Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
It was only the unexpected doctrine of kamakaze attacks that changed the equation-throwing the Allies off balance for a while. However, that in itself was a self defeating doctrine done by a desperate foe. It is unlikely that any Western power would resort to it.
The British Navy as usual fought valiantly and with great professionalism, but the fact that they were beaten so badly by a Third World country flying 1950s Skyhawks with iron bombs (plus 2 Super Etendard with no more than 6 operational Exocets, or something like that) raised a lot of eyebrows around.
F.
can't let that one go. Who says the RN was 'beaten so badly'? IIRC the RN executed it's mission superbly, and at much lower cost than was expected. The Falkland Islands were recovered, and as a side issue (!) the RN was saved from the exceptionally deep cuts that the then Government had been contemplating.
The dive-bomber on USS carrier was replaced by fighter-bomber, which dive for an attack plus were able to fight enemy fighters.ORIGINAL: crsutton
Everybody must remember that when carrier fleets were designed there were two factors that were not taken into consideration-because nobody could expect them. First, the advent of AA technology greatly increased during the war. The development of the proximity fuse and radar controled AA made attacking any carrier TF highly dangerous if not virtually impossible by conventional means. By late war, most attacking aircraft were being shot down by AA not CAP (not to say CAP was not important). By 1945 dive bombing had reached a dead end and was obsolete due to the effect of concentrated AA fire. Torpedo bombing was not much better off. It was only the unexpected doctrine of kamakaze attacks that changed the equation-throwing the Allies off balance for a while. However, that in itself was a self defeating doctrine done by a desperate foe. It is unlikely that any Western power would resort to it.
With the advances of AA technology, lightly armored carriers did just fine and were the best choice due to the greater amount of aircraft that they could carry. In 1942-the answer might have been the opposite.
But beaten the RN most cetainly was not, the mission was successfully completed.
I do agree, however, that had the opponent been technically stronger - the Argentinian pilots were tremendously skilful and fantastically brave - the outcome would have been much worse.
ORIGINAL: fbastos
But beaten the RN most cetainly was not, the mission was successfully completed.
Oh, I get your point. Yeah, fully agreed, the mission was accomplished.
The Falklands was an eye opener for the next wave of politicians that will try to arbitrarily cut the budget in the UK. Before that they were even talking about scrapping the carriers.
I do agree, however, that had the opponent been technically stronger - the Argentinian pilots were tremendously skilful and fantastically brave - the outcome would have been much worse.
It still doesn't enter my mind how the Argentinian Air Force was so brave while the Argentinian Navy was completely incompetent (to send Belgrano with 3 old escorts against top line SSN) and almost coward in refusing to engage (they had half a dozen of modern German submarines which didn't do anything).
F.
Are those number you quoting for aircraft is when they are ferrying planes. The max sortie of 150 for Illustrious is extremely limited.ORIGINAL: Hipper
cant resist getting involved with this Ill throw in a couple of points
Implacable and her sister ship were carrying 80+ aircraft in 1945, 48 seafires plus fireflies and avengers
I dont think the RN used the Baraquda much in the far east, Sensible Chaps
Illustrious class carriers were carrying 50+ aircraft in 1942
Indomidable was carrying 55 + aircraft in 1942
Swordfish were the most advanced carrier aircraft in the world in 1941,
if you were operating at night ! Radar and ease of handling in night landling (no flaps or undercarrage to worry about) it was also capable of operating quite handily in very bad weather or your average atlantic gale
but agree the RN as undertrained in operating large scale strikes off a carrier prior to absorbing american methods 2 waves of 12 at Taranto, and one of 18 off the Ark Royal perhaps their most impressive operations were ark Royal operations in the Med I would not have called the Swordfish a dive bomber but it did!
the main reason for lack of amphibious operations in 1944 in SEA was the invasion of the south of france which sucked up all the landing craft. The RN did not think that the troops would wear coming ashore in ships lifeboats under fire which is what using ak & aps mean rather than LCI's & LCTs.
cheers
Hipper
An FAA Fanboy !
ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix
IIRC the ships that Woodward was afraid of were the 25th May - ironically an onld RN carrier - and her group that was circling around to the north, and the Belgrano escorts who had the same missiles as Woodward's ships - they had not long ago belonged to the RN. But now I'm definitely going froma probably faulty memory. In any event, He wanted at least one of those threats dealt with, pronto. Afterwards, the Argentinian Navy just about hid in port for the rest of the war.
Mine is a very UK-Centric view, by the way - I'm aware of what 20 years may have done to colour my recollections. Please feel free to correct them!
Steve.
I may not be remembering this correctly but I think only one of Argentine carrier's propellor shafts was functional and that she could not launch aircraft during the campaign. On that assignment she was basically a decoy.
I don't think the Argentines thought they were a third world country. I think they believe they are a first world country even now.
