of NEPTUNE by 5,000 vessels. NEPTUNE was the largest seaborne invasion in history, that's a fact. 

The plan was fine, COSSAC had plenty of lessons from their own ETO experience including HUSKY, AVALANCHE and JUBILEE. All of which were much more directly related to NEPTUNE than any PTO landing. The situations were completely different.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 20, 2006)

I never said the COSSAC planners did a bad plan and I never said that they had experiences to draw from. But they still could have learned a lot from the PTO. All I said that when things did go bad there were some lessons that they ignored too. Lastly ETO amphib numbers always include smaller boats like landing craft of all types, where as in the PTO they don't, just ships from ecorts up.

Here is the quote from MHO from which I got my sources from which in turn was gotten from from the D-Day museum in New Orleans and USA and USN files-

The United States Navy assembled an unprecedented armada in April of 1945, with 1,300 ships laying in wait off the coast of Okinawa.(18) In fact, the effort in the spring offensive of 1945 was far greater than the previous spring offensive in Europe. During the Normandy invasion, the Allies had employed 150,000 troops, 284 ships, and 570,000 tons of supplies, all of which required a very short supply line. On Okinawa, in Japan's back yard, maintaining the supply line seemed an incomprehensible feat. In the invasion of Okinawa, there were 183,000 troops, 327 ships, and 750,000 tons of supplies.(19

This number does not include forces that were later added on to combat things like Kamakazis or bring rienforcements in considering that before it was all over 300,000 allied personel fought in or around Okinawa. Also this does not count the British Task force that was supporting US ops. 
So if you include every LST, LCI, LCM, DUKW, dinghy, row boat, bamboo raft, sampan, and junk, yes NEPTUNE was bigger on paper. But like I said before I thought we were discussing ships not boats which is what these smaller vessels are. And yes this may seem technical but it is an important fact. Also you forget that amtracs/alligators, which are 430, are not included in the vessels in the invasion because they are neither considered boats or ships. Also in this figure are not included Halsey's task force which was not physically covering the beaches but still part of ICEBURG. So I will argue that if you include every LST, LCI, LCM, DUKW, dinghy, row boat, bamboo raft, sampan, and junk in ICEBURG it will at least be as big as NEPTUNE and if you count the follow up forces it was bigger.

I await your broadside while my guys re load thier Long 24s.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 20, 2006)

Okay I don't know where the smiley came from, its an "18" for a foot note.

:{)


----------



## maxs75 (Feb 21, 2006)

Iceberg and Neptune were very different operation by concept. 
The European one was a shore to shore landing, while the Okinawa was a ship to shore op. 
It means that across the channel also the minor LC were able to depart from friendly ports and unload on enemy beaches, while for Okinawa only major vessels were able to do the trip from Leyte, Manus, probably also Pearl Harbour. So LCMs were to be carried by LSDs or AKAs, and most probably also LCTs had to be carried by LSTs. 
BTW, IIRC the Husky operation involved the higher number of troops put ashore for the first wave, more than Overlord. Obviously, Overlord neeeded moch more follow on troops and material than any other landing op.

Max


----------



## plan_D (Feb 22, 2006)

You do realise your source is wrong, don't you Curzon? NEPTUNE landed 133,000 by sea. If you can prove that over 6,000 vessels were used by the ICEBURG team, then I'll give it to you. But it seems to me the site is indicating it was the biggest invasion for the U.S. Remember that 78% of the vessels used in NEPTUNE were British.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 22, 2006)

Why dont we define the invasion force as all cargo, transport and amphib vessels LCI sized and larger.

The supporting warships should be in a whole different catagory.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 22, 2006)

I think our disagreement comes from the fact that you are counting ALL seagoing vessels used in NEPTUNE, I am not as I have said before. If you read my posts you will see, and I guess I was a little too technical, I was making the distinction between what is considered a "ship" and a "boat" which there is a diffrence. I am counting "ships" like destroyers, transports, carriers, etc, etc. I know that if you count EVERY seagoing vessel used NEPTUNE was larger (thats a duh!), but of we are just counting ships from escorts up, men landed or in reserve, and supplies available, ICEBERG was bigger and at the end of a much longer supply chain. That is what I am arguing. Nothing more nothing less. So with this said, I know that each landing had a difference of mission and scope, I am not arguing that and I never disputed it. 

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 22, 2006)

All right, I realized we were both right. Yes you were right that NEPTUNE was larger over all. On the other hand my sources were not wrong they were just not explicit enough. The numbers I was looking at were of the US naval forces in NEPTUNE vs ICEBURG. I had to dig out battle of order material to find this stuff. So here is what I found and realized-

1. The naval numbers are for USN ships. The supply numbers are of available supplies on the ships off the beaches. Man power are troops landed and those in reserve. So again in this aspect, again just US forces, ICEBURG was bigger. 
2. All numbers for NEPTUNE include everything from battleships down to midget subs to yaghts carrying a .50 where as ICEBURG numbers only include combat vessels from escorts and minsweepers to carriers not amphibious craft from LSTs down. In fact if you look at the actual reports prepared by Halsey's staff they make it a point not to count these vessels. 
3. Again it seems a ETO, MTO custom to include ALL vessels in thier numbers. (how much you wanna bet it was Army bean counters trying to upstage thier Navy cousins by saying my invasion was bigger  )Where as PTO numbers do not include these numbers, again from Halsey staff reports. 

Therefore it would stand to reason that if don't include amphibious ships, which PTO numbers seem to never include (And I looked at several landings), the USN force ICEBURG was bigger than that off the Normandy beaches. The only support vessel numbers that I found were numbers for Amtracs and rocket LSTs. This how the numbers read. So it stands to reason since the PTO was a USN lake and the ETO was a RN lake, these numbers to me make more sense. Also the ICEBURG numbers do not include RN strength which was four carriers built around a two battleship led screen. 

:{)

:{)


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 22, 2006)

Curzone and Plan_D, this is a very good topic and I have to agree with Curzone that the USN could have used more aircraft. The problum was thought that at the time of landings, the weather was not good for air operations, at least for the USAF. The USMC might have been able to fly in that low clowd cover, but no dive bombers.

