Rn vs IJN

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Some more numbers:

5 May 1942; 25 Martlets, 1 night-fighting Fulmar and 21 Swordfish (data from Illustrious action report).
10 Sept 1942: six Fulmars, 23 Martlets, and 18 Swordfish. ("")
22 June 1944; 42 Corsairs, 15 Barracudas (Warship profile 11)
Air group organisation had to change several times during WW2 to allow the FAA to cope with the ever increasing tempo of operations and the changing nature of the campaigns it was involved in. These went beyond simple adjustment of numbers on a carrier.

Pre-war there were only enough squadrons for each operational carrier. Problems arose when the RN regained control of the FAA in May 1939 and again around the outbreak of war as new squadrons were needed for a reactivated Hermes and Furious. At that point there was an aircrew shortage. Plans only saw squadrons being formed about 6 months before a parent carrier was due to complete with training being geared to that. And the FAA was then forced to base aircraft ashore to defend Scapa Flow, a responsibility that should have fallen on the RAF, and to help out Coastal Command in the southern North Sea and Channel area from 1940.

So the next plan was to try to create "supernumerary" squadrons that could reinforce carrier groups for specific operations or replace squadrons worn out by action. But such was the increased demand for aircraft as the carrier fleet expanded from late 1942 with escort carriers arriving from the USA, and the outcry from the Air Ministry over production demands, that it had to be scaled back and was never implemented as intended.

Late 1943 also saw the formation of Wings to control the multiple fighter or TBR squadrons now intended for each carrier.

With regard to that last outfit, it is reflective to a degree, of the FAA expansion plan for 1944 of providing each carrier with enough aircraft to allow it to vary the air group on board between 2 fighters per TBR and 1 fighter per TBR. So in theory there were to be, for an Illustrious class, 36 Corsairs and 27 Barracudas/Avengers allowing a 36/18 or 27/27, or anything in between, outfit to be carried as circumstances dictated. This only lasted for a short time.

Fighter squadron sizes on the Illustrious class also increased in 1943-44 period from 10 to 14 to 18.

The complement given above for June 1944 therefore represented 3 x 14 plane Corsair squadrons (1830, 1833 & 1837) plus 15 Barracudas (9 from 810 & 6 from 847). Victorious also used a similar set up at this time. So an extra squadron of fighters aboard for specific operations, at a cost of reduced TBR numbers, with the extra TBR left ashore. But in Aug/Sept 1944 a further reorganisation took place. One of the fighter squadrons for each carrier (1837 & 1838) were disbanded to allow the others to be brought up to 18 aircraft strength and give each squadron some extra pilots to cope with the expected increasing tempo of operations. At the same time the TBR Wings (of 2 squadrons) in each carrier was reduced to a single slightly enlarged squadron.

Then on 30 June 1945 the FAA was finally able to formally adopt the US style Carrier Air Group it had wanted for some time, with the intention of swapping out a whole CAG periodically, rather than replace squadrons or individual personnel in squadrons. The exact shape of each CAG was intended to be driven by the class of carrier and it's capacity, there being different compositions for the Illustrious class, Indomitable, the Implacables and the light fleet carriers. Replacement CAGs were to be provided on a one for one basis for fleet carriers and one for every two light fleets. Most of the squadrons necessary to form the 1st to 18th CAGs for the 6 armoured carriers and first 4 light fleet carriers were in existence when the war ended in Aug 1945. So the plan was well advanced.

There were then to be extra specialist squadrons for specific purposes, for example night fighters, photo Recce and long range strike (Mosquitos).

It effectively took until late 1942 / early 1943 for things to get sorted out for the FAA. Long promised modern aircraft types began to appear, and in significant numbers, aircrew training programmes were delivering plenty of new personnel etc. But 1941/42 everything was a bit hand to mouth.
 
For a country of grass airstrips I wonder why British fighters always had such high landing speeds. What is the advantage of presumably such low wing loading? More agility I suppose.
The Hurricane and Spitfire had rather low landing speeds. It was some of the later fighters that got high landing speeds.

