OT Aircraft Carrier Operations RN / USN

[Nikademus]

Hey ho,

UK carriers in the med were very important to ops in the med. Too often there's a fixation on scoring hits and/or sinking enemy warships. The primary role of UK carriers within the Med Fleet org was to be the eyes of the Fleet and for air defense along with strike capabilities. The mere presence of a carrier within a UK TF escorting convoys was a deterent to the Italians who had pre-war counted on their land air force to both counter the enemy carriers and give them a strike capacity of their own. Real life implementation however showed the difficulty of coordinating two seperate and independant services so the end result was often no air cover for the Italian BB which was hamstrung by orders limiting risk and getting their own timely recon and attacks in.

UK strike ability was limited due to capacity however the RN was saddled early on by converted carrier hulls that couldn't give them numbers which are important if one wants to gain hits. This is especially true with torpdoes. The Japanese recognized this early on and developed tactics such as the Anvil which to be carried out required a minimum number of planes to maximize chances. When the RN built modern carriers, defense was considered equally important because they would be often operating within striking distance of land bases. Even in the Pacific early carrier battles showed that bombers inevitably got through. In conjunction with with protecting the carriers themselves with armor, the UK was the first nation to perfect an integrated fighter defense system that attempted to maximize the efficiency of their limited fighter aircraft. When you factor in their ability to chase off and shoot down enemy recon planes, the carriers were worth their weight in gold. However "limited" the Swordfish might have been as a modern torpedo bomber, their mere presence and potential to strike enemy targets could not be ignored. Even an unsuccessful attack would rattle enemy commanders, force fuel to be burned and make the decision makers nervous. It only takes one hit to potentially cripple even the strongest warship. VV was hit at least once and had the die rolls gone differently could have been hunted down and sunk. Didn't end up that way but the point was....it might have. When your a nation that essentially can't replace your losses in wartime......thats a major consideration.

So the comparison between Pac and Med theaters is often one of apples and oranges. Thx to PH and the wide open expanses of the Pacific, the naval war there become one of small isolated carrier groups grappling with each other. In the med, the UK carrier force was an integrated member of a surface force in which the surface ships were the primary force projector. They were still vital however. Its often assumed that US carriers inserted into the Med would have done better. Perhaps.....but they'd have paid for it too. Early USN carrier ops showed that their fighter numbers were insufficient and fighter control was still in the development stage. In my opinion for example, no USN CV would have survived what Illustrious did when attacked by DB's carrying 1000kg bombs.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Hey ho,

warspite1

Hey ho???

[Nikademus]

Right.

Kermit the Frog says "Hi Ho, Kermit THE frog here"


Gangster Kermit says "Hey Ho.......Kermit the Frog here.....about to go medieval on yaz." [:)]

[Nikademus]

Right.

Kermit the Frog says "Hi Ho, Kermit THE frog here"


Gangster Kermit says "Hey Ho.......Kermit the Frog here.....about to go medieval on yaz." [:)]

[wadail]

ORIGINAL: msieving1

They Gave Me A Seafire by Mike Crosley is the memoir of a Fleet Air Arm pilot. Crosley flew from HMS Eagle from the end of 1941 until she was sunk, from HMS Implacable in the Far East, and from various carriers and shore bases in between. He has a lot to say about RN and FAA doctrine and practices, and makes some comparisons with USN.

Crosley flew Sea Hurricanes and Seafires in combat, and had the chance to fly some other aircraft along the way. He said that forward visibility in the Corsair was much better than in the Seafire, though the sideways view was not as good, and in general, the Corsair was much easier to land on a carrier than the Seafire.

IIRC the Corsair was known as the "Gull-winged Ensign Killer".

[Dili]

Early USN carrier ops showed that their fighter numbers were insufficient and fighter control was still in the development stage. In my opinion for example, no USN CV would have survived what Illustrious did when attacked by DB's carrying 1000kg bombs.

To not talk that would mean US aircraft carriers fighting in 1940 and earlier 41. Brewster Buffalo was the fighter i think. Still probably better than the Fulmar and SeaGladiator.

I think Illustrious had some luck.