But over France I think what would have realy helped was better understanding of where all the falling steel and lead was landing and what it was doing! 

I have to agree that some of the Pacific landings put more troops on shore for the first wave then Normandy and lagistically I think were much harder to pull off.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 23, 2006)

Oh logistically, while OVERLORD was a logistic achievement, the PTO was a logistical miracle. I can only imagine the headaches the supply folks from all five services, because the USCG was also present in the PTO, had trying to keep everything from spark plugs on Corsairs on Rendova to Ice Cream on the Enterprise at the end of a 5000 mile long supply line. Not saying that the ETO was not hard but England to Bastonge is a lot closer than San Fransisco to Okinawa.

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 24, 2006)

The supplies that went to the CBI ws even longer. more like 10,000 miles.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 24, 2006)

Yes and much in the air. And like your sig says, there were defenetly goats in them clouds. Still the way the USN and later the RN could keep thier Task Forces supplied at sea was fantastic. I will argue though that even if the Kriegsmarine had deployed the Zepplin, its ability to project power like the USN, RN, and IJN were able to do would have been limited by the fact they did not have the experience or the traditions in carrier ops. Just as an example, thier hitting power would have been on short legs because of the relatively short range of the aircraft they were planing to use as carrier planes, 109 and Stukas. Also while they did have the ability to refuel at sea, thier ability paled to that of the USN to do.

:{)


----------



## plan_D (Feb 26, 2006)

And later the Royal Navy? The RN kept the CBI supplied from day one. There's no "later" about it. It's a long way from Portsmouth to Calcutta, even longer to Rangoon or Singapore. 

You rant on and on, but you do not provide evidence that ICEBURG was bigger than NEPTUNE. Overall, OVERLORD involved a lot more men than ICEBURG - the OVERLORD operation ended up landing millions into France, and it wasn't just from the sea. 

OVERLORD, and the whole operation in Europe was a logistical miracle. Keeping forces supplied of fuel and ammo across an awful stretch of water, and over land that had been demolished by your own airforce. It's a miracle that the assault got off in the first place.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 26, 2006)

Overlord and Iceberg were two different operations. What workded for Overlord wouldnt work for Iceberg, and vice versa.

Iceberg needed far more combat vessels and most importantly, aircraft carriers.

The far shorter distances between England and Normandy meant smaller vessels could be used unlike Okinawa, where all the amphib vessels had to be seagoing.

The shorter distances for the channel also meant many vessels could make multiple sorties per day. In Okinawa, it was a round trip distance of 2 weeks.

I think were comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 28, 2006)

Agreed. Though exellent discussion, lots of fun. 

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 28, 2006)

plan_D said:


> And later the Royal Navy? The RN kept the CBI supplied from day one. There's no "later" about it. It's a long way from Portsmouth to Calcutta, even longer to Rangoon or Singapore.
> 
> You rant on and on, but you do not provide evidence that ICEBURG was bigger than NEPTUNE. Overall, OVERLORD involved a lot more men than ICEBURG - the OVERLORD operation ended up landing millions into France, and it wasn't just from the sea.
> 
> OVERLORD, and the whole operation in Europe was a logistical miracle. Keeping forces supplied of fuel and ammo across an awful stretch of water, and over land that had been demolished by your own airforce. It's a miracle that the assault got off in the first place.



"Later" was a bad choice or wording. By later I meant the RN involvement in carrier ops in the Pacific from 44 in conjunction with the USN. I know they could refuel at sea, I just meant when and where.

:{)


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 5, 2006)

Plan_D, I agree that once in Normandy the place was a mess and the men who ran that Red Ball Express were very brave. The engineers did a small work of art to get the railroads up to work, mostly anyway. 

As for the CBI, yes the RN was doing it, but they were out of most of the Indian Ocean by 1942. They were on the western side of India so the supplies would come in. But, the "hump runs" were all to China, over and through ocupied space with IJA patrols in the passes the C-87s and C-47s had to fly though.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

Pray tell, Willow, if the British merchant vessels did not pass through the Indian Ocean - how were those forces in India supplied? And where did the supplies come from to fly to China ?


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 5, 2006)

The supplies could come from the west, via Auustralia.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

Could, but didn't. Since the loss of Singapore made that route unacceptable. The supplies were shipped from Britain through the Suez and through the Indian ocean to India .


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 6, 2006)

As much as Plan_D and I have argued, he is right. Australia supplied MacArthur's campaigns. 

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 6, 2006)

Supplies went around Australia and didnt need to tranship through Singapore.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 7, 2006)

Plan_D, I was not saying that the shipping did not get to Indiam, but only to the west coast. That is still a long way to Singapore. 

question sence you brought up the Canal, why was it not taken or the locks destroyed by the Axis? The Germans could have done it, like the Royal Navy fliers did to the deep water port in France


----------



## plan_D (Mar 9, 2006)

The longer the supply lines stay in the water, the more vulnerable they are. The supplies were shipped to India through the Suez Canal, because that was the shortest route. 

The reason the Suez Canal was not damaged, is because it was out of range of the Luftwaffe. When it finally came in range, the Luftwaffe had no real chance of attacking it through the DAF. Nor did the Kriegsmarine have any chance at all of knocking the Royal Navy out of the way. 

The Med was owned by the British , it's a simple fact of the war. The Italians and Germans tried their best to displace the Royal Navy , but it never happened. Simple naval warfare, aim of the game is to control the sea ... and the Royal Navy did so throughout in the Med. No matter how much was lost, they could not be displaced.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 12, 2006)

Plan_D thanks. I am not that stronge on MTO history but i would think that the Italians would have put up a better fight to push out the RN. Or that the canal would be a top target at the start? Am I just having a big pipe dream or as you say they did try but could never get there


----------



## plan_D (Mar 12, 2006)

The Italians gave a massive effort to displace the Royal Navy in the Med, but there was no comparison. The Royal Navy out-classed the Italians in skill and equipment, it was a dying battle. Once Taranto had been hit the Italians knew the game was up and retreated their force north, this eased massive amounts of pressure off the Royal Navy. 

Despite this Italy destroyed one-fifth of all Royal Navy vessels sunk in World War II. But the air-wing of Italy was a big threat, the SM.79 did a lot of damage. 

