Carriers!!

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

:{)

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.

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

:{)

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.

:{)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

:{)

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 ...

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.

:{)

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

:{)

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!

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.

:{)

By DDs at Tarawa. I meant destroyers not tanks.

:{)

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.

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.