[msieving1]

ORIGINAL: wadail

ORIGINAL: msieving1

They Gave Me A Seafire by Mike Crosley is the memoir of a Fleet Air Arm pilot. Crosley flew from HMS Eagle from the end of 1941 until she was sunk, from HMS Implacable in the Far East, and from various carriers and shore bases in between. He has a lot to say about RN and FAA doctrine and practices, and makes some comparisons with USN.

Crosley flew Sea Hurricanes and Seafires in combat, and had the chance to fly some other aircraft along the way. He said that forward visibility in the Corsair was much better than in the Seafire, though the sideways view was not as good, and in general, the Corsair was much easier to land on a carrier than the Seafire.

IIRC the Corsair was known as the "Gull-winged Ensign Killer".

I haven't heard that one before. The Corsair had its issues with carrier operations, but the FAA had the advantage of learning from the faults of the Seafire. There's no way the USN would ever have accepted the Seafire as a carrier based aircraft, but the FAA didn't have much choice, so they made it work. The curving approach used by Corsair pilots for carrier landings was originally developed for the Seafire. Once the engineers had cured the Corsair's uneven stall characteristics and the bounce in the landing gear, the Corsair became a very good carrier based plane.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Early USN carrier ops showed that their fighter numbers were insufficient and fighter control was still in the development stage. In my opinion for example, no USN CV would have survived what Illustrious did when attacked by DB's carrying 1000kg bombs.

I think Illustrious had some luck.

warspite1

Yeah....either that or superb design that did its job, not to mention great damage control. How many hits did the old girl take? Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y [&o]

The U.S.N liaison officer on HMS Indefatigable commented: "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms."”

[Dili]

Well Illustrious wasn't certainly designed to resist 1000kg bombs. I am still suspicious about that since typically the Ju87B employed 250kg+4x50kg or 500kg bombs.

[adsoul64]

he Italians had quite a decent Navy in terms of the number of capital ships, but lacked the stomach for serious fighting and I don't recall the the Italian fleet ever putting to sea again after losing the battle of Cape Matapan

After Matapan, the Regia Marina (Italian Navy) fought the Battaglia di mezzo giugno (Mid-June battle). I mean, Matapan, wasn't the last battle in the Med. But I basically agrre with your point of view.

[Dili]

But I basically agrre with your point of view.

But you shouldn't because it is a typical biased meme and wrong. I listed above Sirte I, II.

[adsoul64]

You're right, but I did mean that Italian Navy was able to employ main units until June 42. Both Sirtes happened before. Also, Mezzo Giugno was a victory (the only one?) of the Italian Navy, so I prefer remember this battle [:D]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yeah....either that or superb design that did its job, not to mention great damage control. How many hits did the old girl take? Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y [&o]

The U.S.N liaison officer on HMS Indefatigable commented: "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms."”

I think i was victim of the Metric system again. [:'(] My bad. I meant to say 1000lb SAP bombs. (500kg).

Luck? Seven hits? Personally, I would not discount her performance to "luck". While her armor was certainly not "proof" against this weight of ordinance (she was designed to be proof against 500lb bombs and/or 6inch gunfire.), after reading DK Brown's accessment of the damage (and damage there was!) I think the armor played an important part in limiting the damage and keeping the ship afloat. That Illustrious was KO'd goes without saying but she survived. I don't think an unarmored carrier would have in her place. It's not unreasonable to postulate that such hits on a Yorktown, Lex or Wasp would have caused extensive flooding and possibly reached vital areas directly or indirectly (via fire). Even bereft that the bombs could also have reached the engines/boilers disabling the ship which in the confides of the Med would have left her in a scuttling situation.

[Dili]

adsoul64 the point was about getting out of harbor. About victories is difficult to assess.


Nikademus i think you are answering me despite quoting warspite1 . I have no qualms with you saying that US carriers could be worse off even if the Buffalo was better than Fulmar and Sea Gladiator since at that time most bombers would certainly pass the CAP, neither i am saying that the protection isn't a factor. Many ships had luck but the over match between protection and hits was at such level that luck wasn't enough. Let me put this way the protection that Illustrious had helped to make luck a factor. In short what make possible to save Illustrious was no big damage to propulsion, no incontrollable fires, no big flotation damage.

[sprior]

DK Brown's accessment of the damage (and damage there was!)

In fact, Brown goes further and states that the armoured box design made it harder to repair severe battle damage and that's one of the reasons that type of carrier had a short post-war career.