The Suez Canal was the prime target of the whole North African campaign. But it was out of reach on the ground and in the air. The RAF (DAF) provided an unbreakable barrier for any Axis airforce near the Suez.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 13, 2006)

Thanks Plan_D, I did not know that the RN losses to the Italians were that high! I do like th SM 79, gess I need to read more


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2006)

The Italians had actually several very good Battleships, but they did not do much. They were sunk I believe at Taranto werent they?


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 20, 2006)

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3942

True Adler, 3 were hit (all sunk to the bottom) two of which were recommissioned by 1941 and the other was never repaired (see link).


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 20, 2006)

I am no expert on battleships (like some of you are) but I believe I have read that their battleships were, fast but they (Vittorio Veneto, Caio Duilio and Conte di Cavour) were alittle light on armor. Is that true or no?


----------



## Hop (Mar 20, 2006)

Supply convoys did not go through the Med, apart from those heading to Malta. The risk of air attack was simply too great.

Supplies for Egypt went the long way, from Britain around Africa and up the Red Sea. Convoys headed to India went around Africa and across the Indian Ocean.

It wasn't until after Italy had surrendered, and Southern Italy occupied, that supply convoys started transiting the Med again. (indeed the easing of the shipping situation was one of the primary reasons for the invasion of Italy in the first place)


----------



## plan_D (Mar 21, 2006)

If no convoys shipped through the Med , what the hell were the forces in Alexandria doing escorting convoy vessels in the Med. The primary concern of the British was losing the Suez, which would have cut the Empire in two.


----------



## Hop (Mar 21, 2006)

They were escorting convoys to Malta, and protecting Egypt from the Italian fleet.

The canal was of course important, because supplies used to come up the Red Sea, then through the canal, to reach Egypt. Fuel tankers also used to come from the Gulf region and through the canal to Egypt. But convoys did not run through the Med, apart from those going to Malta.

From British War Economy, one of the post war government publications detailing the British war effort:

"The only merchant ships to use the Mediterranean were the heavily escorted convoys that fought their way to Malta; all other merchantmen bound for the east had to go round the Cape."

Not everything went around the Cape, of course. Aircraft destined for North Africa were usually unloaded at Takoradi in Ghana, and flown about 2000 miles across North Africa to Egypt. Naval vessels frequently went through the Med, but normal convoys were not run through the Med, only those destined for Malta.

That changed later in the war once the threat from bases in North Africa/Italy was eliminated, but I don't know the exact date convoys resumed in the Med.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 21, 2006)

Hope interesting. I would say that the runs to Malta were hell, but if the convoys were going the long way around up the Red Sea, then why not sit in the way and wait?

Any one know what forces were doing in the Red Sea


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> I am no expert on battleships (like some of you are) but I believe I have read that their battleships were, fast but they (Vittorio Veneto, Caio Duilio and Conte di Cavour) were alittle light on armor. Is that true or no?



Yes they were very lightly armoured and that was there downfall. They had good firepower and good speed though. After Taranto happened the Italians never really sortied there fleet again.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 25, 2006)

That is a shame, would have made getting to Malta a little more interesting. Not that it was a milk Run


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 25, 2006)

Getting to Malta was anything but a milk-run, you should read about the Pedastal Convoy's MP-Willow. A good book would be "Fortress Malta" by James Holland and here is a website that gives details on the operations: http://www.world-war.co.uk/. Go to actions, actions 3 and then they are listed as Pedestal 1, 2 and 3.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 27, 2006)

I never said it was a "Milk Run". I have read about the convoys to the Island the invasion that failed. Thanks for the bood I will look for it. Sorry if I sounded cheap or disrespectful


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 28, 2006)

You didn't.


----------



## Glider (Mar 28, 2006)

The saga of the Ohio is close to unbelievable. A tanker carrying aviation fuel that was hit by a torpedo, caught fire, had at least one German aircraft crash into it (some say two), straddled by bombs, dead in the water and basically made it into harbour by lashing two escorts to it to keep it afloat. You couldn't make it up.

I don't think many people realise that a date had been set for the surrender of Malta and it was this convoy that saved it.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 28, 2006)

Havent been here in half of forever, so thought i would try a post. How does everyone feel about the japanese battleship/carriers? They performed poorly, but the idea does seem sound to me. If they could of angled the deck out to the side they could have used small amounts of wheeled aircraft, fighters or divebombers, not both. But as it was, they screwed everything up. no angled deck, frikkin' seaplanes, and to top it off, they used battleships that were already begging for a refit. they should have done one or the other, fixed the battleship, or made carriers, or angle deck...whats everyone else think?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 28, 2006)

You mean something along the lines of those Soviet Kiev class hybrid cruisers? Hmmm, interesting thought. What would have been the point? You'd really be stuck with a ship that couldn't perform in either role especially well, angled deck or not. It would handle poorly and lack the armament and armour to make an effective battleship, and wouldn't carry the aircraft to make a decent carrier. If you want a carrier, build a carrier. Likewise for a battleship or cruiser.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 28, 2006)

Very true, i was just trying to make the best of a bad descision. I always thought they looked so cool though. Alot like the battlecruiser, it was meant for other times. The battlecruiser was meant for the times before aircraft carriers, and was often misused. A battle/carrier well, hard to tell. Would be good against ungaurded convoys, but anything with guns bigger than eight inches (heavy cruisers) or torpedoes would put the thing under. I love battlecruisers and battle/carriers, something about them is so cool to me. but if you want quality, stick with true battleships/fast battleships, or real carriers.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 29, 2006)

A hybrid battleship/carrier is about the worst possible idea. The whole purpose of an aircraft carrier is to carry as many aircraft as possible so you can stike your enemy far away.

Either you have a full flight deck and hanger to carry the planes, or you do away with it and build a pure battleship/cruiser.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 30, 2006)

I have always liked Japanese Aircraft carriers. I mean, they understood the importance of the carrier. They made some good ones too! Kaga and Akagi, Hiryu and Soryu. Some of them could carry ninety or more aircraft, and the pilots were good. If they had better tactics and their fighters advanced reasonably, they would have stood a better chance of prolonging the war, even after midway. They launched several carriers after midway, and had they kept up with production of better planes, and had a decent pilot training program, they could have put up more of a fight, but they still would have lost. Im just saying, maybe the Marianas turkey shoot wouldnt have been SO one sided. I like the way the Japanese concerted merchant ships and the like, and the way they built new ones, and converted BB hulls. Shinano would have been a damn nice carrier. If they were thinking ahead, they would have converted the Musashi too.


