USN carrier night fighters

[trackend]

Hosho I think you'll find was based on a fleet oiler hull so she was not designed and built from the keel up.(source warships by D Miller)
Hermes was the worlds first specifically designed carrier and the smallest
designated fleet carrier in the RN the hull design was taken from a cruiser but it was not a conversion.

IJN Hosho

Extract. Japan's first aircraft carrier, laid down as a tanker and redesigned as a carrier during construction with considerable British assistance. Officially known as an aircraft depot ship. She was a relatively conventional carrier design, but quite small. A sister-ship Shokaku was planned, but construction never began, because of the limitation of the Washington Treaty and her construction was cancelled on 19 November 1923.

 

[HealzDevo]

I did miss out that section on the first purpose built carrier. On the other hand, I was saying that while the US did have aircraft carriers, up until the Pearl Harbour disaster the US always considered the Battleship the heart of the fleet. It took the near complete destruction of Battleship Row, to prove the viability of the carrier as a weapon in its own right. When properly protected, a carrier task force can do damage over a longer range than a Battleship ever could. It is force multiplication in terms of also being able to radio in targets from the aircraft to the Battleships and Destroyers to engage. The Harrier taskforce was an example of how a properly equipped taskforce can operate effectively against a much larger airforce. That includes trained men, which the British had. Both sides would have had effectively trained men, but Argentina was operating conventional aircraft against something that could drop and climb vertically. The Harrier proved effective over conventional aircraft for this type of warfare.

 

[MP-Willow]

Now what about USN night fighters, like say the F7F-3N, made for carriers and it did fly in Korea before replaced by the F9F

Go Cats Go!!

 

[R Leonard]

....while the US did have aircraft carriers, up until the Pearl Harbour disaster the US always considered the Battleship the heart of the fleet. It took the near complete destruction of Battleship Row, to prove the viability of the carrier as a weapon in its own right.

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.

Not damaged, simply because they were not at Pearl Harbor, were Wyoming (gunnery training), Arkansas, New York, Texas, New Mexico, Mississippi, Idaho, Colorado, North Carolina, and Washington. So there were nine battleships (not counting Wyoming) undamaged, more than were at Pearl Harbor at that time of the attack, including the two newest, North Carolina and Washington.

There really wasn't an epiphany of "oh, crap, our battleships have been wiped, guess we'll have to resort to carriers." It was well recognized in the US Navy that the fleet carrier was not only faster than all of the existing battleships, but also a more versatile striking platform. Of those not at Pearl Harbor, speed-wise, only North Carolina and Washington even came close with rated top speeds of about 27 knots. A Yorktown class carrier could easily beat that. Doesn't seem like much, but when moving at top speed under combat conditions, that means the carrier could eventually out distance the slower battleship, conceivably making it superfluous. The older battleships were lucky to crank out 21 knots maximum.

The easiest illustration of this is Enterprise and Saratoga going out in November 1941 to ferry aircraft to Wake and Midway. In both cases, it was decided to leave the battleships behind as they would not contribute to the operations and would only serve to slow down the task group.

The funny thing about battleships is that, while, true, they can pile a lot of iron on a beach, they are really designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to poke holes in the other guy's battleships. Carriers, on the other hand, have the ability to reach out well beyond gunfire range and deliver killing blows to any size enemy ship, from battleships on down. The down side to carriers is that they require escorts to provide AAA and submarine defense coverage. Such escorts need to be relatively speedy and heavily armed for the purposes intended. Cruisers, especially of the AAA type, and destroyers fit the requirements nicely. And, true, while a battleship can provide considerable AAA fire, and incidentally serve as a bomb magnet, it also requires a certain amount of escort and aerial protection and so causes an unhappy division of resources.

A similar example of the deliberate decision to leave battleships out of the equation was Nimitz's decision to leave his available battleships in the vicinity of the west coast of the US during the Midway operation. While, to an extent this was to appease the Nervous Nellies in Washington, he also knew that they would be of little value in what was sure to be a pure aircraft carrier engagement. Their presence would have merely served to slow down the carriers, dilute his available escorts, and force the carriers to provide protective CAP when there was painfully none to spare.