[Nikademus]

true. The armored box as a whole had trade offs. Harder to repair with severe damage still beats being sunk however. Carrier Franklin was also severely damaged, so much so that she never returned to full front line service. RN warships in general suffered hard use throughout the war with maintenance and upkeep becoming an increasing issue as time went on. So whereas US infrastructure and maintenance continued towards it's peak by late-war, the RN support infrastructure was in severe decline.

It appears that all 3 major carrier operators (Japanese/British/US) concluded within a roughly equivalent time frame that the optimal system was armored decks with no enclosing "box". Taiho had an armored deck, as did the later Midway class. The Essex's had already been designed and were building after this.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Dili



Nikademus i think you are answering me despite quoting warspite1 . I have no qualms with you saying that US carriers could be worse off even if the Buffalo was better than Fulmar and Sea Gladiator since at that time most bombers would certainly pass the CAP,

Not necessarily. There was a reason why the RN had a preference for two seat naval fighters. It aided both in navigation as well as in radio-coordination as part of an integrated defense. Fulmar also had a couple other positives rarely mentioned.....it had twice the ammo capacity in comparison to a Sea Hurricane. This allowed generally greener air crews a better chance at damaging/chasing off/killing their targets.

Fulmars could also stay in the air longer which was a vital attribute within the RN Fleet Defense doctrine. Even with radar, it helped to have units already in the air, stacked at different altitudes and set in their patrol sectors ready to be vectored onto a target vs. sitting on the flight deck waiting to scramble. Buffalos in place of Fulmars would not necessarily have been better in that time and place. The RN's Fleet Defense system was made up of many parts, including the fighter. The primary adversary in the Med was the 2E recon and bomber plane. A good number were intercepted and shot down by Fulmars. Later, vs. a modern carrier based 1E, the Fulmar would be out of it's depth, though the RN was already aware of this. A brief stint by FAA Fulmars at Malta where they faced Bf-109's quickly saw the Fulmars relegated to night defense duties.

[Dili]

I meant the Buffalos in US CV's since that was the plane before the Wildcat. When Illustrious was hit there woudn't be Wildcats if the carrier was instead an US one. Sometimes people forget that war in Mediterranean started almost 1 and half year earlier than in Pacific.

"The primary adversary in the Med was the 2E recon and bomber plane." it was the 1E Cant Z.501 recon floatpane plus the 3E bombers and floatplanes - at war start the 3 engine floatplane Cant z.506 were mostly still employed for naval bombing-. Then came the Germans with 2E.

Fulmars were overall bad planes in air combat and like you said only effective against unprotected bomber and floatplanes and even then the italian bomber(not the Z.501 which had only 7.7 and were usually massacred) had a range advantage in defensive weapon being 12.7mm vs 7.7mm. Fulmars was maneuverable like an Hurricane up to 3000m but were very slow to gain altitude and Hurricane itself wasn't a very agile plane.
Sometime before Crete, so late 40 or begin of 41 this was a quote from Squadron leader Lt Cmdr Alan Black, Fleet Air Arm "..in the light of the inadequacy of Fulmars against CR43s I requested that the Sea Gladiators, if not required for other operations, should be send to Maleme, to reinforce 805"

The CR43 is obviously a typo for CR42.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Dili

it was the 1E Cant Z.501 recon floatpane plus the 3E bombers and floatplanes - at war start the 3 engine floatplane Cant z.506 were mostly still employed for naval bombing-. Then came the Germans with 2E.

The point.....is the primary adversary of the UK forces were recon and bomber planes. 2E or 3E, whatever specific plane type you want to say was primary.

Fulmars were overall bad planes in air combat

Whatever you say Dili.

[Dili]

The point.....is the primary adversary of the UK forces were recon and bomber planes. 2E or 3E, whatever specific plane type you want to say was primary.

Not only. Certainly the Italian fighters and bombers had no problem going over the main British fleet with carriers when Fulmars were the main fighter. They didn't hit much but they had no problem dropping hundreds of bombs in them, HMS Eagle itself was not available for Taranto operation because close bombing affected the carrier fuel lines. The Fulmars were effective against a recon plane and eventually a small pack of bombers.

Whatever you say Dili.

When a fighter plane is unable to fight against fighters is a bad plane. That is my classification, you obviously are free to have yours.