----------



## Glider (Mar 31, 2006)

Unfortunately the Jap hybrid carriers only carried floatplanes which would have had a life expectancy on minutes in combat. So you do get the worst of all things, a bad battleship and a bad carrier carrying bad aircraft.
If the Japs had looked ahead and not built the Shinano, Musashi or Yamato would anyone like to guess how many Hiryu's they could have built? Total guess but I reckon six wouldn't be a bad estimate.
That could well have tipped the balance.

As for coverted merchantmen I feel that the British had the edge. Some of our conversions were fully battleworthy.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 31, 2006)

The Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, and Soryu were poor designs that were dispatched quickly at Midway because of their flaws.

They had poor damage control design and philosophy, a small cramped "island" design that hampered fleet operations, and aircraft stowage on a couple of them was low for their size. They had poor AAA, and the AAA they had was hampered by poor arcs for fire control.

The Shokoku designs were far better, but even then, they were more similar to the Yorktown/Hornet/Enterprise carriers than the more advanced Essex class.


----------



## Glider (Mar 31, 2006)

Certainly agree with your comments about the Jap Damage Control which was poor in design and training. But the comments about AA is't quite so clear cut. At Midway I would say that the Jap AA guns were a lot better than the American. Later of course in particular when the 40mm became available it was a one way street for the USA.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 31, 2006)

Glider said:


> Certainly agree with your comments about the Jap Damage Control which was poor in design and training. But the comments about AA is't quite so clear cut. At Midway I would say that the Jap AA guns were a lot better than the American. Later of course in particular when the 40mm became available it was a one way street for the USA.



The IJN AAA accounted for no US aircraft shotdown. Not one.

All USAAF/USN loss's were from the fighters.

Further, IJN AAA was pathetic throughout the war. Their guns had horrible rates of fire and limited effective ranges. The USN was already using the 5" DP guns and although the 1.1" MG's were not up to the task, they were still better than the IJN 25mm.


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2006)

I didn't know that the USA didn't lose a plane to AA fire, do you know how many the Japs lost?

As for the 25mm it was a lot better than the 30mm used by the USA which was probably the worst weapon deployed by the USA in WW2. The only alternative was the HMG which was too light lacking range and punch.

The 25mm wasn't a great gun but not terrible. One of the main problems that it had was the magazine which only held 15 rounds causing a number of stoppages to reload.

The USN 5in was the best DP gun of the war but without the proximity fuse the chances of hitting anything were remote.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 1, 2006)

I'm reading a fantastic book right now tht looks from the battle of Midway from the japanese perspective. The author uses many sources to determine how the US aircraft were shot down and his research shows that the AAA was almost a non factor in fleet defense.

The name of the book is "Shattered Sword".

As soon as I'm done with it, I will be starting a thread to discuss the many myth's that have sprung up over the years about this battle.

Even Leonards dad was mentioned in it!


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 1, 2006)

Glider said:


> ......
> As for the 25mm it was a lot better than the 30mm used by the USA which was probably the worst weapon deployed by the USA in WW2. .....



Are you reffering to the 20mm Oerlikon?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Even Leonards dad was mentioned in it!


8)


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2006)

Forgive the brainstorm. For 30mm read 1.1, it was the 1.1 that was a poor gun.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 3, 2006)

I would like to clarify my statement about the IJN not shooting down one US airplane at Midway using their AAA.

I should have said, "during the USN carrier based aircraft torpedo and dive bombing attacks in late morning on June 4, the IJN AAA accounted for no shootdowns".


----------



## Glider (Apr 3, 2006)

I have seen the official review that the IJN prepared after the battle and they certainly claims a number of planes. I know all AA guns overclaimed but in a battle like that I admit to being suprised that they didn't hit a thing.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 3, 2006)

Obviously they must have hit something, with that many guns firing they were bound to have hit something. Regardless of firing arcs and loading speeds on the IJN 25mm which i know werent great, but come on, with that many men firing for their lives, someone would have to get lucky.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/25_60.htm
http://www.combinedfleet.com/13_76.htm


those are some links to IJN AAA guns, the top being 25mm and differing mounts and specs, and the bottom one being 13mm..as you can tell by the specs, nither were spectacular, but hey, their rifles, tanks, aircraft (later on) or grenades werent so hot either, but they all did their fair share of damage


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 4, 2006)

In the spring of 1942, AAA of both the US and IJn was still lacking. The US had the edge with the 5". But the 1.1" and 25mm guns were essentially useless. 

One thing to remember about the IJN guns...... the effective rate of fire was way low due to the constant need to have to reload them. Plus they were short range weapons.

Plus, IJN naval doctrine had the carriers give themselves "lots of searoom" between the escorts and each carrier. Essentially, there was little if any mutual AA support.

Also couple in the few escorts afforded the carrier group, and its easy to see why AA accounted for nothing. All USN loss's were due to the Zero fighters.


----------



## gordon ingham (Aug 17, 2006)

on my time on vengeance it was dwscribed as a light fleet carrier.bu the time i joined escort carrier rajah the hanger had been converted to bunks for the purpose of bringing home servicemen for demob


----------



## gordon ingham (Aug 17, 2006)

excuse the spelling on my previous.getting old you know


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 26, 2006)

But the whole idea of the aircraft I thought was to be able to extend gunnery range and act as spotters as well as help out in air-defence. It wasn't that bad a concept being able to use aircraft to spot targets. This is the predecessor of the whole modern concept of having guided missile destroyers with helicopter decks on them don't forget. It was the best way they could do it as they really didn't have the ability to make useful helicopters for this task. The Germans did have ideas to do this but the helicopters were not really suitable for sea operations let alone land ones under fire...