New battleships authorized after the expiration of the Naval Limitation Treaties and completed were as below. Note that all were started before the US entered WWII, and indeed, three of them before WWII even started in Europe.
North Carolina, laid down 27 October 1937
Washington, laid down 14 June 1938
South Dakota, laid down 5 July 1939
Indiana, laid down 20 November 1939
Massachusetts, laid down 20 July 1939
Alabama, laid down 1 February 1940
Iowa, laid down 27 June 1940
New Jersey, laid down 16 September 1940
Missouri, laid down 6 January 1941
Wisconsin, laid down 25 January 1941

Authorized, pre-war, but never completed, or, in most cases, never even started, battleships are listed below. It should be kept in mind that some of these were to be replacements for such obsolescent BBs as Arkansas, New York, and Texas.

Illinois (laid down 6 December 1942, canceled 12 August 1945)
Kentucky (laid down 7 March 1942, suspended 17 February 1947, canceled 1958)
Montana (not started, canceled 21 July 1943)
Ohio (not started, canceled 21 July 1943)
Maine (not started, canceled 21 July 1943)
New Hampshire (not started, canceled 21 July 1943)
Louisiana (not started, canceled 21 July 1943)

Significantly, once the war started for the US, no new battleships were completed that had not already been started prior to 7 December 1941, and after some 18 months of war, all new planned battleship construction was canceled, and neither of the two BBs started after Pearl Harbor were completed. Further, no other new battleships were authorized.

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, Bennington, and Boxer) were, a month later, authorized. After the US entered the war an additional 19 Essex class carriers were authorized between July and September 1942. Of these six were canceled on 28 March 1945, as they were never started, and the under construction Reprisal and Iwo Jima were canceled on 12 August 1945. In all, twenty four Essex class carriers were completed. Off the top of my head, fourteen of them saw combat service in WW2. Also constructed were another 9 CVLs and, without counting fingers and toes, about 99 CVEs.

So, just on the basis of authorizations, with 13 Essex class carriers, before the US entered the war, the argument could be made that the aircraft carrier was already on its way to becoming the leading capital ship of the USN before battleship losses and damage in the Pearl Harbor attack.

Rich

 

[plan_D]

Extremely informative, as always. What about Battlecruisers though? They were fast and heavily armed, surely an ideal escort for carriers. Did the U.S make use of battlecruisers? I don't know much about the USN during World War 2 beyond the basics of their carrier operations in the Pacific.

I do know they had the Alaska-Class battlecruisers that, I think, just missed the war.

 

[R Leonard]

The USN's brief foray into the world of the battle cruiser was derailed by the building restrictions imposed by treaty limitations. Even so, there were only six ever authorized, all during WWI. They were Lexington, Constellation, Saratoga, Ranger, Constitution, and United States. Lexington and Saratoga were converted to aircraft carriers, Constellation and Constitution were canceled before construction started, Ranger and United States were canceled in the early stages of their construction.

What some like to refer to as battle cruisers were the large cruisers of the Alaska class. These were NOT battle cruisers. In the USN designation system battle cruisers were designated with the letters CC. Thus, Lexington was CC-1 before becoming CV-2 when converted to an aircraft carrier; Saratoga went from CC-3 to CV-3. Large cruisers were designated CB. A problem arises when someone looks at the CB and figures that it stands for battle cruiser, as in "Cruiser, Battle" just as light cruisers are designated CL as in "Cruiser, Light." Large cruisers were named for territories. As an aside, battle cruisers, in USN service, were to be named for famous ships.

The Alaska class was authorized in July 1940 and consisted of 6 ships: Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Samoa. These ships were to displace 27000 tons, have a top speed of 31.4 knots, and were armed with 9 12-inch and 12 5-inch rifles, 56 40mm and 34 20mm. Only two were completed and both saw combat service.

Alaska (CB-1) laid down on 17 December 1941 and commissioned on 17 June 1944, received three battle stars for service in the Pacific between 6 February and 15 August 1945. Fleet reserve from 17 February 1947, struck 1 June 1960; sold for scrap that month.

Guam (CB-2), commissioned on 17 September 1944, received two battle stars for service in the Pacific between 14 March and 15 August 1945. Fleet reserve from 17 February 1947, struck 1 June 1960; sold for scrap in May 1961.

Hawaii (CB-3), launched 3 November 1945. Construction halted at 84% completion, remained in fleet reserve until struck 9 June 1958; sold for scrap in 1959.

Philippines (CB-4), construction never started. Contact canceled 24 June 1943

Puerto Rico (CB-5), construction never started. Contact canceled 24 June 1943

Samoa (CB-6), construction never started. Contact canceled 24 June 1943

As with battleships, they simply weren't needed.
Rich

 

[maxs75]

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.

