Weather limitations in carrier aviation in the interwar and WWII eras

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

pinehilljoe said:
The loss of Courageous and Glorious was a blow to Britain.
Click to expand...
Agreed. With their wide lifts these two carriers could have fielded early Seafires, and perhaps we'd see more FAA interest in the non-folding Douglas Dauntless. Now that would be something to see at Ceylon in April 1942 when Nagumo arrives - Sommerville gets two extra carriers, each with competitive aircraft.



It's odd that the Franklin Mint thought there was a market for a FAA Dauntless.

SBD-5 Dauntless Dive Bomber UK Royal Navy FAA MK.1

Buy Our Franklin Mint Desktop Models Collection Red Baron Fokker DR.1 Tri-plane. A World War I fighter aircraft designed by Reinhold Platz and built by Fokker-Flugzeugwerke, and many more collectibles available at Aiken's Airplanes!
www.aikensairplanes.com

Sept 1939 to Aug 1942 was a bad time for the RN carrier force, loosing HMS Courageous, Glorious, Ark Royal, Hermes and Eagle, plus CVEs, along with crippling HMS Illustrious and Formidable. But thankfully, with the exception of two CVEs (HMS Avenger and Dasher) after HMS Eagle's loss in Aug 1942, the RN carrier force never lost another ship. Meanwhile, 1942 was the beginning of the end for the IJN's carrier force, with six losses alone that year.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Agreed. With their wide lifts these two carriers could have fielded early Seafires, and perhaps we'd see more FAA interest in the non-folding Douglas Dauntless.
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely.

Between June & Nov 1941 Britain was already looking at the next generation of dive bombers in development for the USN. The Brewster SB2A Buccaneer and the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. By the end of July 1942 there were 450 SB2C on order with deliveries scheduled to start by the end of June 1943. And due to their folded height they would only have been capable of operation from the next generation of RN carriers then in development, the Colossus class light carriers & Audacious class fleet carriers.

The 9 SBD-5 Dauntless received by Britain from Nov 1943 were only intended for comparative trials against other aircraft.
No more may have been lost after 1942 but Indomitable & 2 CVE were torpedoed with the former out of action for nearly a year and the latter pair not considered worth while repairing. Probably due to a lack of space in the repair yards at the time and the non-standard nature of their machinery etc.

HMS Nabob, largely Canadian manned, in Aug 1944

HMS Thane Jan 1945.

The survival of this pair is usually put down to the modifications insisted on by the Admiralty to improve survivability that were being planned even before the loss of Avenger (herself hit by a single torpedo) & Dasher.
 
EwenS said:
Highly unlikely. Between June & Nov 1941 Britain was already looking at the next generation of dive bombers in development for the USN.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But we might have seen a different decision path had Britain gone into 1941 with two additional fast fleet carriers with wide lifts. I wonder how Courageous and Glorious would have been updated or altered had they survived into 1944.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Perhaps. But we might have seen a different decision path had Britain gone into 1941 with two additional fast fleet carriers with wide lifts.
Click to expand...
Again unlikely. Actually well nigh impossible.

In 1939 the RN had the Swordfish and Skua capable of dive bombing, the Albacore about to enter service and the Barracuda planned for production start up in April 1941 (delays began in Aug 1939 with development of the Exe engine being suspended).

Britain got 50 SB2U Vindicators as Chesapeakes and 5 SBC-4 as Cleveland I in 1940/41only by virtue of their being on order for the French navy. Same with the Martlet. It wasn't shopping for naval aircraft until mid-late 1940 when it took up the option in the French contract for another 100 Martlets.

The SBD-1 only entered service with the USMC in late 1940 (57 built from June 1940) and in SBD-2 form (87 built from Nov 1940) with the USN in early 1941. Neither had self sealing fuel tanks at that stage, which were then considered essential for British aircraft. SBD-3 didn't enter production until March 1941and didn't fully replace earlier versions until 1942. The USAAC was also getting interested in dive bombing and had placed orders for 78 of the A-24 version, with production starting in June 1941. The USMC/USN had a great need to replace earlier dive bomber types still in service in early 1941 (e.g. the NAF SBA and Northrop BT-1) so giving priority to British orders is less likely than with fighter types like P-40 and F4F.
Admiral Beez said:
I wonder how Courageous and Glorious would have been updated or altered had they survived into 1944.
Click to expand...
Look at Furious. Increase in light AA and addition of radar. That was all. Like Furious they would have been worn out by hard service by 1944 and laid up in Reserve before the year was out. Argus, the other survivor from pre-war days, was laid up by the end of 1943.

Late 1943 saw many of the old WW1 era battleships & cruisers being laid up or stripped of armament and used in secondary roles. Object then was to free up crews for deployment elsewhere (landing craft for D-Day and other new construction). Can't see C&G being any different.

Implacable had been due to complete Oct 1941 with Indefatigable in June 1942. That pair were much delayed and modified (including incorporation of the larger forward lift) and didn't enter service until 1944. Any spare shipyard capacity would have been better spent getting that pair into service earlier than making substantial improvements to C&G.
 
Last edited:
pinehilljoe said:
Even Courageous and Glorious were relegated to training and ASW it would have freed other hulls to be in front line service.
Click to expand...
By the end of 1940 I'd send them both out of the way to Singapore for deep refits. Britain has the yard there for this very purpose. Then leave them there, if only in reserve and training roles... until autumn 1941.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
By the end of 1940 I'd send them both out of the way to Singapore for deep refits. Britain has the yard there for this very purpose. Then leave them there, if only in reserve and training roles... until autumn 1941.
Click to expand...
Define "deep refit"?