----------



## Glider (Nov 27, 2006)

The concept of using aircraft to assist with the spotting of gunfire did exist and that was why Battleships and Cruisers were equipped with aircraft. Spotting is a highly skilled task depedent on close co-operation between the plane and the ship. As far as I am aware it only worked a couple of times during the war. Once at the Battle of River Plate and once in Norway when the Warspite used a floatplane to warn of enemy ships when she went down the Fijord and attacked a U Boat that was inside.

Carriers Prewar as far as the UK were concerned were to attack and slow down the enemy BB ships to allow our BB's to catch and attack the enemy ships. 
The USA and IJN were way ahead of the RN in their tactical thinking already equipping and training their carriers with planes capable of destroying enemy fleets.

Interesting note. The RN did *not *rely on the fighter aircraft to defend the carrier from air attack. They would launch what they had, but the main defence was based on the AA guns on board the carriers. This is why the British ships carried far more AA guns than USN and IJN vessels pre war and why the 4.5in guns on the Invincible class could fire across the flight deck. In theory an attack from one side of the ship could be met by the fire of all 16 4.5in guns. This alone shows how backward the RN was in its tactical thinking before the war.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2007)

Okay, but wouldn't that be dangerous to the launching pilots who are launching from the carrier?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 21, 2007)

The USN used it to good effect in the pre-invasion bombardments of many a Pacific atoll.


----------



## Glider (Jan 22, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Okay, but wouldn't that be dangerous to the launching pilots who are launching from the carrier?



The fighters would be launched before the enemy aircraft started the bombing but you are of course correct. If the carrier had to land aircraft on during a raid, then the guns would have to be carefully controlled.

One particually gutsy Itanian fighter once joined the hurricanes landing on during a raid, joined the circuitm lowered his flaps and undercarridge, then dropped his bomb as he overflew the carrier. Not a gun fired at him and one witness said they were almost glad to see him get away with it for his nerve. The bomb bounced off the armoured deck and went over the side before exploding so no harm was done to either side.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 23, 2007)

Still it goes to show a big problem with this method, separating out the enemy from the friendly...


----------



## R Leonard (Jan 24, 2007)

Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. 

Not to sound snippy, but I wonder if there is some doubt as to whether anyone had thought of this before.

IFF was installed on USN carrier aircraft starting in the spring of 1942. By the fall of 1942 all carrier aircraft had IFF. Fighters got the first IFF units, and in the early days, since availability was limited, section and division leaders flew the planes that had the units. This was helpful not only in identifying good guys from bad, but, and this was the primary purpose, it allowed the fighter direction officer (FDO) to identify specific CAP divisions and sections for interceptions. Eventually all fighters had IFF and the VB and VT types went through the same process.

Standard USN doctrine was for non-CAP aircraft to orbit at a defined location away from the AAA envelope if the carrier task group was under air attack. Generally, this location was also away from the already determined direction(s) of the enemy attack. This would also tend to keep them clear of the defending CAP and eliminate wasted effort in chasing down friendlies. Witness Yorktown’s returning SBD strike on the IJN carriers at Midway being ordered away from the Task Force area as a Japanese attack force approached. They, mostly, ended up landing aboard Enterprise and Hornet . . . none were shot down by friendly fire.

Even before the US carriers entered combat the danger to CAP aircraft entering their own AAA envelope was well recognized. This danger had, in the absence of firm established doctrine had to be balanced with the immediacy of each situation. What was not clear was at what point should the CAP break off and let the AAA take over. Most of the senior fighter pilots were well aware of the deficiencies in capability of the 5in 25cal dual purpose gun with the Mk 19 director and the overall reliability problems of the 1.1 inch AA batteries. For close in work there were .50 cal machine guns most of which were on their way to, if not already, replacement by 20mm cannon. In some squadrons it was felt the CAP had better chance of taking out attacking aircraft than AA fire. Witness the statements of then Lieutenant Noel Gayler who had flown in both VF-3 and, at Coral Sea, in VF-2 in an interview with BuAer on 16 June 1942:
. . . 
“Q. What’s the doctrine on fighters getting away from AA fire?
A. We’re trying like the devil to get our AA to knock off firing when they see our fighters actually attacking enemy planes, but they haven’t been doing it and we’ve been disregarding the AA.

“Q. You haven’t any doctrine about fighters pulling off when they get to certain sector?
A. No, we don’t. We talked that problem over and Jimmy Thach decided – and we all agreed with him – that when the enemy planes were in that position the AA was not going to stop them, and as we were the only thing that was going to stop them, we might as well pursue the attacks right on in, which is what we did.”
. . . 

This willingness to enter the AA envelope led Thach, himself to comment on 18 August 1942 in hid BuAer interview:
. . .
“Q. What is the effectiveness of enemy anti–aircraft fire?
A. The enemy anti–aircraft fire is not quite as effective as out own anti–aircraft fire, that is, the anti–aircraft fire from our carriers, cruisers, and destroyers. I have done, roughly, two–thirds of my fighting in our own anti–aircraft fire and the other third in the Jap anti aircraft fire, and I think that is of little value in stopping determined attack. They may shoot down a few planes, but both the Japanese and our attacking pilots ignore it completely. Our USF 74 during peacetime was written with major emphasis on tactics to avoid enemy anti–aircraft fire. We have discovered that the enemy fighter is the thing to fear, instead of anti–aircraft fire.

“Q. What coordination, if any, is employed with friendly anti–aircraft fire?
A. Well we like to coordinate our attacks with friendly anti–aircraft fire, but to date have been unable to prevent anti–aircraft fire from opening up at our airplanes when the enemy is in the vicinity.”

Of course from the ship drivers’ point of view, if an enemy plane approaches it should be taken under fire as soon as possible, which, of course, conflicts with the fighter pilot’s perception that his plane is the best weapon for the protection of the ship(s). The fallacy in theory of fighter plane only defense was that the average fighter squadron on a US carrier prior to June 1942 was about 18 planes. Rarely, never actually, were all 18 in the air at once for the purpose of repelling an enemy attack. Usually, not more than six were up at a time and that number was, more often than not (discounting a few rather spectacular successes) insufficient to dispose of all incoming attackers. So, that’s where the AAA fire comes in. At Midway, USN VF squadrons were averaging about 27 F4Fs each, but the same situation prevailed, some aircraft on strike escort, some on CAP, some ready for launch, and some being serviced, - the result of CAP rotation - never was an entire squadron in the air at one time on one CAP mission.