Royal Navy had already done some harbour attacks before Taranto against the French Fleet.
Swordfish from Ark Royal torpedoed the french battle-cruiser/battleship Dunkerque at Mers el Kebir and another one from Hermes did the same against the nearly completed battleship Richelieu in Dakar in july 1940. I don't know the harbour depth of both harbour, but I think that they weren't much deep.

Max

 

[plan_D]

What's the difference between a CB and a CC apart from the name, then?

 

[R Leonard]

I would expect a USN battle cruiser such as USS Lexington (CC-1) to carry larger main guns than an USN large cruiser of the Alaska (CB-1) class. Indeed, that is the case. The original 1916 plan for the Lexington class called for 14-inch guns. This was later changed, based on the RN experiences, in the building specs to 16-inch. Alaska class, as noted, had but 12-inch main tubes. A very simplistic explanation would be that battle cruisers could be viewed as battleships with less armor, whereas large cruisers could be viewed as heavy cruisers with bigger guns. Other nuances could apply.

Rich

 

[plan_D]

Okay, thanks. So, there's four classes of Cruiser then; Light, Medium, Heavy and Battle.

So, Battlecruisers and Battleships were discovered to a pointless extravagence. A fleet was generally made up with Destroyers, Cruisers, Corvettes and Carriers then?

I apologise if I'm bothering you with these simple questions. I do tend to bother people who I realise know a lot on the subject with a lot of questions.

 

[trackend]

I think Corvettes where only used for mercantile convoy and escort duties as they lacked the speed to hold station with a battle fleet with a top speed of only 16knts, in heavy seas this could fall to 9 or 10knts.

 

[plan_D]

Ideal patrol ships as well then, I suppose.

 

[MP-Willow]

So what hapened to the nght fighters? We do have a carriers thread open in the ships section. But for the sake of it, I am saddened that the Battleship fell so hard so fast, from Navey love. The big guns really are a sight to see and hear working.

 

[trackend]

Your right MP sorry I shall stop talking ships and piss off to the carrier thread.

 

[MP-Willow]

Tracked I do not want to anger you. Now do any of you know when night fighters first saw action?

 

[maxs75]

Now do any of you know when night fighters first saw action?

I also am interested about the answer of this question.

in USN one of the first night action was done during the Gilbert operation. An "hunter-killer" group of the carrier Enterprise made up of two F6F-3 day fighters and a TBF-1C with radar took off during the night to intercept the japanese snoopers. The ship's radar was to guide the group to the neighbour of the enemy plane, then the TBF radar was to guide the Hellcats in a shooting position. The TBF and F6Fs got lost each other and the TBF shoot down an enemy plane with its forward MG.

Anyway Fulmar night fighters were already in service in 1942 with FAA.

Max

 

[MP-Willow]

Yes, but were the Fulmer's in the Pacific, I would gess yes, but the FAA worked a lot in the Indian, well until the IJN moved them out.

 

[plan_D]

The Royal Navy were shocked in 1941-42 but as in Burma, we kicked them right back out again.

 

[maxs75]

Yes, but were the Fulmer's in the Pacific, I would gess yes, but the FAA worked a lot in the Indian, well until the IJN moved them out.

Mp-Willow,
AFAIK Fulmar never fought in the Pacific ocean. When the carrier Victorious operated with Saratoga in 1943 she had only US built Martlets and Avengers. When later the BPF operated in Pacific in 1945 the Fulmar was already outdated.

Anyway Fulmars were part of carrier air groups in the Indian Ocean in 1942. During the famous Nagumo raid in april 1942, Fulmar equipped no. 800 and 806 sqns. on Indomitable, and 803 sqn. on Formidable.
The two carrier fleet never met each other, and some monthes later the two carriers were retired for operation in Mediterranean sea. Illustious joined for the Madascar operation, but in 1943 was sent to Mediterranean leaving no carriers in Indian Ocean.
Ceylon wasn't considered a safe base for the fleet and RN main bases were on the western Indian Ocean (Addu atoll, Kenya and Madagascar).
Indomitable was part of the covering fleet for the relief of Malta in august 1942, and Formidable covered the landing in North Africa in november. By that time the availability of Martlets, Sea Hurricane and Seafire led to the retirement of Fulmars from the british fleet carriers.
When Illustrious went back to Ceylon in 1944, she was equipped with Corsairs fighters.

Max

 

[MP-Willow]

maxs75, thanks for the help. Do you think that the RN sould have found a way to keep a carrier force in the Indian?