Some people should be careful of what the ask for, they just might get it.
itain%2C_during_Aircraft_Trials_Held_on_the_A14847.jpg

A high performance carrier capable interceptor :)

Trouble is that sometimes the specifications were written by a committee and like the old joke says "A camel is a horse that was designed by a committee".
So sometimes you wind up with a camel when what you wanted was oval, flat track race horse.
This thing had a bigger wing than a Firefly.
 
The Hurricane and Spitfire had rather low landing speeds. It was some of the later fighters that got high landing speeds.

Some people should be careful of what the ask for, they just might get it. View attachment 742244
A high performance carrier capable interceptor :)

Trouble is that sometimes the specifications were written by a committee and like the old joke says "A camel is a horse that was designed by a committee".
So sometimes you wind up with a camel when what you wanted was oval, flat track race horse.
This thing had a bigger wing than a Firefly.
The FAA's carrier fighters kept getting bigger while the USN go for the Bearcat.
 
The FAA's carrier fighters kept getting bigger while the USN go for the Bearcat.
Don't forget that the USN could afford to buy more than one fighter at a time. Also don't forget that the F8F-1 was only a small fighter when compared to other US fighters. It wasn't small compared to a Sea Fury, wing was 87% the size of the Sea Fury wing.
And the F8F-1 was not supposed to be the high altitude fleet fighter. That job was taken by the F4U-4 and post war by the F4U-5 with the sidewinder engine. 1800hp at 30,000ft without a turbo.
 
This is about the time where a RN CBG equipped with radar, CICs and experienced fighter director officers (FDOs), can match any thus-far surviving IJN CBG, presumably equipped with the A6M5 along with a mix of D4Y, B6N, or B7A).


Agree though they are probably better off ditching the Barracudas going all F4Us at that point.
 
re the Japanese aircrews being shocked by the US AA fire

Japanese aircrews being shaken by the effectiveness of the British AA was reported after the sinking of the Renown and PoW also. According to Japanese records (IIRC) Force Z shot down 4 (with a 5th crashing on landing?) and damaged over 20 of the other attacking aircraft. Most of them by PoW's gunners.

Interesting bit of info. After the war when the US did its intel assessments of the Japanese methodologies and technologies they found that, during the early part of the war, IJN medium and heavy AA guns used less than 50% as many rounds as the USN and RN AA guns per kill. The report attributed this to a somewhat unique combination of training, organization, and achieved fire discipline - partly in order to conserve ammunition. The basic idea was that they would only fire if the target aircraft was deemed a threat to the AA gun's assigned protectee, and that they would only fire until the target aircraft was deemed no longer a threat, whereupon they would switch targets if there were others still deemed a threat. So while in the early war the Japanese AA gunners shot down significantly less US and UK aircraft, they also used a lot less ammo. The USN and RN did not achieve an equivalent low number of rounds per kill until the advent of the proximity fuze for the heavy AA guns and with the GGS and radar ranging for the medium AA guns.

IJN medium AA was the 25mm, heavy AA was the 5" for the most part, with some 4.7" and 3.9"
USN medium AA was the 1.1" and 40mm Bofors (surprisingly each using approximately the same number of rounds/kill) and the 5" for heavy AA
RN medium AA was the 2pdr and 40mm Bofors (again using similar numbers of rounds/kill in the early war) and the 4"/4.5"/4.7"/5.25" for heavy AA
 
Engagement ranges changed quite a bit during the war. Of course the speed of the attacking aircraft also changed so the later aircraft covered more ground in the same amount of time.

British light AA was all over the place with quite a change between light AA and medium AA. At the end of WW light AA was Lewis guns and medium was single 2pdrs with hand worked mountings. The 2pdr also changed during the time between the wars with a change in ammo (which the older guns could not fire) and a slight change in the rate of fire. Some assessments rated the quad .5 in MG was more effective than the old 2pdr single. But the Quad .5 was a substantial piece of kit. Weighing 2190 to 2888lbs without ammo and crew depending on mount (all manual with differences in elevation). Single 2pdrs came back using the new guns and sometimes a powered mounting that could also be used for twin 20mm guns and at the end of the war and post war an air cooled Bofors gun.
 
I have seen those things shot at firepower demonstrations, they were at least as scary as the multi-barrel Vulcan type weapon IMO. The old sergeants who had seen them in Vietnam spoke of them in awe. They mounted them on armored deuce 1/2 and 5 ton trucks. They called the ammunition cases for them coffin lid or grave stones or something like that. They were much quicker to reload than the Vulcan type and don't run through the ammunition quite as fast.
 