Eventually, like every thing else, practices became standard procedures and the best, or the ones that made the most sense, were written into doctrine. By the end of 1943, standard USN doctrine was for CAP aircraft, controlled by the FDO, to conduct their interceptions outside the AAA envelope. It was recognized that the CAP pilots were responsible for their own safety in this regard. Improvements in AAA had a lot to do with this. The appearance of the 5 in 38 cal dual purpose gun (especially in dual mounts), the 40 mm AA gun and the galleries of 20mm cannon, not to mention the general increase in the number of AAA mounts, generally, per ship; and such developments as the VT fuse, made approaching a task group, or even an individual ship, that was expecting trouble just a bit dicey. Not to say there were not instances where individual CAP aircraft pursued their targets into the AAA envelope, but such a practice was by then greatly discouraged as shipboard gunners, having precious little time to distinguish identities of aircraft approaching at 300 plus mph, were already weapons free and more than willing to engage anything with wings.

Late war USN doctrine was for returning strike aircraft to return to the task group by a roundabout course, i.e., not a direct return course; with IFF on approach a picket destroyer; perform a prescribe approach maneuver; and be visually inspected (this was referred to as “de-lousing”) to ensure there were no enemy aircraft tagging along. Failure to engage the IFF and perform the maneuver of the day meant approaching aircraft would be brought under fire and CAP vectored to dispose of those leaking from the picket’s AAA envelope. Every now and then somebody would forget and every now and then they would pay the price.

With regard launching, or recovering, planes into the AAA envelope by a carrier, generally, a carrier maneuvering to avoid incoming attacks does not have time to steady up into the wind and launch or recover aircraft; it did not pay to run along in a predictable straight line while enemy aircraft are queuing for their runs, so it was not done. CAP aircraft were already aloft, not launched as the enemy came in, non CAP were ordered elsewhere as above. Plus, of course, everyone knew any aircraft an active AAA envelope was just a target.

Really, all of this was thought of by the folks involved. Early on there was little integration of AAA and CAP and in spite of enthusiasm to pursue incoming raider up to the very last second the CAP folks and the FDOs really knew that the fighters needed to get clear as incoming attacks approached the envelope. FDOs would warn off their CAPs and sent them off to more profitable targets, by the same token, non CAP aircraft would be sent somewhere out of the line of fire. As time went on and radar control improved and coordination improved, the break off of the CAP and hand off to the task group AAA batteries became more controlled, allowing the attackers little breathing space between the end of fighter interceptions and a lot of lead coming their way from the water’s surface.

So, in a nutshell, carrier operations amidst AAA fire were no mystery. Everyone understood the danger and, for the most part, adhered to practices which tended to reduce the danger to friendly aircraft.

Rich


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 24, 2007)

Thanks Leonard.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 28, 2007)

Interesting, so AAA at the Battle of Coral Sea was thought to be almost useless by the fighter pilots? At least that is my interpretation of the above once the enemy pilot got beyond a certain point...


----------



## stug3 (Mar 19, 2013)

HMS VICTORIOUS 
Steam can be seen venting from the catapult towards the front of the flight deck.


----------



## stug3 (Mar 21, 2013)

Operation PICKET I: Supermarine Spitfire Mark VB(T), BP844, the first of a further nine Spitfires to reinforce the RAF on Malta, taking off from the flight deck of HMS EAGLE with Squadron Leader E J "Jumbo" Gracie at the controls. These Spitfires, equipped with 90-gallon ferry drop tanks, flew to Ta Kali to re-equip No. 126 Squadron RAF, which Gracie was to command. BP844 was shot down over Malta, with the loss of its pilot, on 2 April 1942.






Operation PICKET I: RAF pilots walk towards their aircraft on the flight deck of HMS EAGLE after receiving their final instructions, before flying a reinforcement of nine Supermarine Spitfires to Ta Kali, Malta.


----------



## vinnye (Mar 21, 2013)

It is interesting to see how few aircraft are on the deck in the photos of HMS Eagle, if that were a shot of a USN carrier there would be lots of aircraft parked on deck. This is one reason why USN carriers had a greater striking capability compared to RN carriers. I would rather not have all that fuel etc on deck during a Kamikaze attack!


----------



## stug3 (Jun 4, 2013)

Douglas TBD-1 Devastators of Torpedo Squadron 6 (VT-6) unfolding their wings on the deck of USS Enterprise (CV-6) prior to launching for attack against four Japanese carriers on the first day of the Battle of Midway. Established as VT-8S in 1937, the squadron was redesignated VT-6 that same year. Accepting delivery of its first TBD-1 aircraft in 1938, the squadron operated from USS Enterprise (CV-6). Following the entry of the United States into World War II, VT-6 participated in hit and run raids against the Marshalls and Wake Island. Launched on the morning of 4 June 1942, against the Japanese carrier fleet during the Battle of Midway, the squadron lost ten of fourteen aircraft during their attack.






The USS Yorktown on fire after being hit by Japanese bombers on the morning of 4th June 1942. Damage control parties were able to bring matters under control within an hour. When the second wave of Japanese planes arrived they believed she had already been sunk and that they were attacking another US carrier.






USS Yorktown (CV-5) is hit on the port side, amidships, by a Japanese Type 91 aerial torpedo during the mid-afternoon attack by planes from the carrier Hiryu, in the Battle of Midway, on 4 June 1942. Yorktown is heeling to port and is seen at a different aspect than in other views taken by USS Pensacola (CA-24), indicating that this is the second of the two torpedo hits she received. Note very heavy anti-aircraft fire.






The burning Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryu, photographed by a plane from the carrier Hosho shortly after sunrise on 5 June 1942. Hiryu sank a few hours later. Note collapsed flight deck over the forward hangar.






Contemporary film of the battle directed by John Ford:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OBw0r28qC0_


----------



## stug3 (Jun 6, 2013)

A diagrammatic representation of the damage sustained by USS Yorktown on the 4th June.