Singapore was used for routine refits of ships from the time it opened in 1938 e.g. Eagle in Aug 1939 for a couple of weeks, cruiser Danae for a week in Feb 1941, Mauritius in Nov / Dec 1941. But major works were carried out back in the UK. So its not clear to me exactly how capable Singapore was at this time. Same with Hong Kong & Simonstown.

As noted in other threads, Admiralty plans in mid-1939 envisaged C&G being reduced to a trade protection role in the IO or Atlantic by 1942.

The DNC considered that spending money modernising old ships after the outbreak of war was a waste of valuable resources, but he was overruled on more than one occasion.
 
EwenS said:
Define "deep refit"? Admiralty plans in mid-1939 envisaged C&G being reduced to a trade protection role in the IO or Atlantic by 1942.
Click to expand...
Deep is perhaps overdoing it. As trade protection carriers in the IO, Singapore would be a good place for routine maintenance and to build up the foundations of Pacific carrier aviation at Royal Naval Air Station Simbang (can we keep some Skuas?). I wouldn't spend money modernizing either beyond adding radar (if this can be shipped to and installed at Singapore) and improving the AA and FDO. These are short ranged ships though, Wikipedia says 6,630 nmi 10 knots, which allowing for some full speed runs for flight ops, would only just get you to Pearl Harbour (5877 nmi). Getting back to the topic of this thread, deck-bending typhoons aside, the IPO should be better weather for these older, more slightly built carriers.
 
Last edited:
Hi
1942 was a bad year for aircraft carriers as the USN lost Lexington on 8 May, Yorktown on 7 June, Wasp on 15 Sept. and Hornet on 24 Oct. (not counting the Langley, which was by then an aircraft transport, on 27 Feb.). This was one of the reasons that HMS Victorious was on 'loan' to the USN for part of 1943, after its refit at Norfolk, until relieved by the Essex. I think the USN lost six other (smaller) carriers during 1943-45.

Mike
 
A good list of them all here List of sunken aircraft carriers - Wikipedia
 
It was a bad year for the IJN, the IJN lost Akagi, Soryu, Hiryu, Kaga, Shoho, Ryujo, and had no hope of making up the losses.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I wonder how Courageous and Glorious would have been updated or altered had they survived into 1944.
Click to expand...

I think that money would've gone into the new-build armoured or light fleet carriers. I think these two would've shared their sister's fate, by 1944 relegated to training or reserve. Tired machinery, limited stowage, and a small flight-deck unable to handle larger models easily would all be issues.
 
I believe Courageous and Glorious had more newer machinery than their half sister Furious. But I need to check that.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I believe Courageous and Glorious had more newer machinery than their half sister Furious. But I need to check that.
Click to expand...
Furious was ordered as a follow on to C&G and the machinery of all 3 was essentially the same - 18 Yarrow small tube boilers generating steam for 4 sets of geared turbines. The only difference was the turbines were Parsons in C&G and Brown-Curtis in Furious. None of them had their machinery replaced on conversion to carriers. The main difference on completion in 1916/17 as Large Light Cruisers was in the primary & secondary armament - 15"/4" in C&G, 18"/5.5" in Furious.

Furious received a major machinery overhaul during her 1930/31 refit that included reblading of the turbines and retubing of the boilers.
 
Last edited:
While the Glorious and Courageous could have been very useful had they not be wasted, they had some very serious limitations that could not be solved without a very, very, very major rebuilding (Jack up the name plate and the ships bell and build a new ship underneath).
This is what you are working with.

and in WW 1940?

They have already bulged the hull and there isn't a lot of hull to work with due to the fine lines (taper).
There are photos of her operating in heavy weather with water coming off forecastle but adding a deck (or two ?) forward may not do what you want as the extra weight make cause her plunge deeper into the waves, She may be better but not the improvement you think. Same at the stern. There is only much buoyancy to be had without rebuilding both the bow and stern for a considerable percentage of the length. Adding a 100ft of deck to the bow doesn't do much good if she is plunging like a bucking bronco.
Comparing her and her sisters to modern ships (like the US Wasp and Ranger) ignores the advances made in Steam machinery and other 'details' that could save well over 1000 tons of weight to use on other things.
 
Shortround6 said:
While the Glorious and Courageous could have been very useful had they not be wasted, they had some very serious limitations that could not be solved without a very, very, very major rebuilding
Click to expand...
Excellent points. Mind, the post-Midway Japanese made due with conversion carriers that were not much better. Give Courageous and Glorious to the IJN and they'd be happy enough. Though they'd probably extend the flight deck in a light weight fashion, like on the merchant conversion carrier Kaiyō, shown below.

 
I wouldn't call the Ranger a modern ship. It was with good reason that she saw limited combat use and was never sent to the Pacific even after the US had lost Lexington, Yorktown Wasp and Hornet.
 
The Ranger was the USN's first purpose-built carrier, where Langley, Lexington and Saratoga were conversions.

She was modern in comparison to others, as she was from the mid-30's and the reason she was kept in the Atlantic, was because of her speed (less than 30 knots), not because of her abilities.

Matter of fact, the Ranger tried to lure the Tirpitz out of hiding, which didn't happen, unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
616
DerAdlerIstGelandet
K
Hard runways in WWII
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Thumpalumpacus
All weather?
Replies
3
Views
554
GregP
M
First JATO Flight in the USA Anniversary
Replies
13
Views
991
MIflyer
M
M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register