A number of the quad Maxon mounts were trialled on US Pacific Fleet carriers in 1945. Photo of one on the Lexington.

Not successful and removed immediately after the war.

Interesting that they required a fuel source! I guess they couldn't just tie it in to the electrical system of the ship for some reason? Do you know why they were not considered successful?

I always thought the water-cooled .50 cal would be best on ships due to the ability to just keep shooting. The regular air-cooled M2 is going to need a barrel change after 10-20 minutes if they are shooting a lot.
 
Interesting that they required a fuel source! I guess they couldn't just tie it in to the electrical system of the ship for some reason? Do you know why they were not considered successful?

I always thought the water-cooled .50 cal would be best on ships due to the ability to just keep shooting. The regular air-cooled M2 is going to need a barrel change after 10-20 minutes if they are shooting a lot.
Too short ranged for dealing with kamikazes.

To ensure a kamikaze was dealt with satisfactorily when it was heading directly at you it needed completely dismantled some distance away to ensure that the various bits didn't carry straight on and hit you!! 0.5" couldn't cut it. Neither could 20mm. It was often said that when crews heard the 20mm firing it was time to take cover! 20mm were retained on US ships (increasingly as a fewer number of twin mounts) as they were manual free-swinging mounts that didn't need a power supply in the event of the ship losing power. Giving that 0.5" quad mount it's own power source also fulfilled that requirement. They also experimented with with powered quad 20mm

But 1945 was seeing increasing numbers of director controlled twin and quad, and even single, 40mm being fitted (with destroyers and destroyer escorts sacrificing TT to do it). That was seen as the way to go.

The next step was to move to automatic 3" mounts, which was the smallest calibre that could take a proximity fuse at that time.
 
Too short ranged for dealing with kamikazes.

To ensure a kamikaze was dealt with satisfactorily when it was heading directly at you it needed completely dismantled some distance away to ensure that the various bits didn't carry straight on and hit you!! 0.5" couldn't cut it. Neither could 20mm. It was often said that when crews heard the 20mm firing it was time to take cover! 20mm were retained on US ships (increasingly as a fewer number of twin mounts) as they were manual free-swinging mounts that didn't need a power supply in the event of the ship losing power. Giving that 0.5" quad mount it's own power source also fulfilled that requirement. They also experimented with with powered quad 20mm

But 1945 was seeing increasing numbers of director controlled twin and quad, and even single, 40mm being fitted (with destroyers and destroyer escorts sacrificing TT to do it). That was seen as the way to go.

The next step was to move to automatic 3" mounts, which was the smallest calibre that could take a proximity fuse at that time.

Well yeah ok that makes sense. Kamikazes were a kind of unique problem. They did keep .50 machine guns in the Navy though long after WW2, in fact many ships still have them. Not sure about quad mounts though. I think they are largely for dealing with small craft or obstacles etc.

Do you have data on the efficiency of the 5"/38 and various other medium caliber naval guns in AA role? How do they compare with the Bofors?


It really is amazing how much influence the tiny neutral nations of Sweden and Switzerland had on WW2 armaments.
 
Kamikazes were a kind of unique problem.

Perhaps more a harbinger of things to come. Ever faster and bigger aircraft (particularly once jet attack aircraft were introduced post-wwii) necessitated longer ranged and harder hitting AA.

They did keep .50 machine guns in the Navy though long after WW2, in fact many ships still have them. Not sure about quad mounts though. I think they are largely for dealing with small craft or obstacles etc.

Sure, a 50 might be plenty to deal with potential suicide bombers coming towards you at 30 knots in a small boat. Quite a different prospect hitting a jet or missile going 500 knots.
 
Yes I understand the nature of SAMs, cruise missiles, Ballistic missiles etc. The heavy machine gun was however, generally effective as light AA against WW2 aircraft. Kamikaze were a special case. The M16 GMC (quad .50 on a half-track) were extremely effective against low flying aircraft in Europe. Caused some unfortunate friendly fire losses too. But they shot down quite a few Fw 190s for example. Quite effective against ground targets as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back