The USS Yorktown had been abandoned on the 4th June. When it became apparent that she was not going to sink she was re-boarded and attempts made to bring her under control. The destroyer the USS Hammann came alongside to assist in these operations. It was at this point, with the carrier lying dead in the water that Japanese submarine I-168 struck. One torpedo was to hit the Hammann causing catastrophic damage that quickly sunk her. Two others passed under the Hamman and proved to be the fatal blow for the Yorktown.


USS Hammann (DD-412) sinking with stern high, after being torpedoed by Japanese submarine I-168 in the afternoon of 6 June 1942. Photographed from the starboard forecastle deck of USS Yorktown (CV-5) by Photographer 2nd Class William G. Roy. Angular structure in right foreground is the front of Yorktown's forward starboard 5-inch gun gallery. Note knotted lines hanging down from the carrier's flight deck, remaining from her initial abandonment on 4 June. 






A diagrammatic representation of the damage sustained by USS Yorktown on 6th June 1942 when the destroyer USS Hamman was alongside her.






SBD Dauntless dive bombers from USS Hornet (CV-8) approaching the burning Japanese heavy cruiser Mikuma to make the third set of attacks on her, during the early afternoon of 6 June 1942. Mikuma had been hit earlier by strikes from Hornet and USS Enterprise (CV-6), leaving her dead in the water and fatally damaged. Photo was enlarged from a 16mm color motion picture film.






Japanese cruiser Mikuma, photographed from a USS Enterprise (CV-6) SBD aircraft during the afternoon of 6 June 1942, after she had been bombed by planes from Enterprise and USS Hornet (CV-8). Note her shattered midships structure, torpedo dangling from the after port side tubes and wreckage atop her number four eight-inch gun turret.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2013)

I know she sank later but she took a fearful pounding.


----------



## stug3 (Aug 10, 2013)

Photograph taken from aft of VICTORIOUS’ flight deck showing HMS INDOMITABLE and EAGLE. A Hawker Sea Hurricane and a Fairey Albacore are ranged on VICTORIOUS’ flight deck.






Arming a Hawker Sea Hurricane fighter on board HMS INDOMITABLE


----------



## stug3 (Aug 11, 2013)

HMS Eagle in the Mediterranean in February 1942 during Operation Spotter. A Supermarine Spitfire flies off HMS EAGLE to reinforce the air defence of Malta. Fifteen Spitfires, flown by replacement pilots for the much depleted No. 249 Squadron RAF, reached the island successfully during this operation.






Operation Pedestal, 11 August, 1942: The loss of HMS EAGLE and the first air attacks: A general view of the convoy under air attack showing the intense anti-aircraft barrage put up by the escorts. The battleship HMS RODNEY is on the left and the cruiser HMS MANCHESTER on the right.






11 August: The loss of HMS EAGLE and the first air attacks: HMS EAGLE rolling over on to her port side after being torpedoed.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 11, 2013)

Just to be clear...Eagle was sunk by Submarine, not by air attack


----------



## vinnye (Aug 11, 2013)

Here is a photo I have not seen befrore - The 3 Sisters ;
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/rn/three-cv.jpg
from hazegray.org


----------



## parsifal (Aug 11, 2013)

some images of British and Commonwealth Light fleet Carrier profiles. First is HMS Triumph side profile as she appeared around 1946. Second is Triumph plan view. Third is the HMAS Sydney side profile, taken from the oficial Navala architects plans (there are 38 sheets showing her deck by deck, and section by section). last photo is again HMAS Sydey, plan view. Both shots of Sydney are as she appeared in Korea


----------



## parsifal (Aug 11, 2013)

HMAS Sydney was one of a class of relatively small and uncomplicated light fleet carriers which in Korea operated 24 Hawker Sea Fury and 14 Fairey Firefly fighter bombers. This ship was launched on 3 September 1944 as HMS Terrible and was unfinished at the end of WWII in Europe in May 1945. The Australian Government took over the ship on 16 December 1948 and renamed her Sydney. From September 1951 to January 1952 Sydney served with the United Nations Command in Korean waters where her aircraft carried out 2366 sorties

The Americans lent Sydney a Sikorski helicopter for pilot rescue duties. After initial reluctance, based on concerns about committing Australia’s main fleet unit in a deteriorating world situation, the Australian Government agreed to deploy the carrier for a short period to allow the Royal Navy to refit its carrier HMS Glory. Sydney was well prepared for the deployment, being given priority for men and stores but, with other commitments to Korea, this was a strain on the RAN’s limited resources.

Sydney commenced operations on 5 October 1951 under command of Captain D. H. Harries. On 11 October she flew a record 89 sorties, an effort bringing praise from American and British authorities, USS New Jersey stating that Sydney’s gunnery spotting was ‘the best she has yet had’. On 25 and 26 October three aircraft were lost, the last involving a dangerous pickup of shot-down aircrew by the ship’s helicopter in a real life play out of the "Bridges at toko Rii. Enemy infantry attempting to capture the aircrew were suppressed by fire from Sea Furies from Sydney that flew constant support, until extraction by the helo. Her close escort included HMA DD Anzac, a Daring Class Destroyer 

Normal daily operations aimed at 54 sorties although this was often difficult to achieve on an axial deck carrier requiring a constant movement of aircraft around the deck, often in foul weather, especially as a freezing winter set in. In October, Typhoon Ruth caused damage to the carrier and the loss of 5 aircraft. 

Sydney’s piston engine aircraft were invaluable for ground attack duties. Normally the Fireflies carried bombs and the Sea Furies rockets. Both types mounted four 20mm cannon. Targets attacked included troops, gun positions and transport infrastructure. Sydney’s aircraft were credited with causing 3000 communist casualties as well as the destruction of 66 bridges, seven tunnels, 38 railway sections, seven sidings, five water towers, three locomotives, 59 wagons, 2060 houses, 495 junks and sampans and 15 guns. They also carried out target spotting and reconnaissance, for which the two-seat Firefly was particularly well suited, as well as combat air and antisubmarine patrols around the carrier and her escorts.

Enemy anti-aircraft fire was the main danger. Sydney had 99 aircraft hit and nine were shot down. Casualties were three aircrew killed and six wounded.


----------



## stug3 (Aug 11, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Just to be clear...Eagle was sunk by Submarine, not by air attack



yeah, they could have been clearer about that.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 11, 2013)

Good stuff guys!


----------



## stug3 (Aug 12, 2013)

August, 1942: Operation Pedestal- The score-board for the successes of HMS INDOMITABLE’s air group painted on the island.






12 August: HMS INDOMITABLE on fire after being bombed. A Dido class cruiser, HMS CHARYBDIS, is screening the carrier.






Damage to HMS INDOMITABLE’s flight deck.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 12, 2013)

HMS Hermes look at those lines like a Clipper ship


----------



## stug3 (Aug 12, 2013)

Wonder who that is crossing the T to her rear?


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 13, 2013)

stug3 said:


> Wonder who that is crossing the T to her rear?



Looks like an R class Battleship but thats as far as I can go.


----------



## stug3 (Aug 24, 2013)

U.S. aircraft carriers USS Saratoga (CV-3) (foreground) and USS Enterprise (CV-6) with aircraft spotted for launch, 1942.






Japanese Navy aircraft carrier Ryūjō – with 9,800-ton standard displacement. Her light displacement was intended to exploit a loophole in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Under the Treaty, aircraft carriers under 10,000-ton standard displacement were not regarded as “aircraft carriers”. She was sunk 8/24/42.






The damaged and immobile Japanese aircraft carrier Ryujo (center) photographed from a USAAF B-17 bomber, during a high-level bombing attack in the battle of the Eastern Solomons on 24 August 1942. The destroyers Amatsukaze (center left) and Tokitsukaze (faintly visible, center right) had been removing her crew and are now underway.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 24, 2013)

I have always been fascinated by the early experimental carriers.

HMS Furious in her first incarnation as a semi carrier






secound version






Landing on deck, it must have made the pilots squeeze tightly


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 24, 2013)

HMS Pegasus part seaplane carrier and part wheeled aircraft carrier. The forward hanger was for 4 Fighters usually Sopwith 2F1 Camels. The aft hanger was for 4 seaplanes usually either Short 184s or Fairey Campanias.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 24, 2013)

HMS Campania a worn out ex Cunard liner a holder of the Blue Riband converted into an experimental carrier.






The old girl sinking in Scapa Flow after her anchor dragged and she drifted onto the ram bow of HMS Royal Oak flooding the engine rooms.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 24, 2013)

HMS Ben-my-Chree she was the pride of the Isle Of Man Steam Packet company and still holds the steam powered record for a run between Liverpool and Douglas. Bought by the Navy in 1914 and converted to a seaplane carrier. Sunk by a shore battery off Turkey.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 24, 2013)

What all the above experiments led to HMS Argus a converted liner ex SS Conte Rosso. The original Covered Wagon mother of all aircraft carriers.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 24, 2013)

Nice pics Fastmongrel; I've always had a fascination with these early carriers. Those pics of Furious are great, the first one shows her as she was launched as a seaplane carrier; she could launch the seaplanes from her forward deck, but in common with earlier seaplane tenders she had to come to a stop to recover her aircraft. Note the 18.1 in gun turret on her stern. Her forward one was fitted to a monitor. When Dunning landed on her forward deck up at Scapa, she was in this configuration. She was retrofitted with a stern deck after the success of Dunning's experiments. Campania sank in the Firth of Forth off the coast of Edinburgh, not Scapa. She was launched as a seaplane tender and was the only Great War carrier to have an aeroplane named after her, the Fairey Campania.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 25, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> When Dunning landed on her forward deck up at Scapa, she was in this configuration.



I have been wondering exactly how Sqn Cdr Dunning managed to land on Furious with the mast, bridge and funnel in the way. I suppose with Furious going at full speed a good head wind and the low landing speed of a biplane he could side slip in and almost land vertically by cutting the engine. It must have been a very bumpy ride though and very dangerous as was proved by his death the next day trying it again.



> Campania sank in the Firth of Forth off the coast of Edinburgh, not Scapa



Whoops sorry about that one I knew it was the Firth of Forth I had been looking at the sonar pictures of the wreck I even know where the wreck is in the Firth but somehow my fat fingers typed Scapa Flow 

This link shows the wreck site
http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/campaniasitedescription.pdf


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 25, 2013)

When Furious was at Scapa, her aircraft squadron, commanded by Dunning was sent to Smoogro, from where the aircraft, a handful of Pups would fly alongside the carrier's deck. Geoffrey Moore in his book Early Birds discusses the timing. It was in his aeroplane that Dunning lost his life; Dunning's had suffered damage during his second landing and was undergoing repair. Sadly, Dunning's life was cruelly taken by fate and the unreliable technology of the day, rather than the dangers of what he was doing; he approached the carrier too high and realising his mistake attempted to restart the engine (being a rotary, the Pup's motor had blip switches rather than a throttle), but it didn't start and the aircraft went over the side. Dunning drowned before they could get to him.

After this incident, landing on Furious was banned, although Dunning's replacement, Sqn Cdr Fredrick Rutland (Rutland of Jutland) carried out a touch and go without landing on the deck to satisfy himself that he could do it. These guys had balls of steel. Hats off to them.


----------



## stug3 (Sep 14, 2013)

An aerial view of the escort carrier HMS AVENGER at sea with Sea Hurricane aircraft ranged on the flight deck.







A Hawker Sea Hurricane taking off with Fairey Swordfish aircraft alongside during an anti-submarine sweep from on board HMS STRIKER. 






Convoy PQ 18 under attack seen from the deck of an aircraft carrier (possibly HMS AVENGER), 9/42


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 14, 2013)

That top pic shows just how small the Jeep carriers were not a lot of takeoff run for the first plane


----------



## rochie (Sep 15, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> That top pic shows just how small the Jeep carriers were not a lot of takeoff run for the first plane


was thinking the same thing !


----------



## vinnye (Sep 15, 2013)

Better hope that there was some wind to turn into!
Don't think these little carriers could go quickly enough to generate much wind on their own!


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 16, 2013)

The aircraft would have been ranged as far aft as possible in a cluster round the stern for take-off ops, rather than in line astern formation like that. I'd say it's highly unlikely that they could get enough speed to get airborne in that space with the aircraft arranged like that; there were no catapults on those jeep carriers. Take a look at the picture of HMS Striker.


----------

