OT Aircraft Carrier Operations RN / USN

[warspite1]

Does anyone know/recommend a good source of information about operating aircraft from carriers in WWII? Specifically, I am looking at understanding the way the RN used their carriers pre-1944 and how this compared to the USN.

I read that a US carrier (Saratoga iirc) joined the Eastern Fleet to assist RN operations in the Indian Ocean. The inference was that the USN (armed with the vast experience gained from from Coral Sea onwards) gave their British counterparts a lesson in conducting carrier operations.

When reading about naval engagements in the Mediterranean I am always struck by how little the British carriers seemed to be used in affecting naval engagements - Calabria (Eagle) and Spartivento (Ark Royal) come readily to mind.

Knowing the Royal Navy, I am sure there was no lack of willingness to engage the enemy (putting themselves in harms way, despite the odds, was the overrding theme of the senior service throughout the war [&o]) and there were notable FAA successes of course (Note: I am thinking specifically of fleet actions at sea (e.g. not Operation Judgement)). Certainly their latter performance in the Pacific earned the respect of Spruance and co.

Now of course this early "lack of success" (perceived or otherwise) may be down to the numbers (or lack of) aircraft the RN were able to fly off from Eagle (not to mention her cripplingly slow speed) and even Illustrious and her sisters later on (and the fact that the RN were rarely able to operate more than two carriers together if they were lucky), but it frustrates me that I do not know for certain and cannot find a good source of info.

So in summary:
a) Is my perception of RN carrier performance - particularly in the Med - even fair/accurate?
b) If so, was this essentially a numbers game?
c) Or, was there a fundamental issue with the way the carriers were used?

Any thoughts anybody?

[Dobey455]

I'm afraid I can't recommend a good book on the subject, but my own opinion is that your last point would be the most correct - The USN and RN used their carriers in very different ways because they believed in very different carrier doctrines.

Both sides entered the war believing the Carrier was primarily a combat support ship, that it provided CAP against naval patrols and un escorted LBA (and bear in mind that most European fighters had MUCH shorter range than their US counterparts).

As we know, of course, with the sinking of the US Battleships at PH the US started to view the Carrier as a true power projection weapon - the carrier's role was to destroy enemy navies. Also rmember that the enemy was located at the other side of a blue water barrier, most of which was held by the Japanese.

Meanwhile the UK faced an utterly different naval situation. The Germans were much weaker then the RN and aside from a few early war surface raids there were few if any engagments with anything other than e-boats.
The 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 (which took place before the WITP time frame even begins).
Finally the UK's main enemy was across a very narrow body of water that was easily supported or defended by land based AC.

Basically the Main uses the UK found for their carriers was excactly what they already had thought they should be used for - mobile CAP and scouting platforms to support capital ships, at first, and then as convoy escorts.
In the Med they mostly faced land based bombers particularly on the Malta convoys, and provided a CAP for those parts of the route that were either not covered or were poorly covered by land based fighters.
In the Atlantic they were predominantly used to search for and sink U-boats as well as shoot down the odd long range patrol aircraft.

Look at the design of the RN carriers, compared to the US you notice that they started small, and not a great deal of effort was made to increase their size, the RN was happy with about half as many AC on their carriers as they weren't envisioning fighting major fleet battles with them. The RN never developed a decent DB, but instead constantly tried to use hybrid "multi-role" designs like the Skua and the Fulmar which were supposed to be able to fill both fighter and DB roles, but in the end weren't particularly good at either. Again, not an issue if you are not fighting major fleet battles.

In fairness I wouldn't describe this as a "failure" on the part of the RN. They fought the naval battle they were presented with, which was one in which Cruisers and Battleships were still the prime fighting assets.
They weren't about to shape their navy or its ideas around what was happening in the Pacific when that was not their primary theater of operations.

[moonraker65]

Didn't the RN show the USN how to use Corsairs on carriers ?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: moonraker

Didn't the RN show the USN how to use Corsairs on carriers ?

Warspite1

Can you elaborate moonraker? I recall that Indefatigable and Implacable could not use Corsairs as the hangars were not big enough (although their four sisters could).

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: moonraker

Didn't the RN show the USN how to use Corsairs on carriers ?

The British were the first to use Corsairs on carriers, this is true. Howver, the USN's reluctance stemmed from the poor forward visibility of the Corsair when taking off and landing and poor low speed handling (the port wing had a tendency to stall before the starboard wing), basically, the pilot can see very little ahead of the aircraft and on top of handling poorly at low speeds.

[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.

[YankeeAirRat]

Warspite1,

These are a couple of pricey copies but I would suggest to look for these at your local library:

British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and Their Aircraft by Norman Friedman. I happen to run across Friedman back in 2001 at the USNI Warfighting expo in Va Beach, VA, USA. I had asked about this book and he talked about the research was interesting and challenging with the whole Royal Navy Air Service going back into the RAF and then becoming the FAA made chasing some information down "complicated" to use a forum friendly description.

British Naval Aviation by Tim BenBow this in another history of the development of the FAA from seaplanes and the first Naval Air Strike in 1918 to the Falklands. I saw this at the Royal Navy's Historical Library at HMNB Portsmouth and just flipping through it it looked very interesting, but at the time the only copy that I could find online was a couple hundred US Dollars. WHich was out of my price range.

British Naval Aviation in World War II: The US Navy and Anglo-American Relations : I saw this at the US National Naval Air Museum's research library when they had a special display on the history of the RN and FAA in Pensacola/USA during the war. Again another book that looked interesting and if I had the $$ I would have it in my library.

These are just a start, but if I were you I would suggest either a travel to RNAS Yeoviltin or HMNB Portsmouth to thier research libraries and librarians and see if they could help you out.

[warspite1]

Thanks for the responses everyone. The Friedman book looks most interesting, although sadly out of my price range [:(].

RNAS Yeovilton is somewhere I have been meaning to visit for ever. Perhaps this will be the catalyst I need to actually do something about that!

[JeffroK]

A major difference would be in the size of the force the USN could project, In the Med the RN would have single, or at most 2 CV in a TF in a very crowded water way.

Between them they might put 80 aircraft in the sky.

Also, apart from early strikes at Genoa & Taranto, most action was in convoy protection, not a great role for a CV.
Plus, despite ABC's great performance, in 1941 there had been little in the way of Carrier operations in a battle to base experience on. (I think the Stringbags were used as Search rather than attack aircraft)


In 1942 the USN operated in the generally open waters of the Pacific and with 2-3 or 3 CV could get 250-270 aircraft operating. In later years the number grew even higher.

How you operate with a CAP of 20 and a strike of 50 is very different to a CAP of 60 and a strike of 200+

At Midway & the Solomons the US CV captains were still learning their craft, and making some bad decisions.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Between them they might put 80 aircraft in the sky.

Warspite1

Two British carriers in the Med, 80 aircraft at the same time? Not a chance. What did the early Illustrious-class carry? 36 aircraft? Ark Royal? 54 in wartime.

I suspect it was not until the Indian Ocean raids on Sumatra in late 44 or early 45 that the RN flew that many aircraft in a single attack.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Between them they might put 80 aircraft in the sky.

Warspite1

Two British carriers in the Med, 80 aircraft at the same time? Not a chance. What did the early Illustrious-class carry? 36 aircraft? Ark Royal? 54 in wartime.

I suspect it was not until the Indian Ocean raids on Sumatra in late 44 or early 45 that the RN flew that many aircraft in a single attack.

That adds to 80 [:D]

I wasnt sure how many the Eagle & the Ark carried. [8D]

It does cramp your style, Taranto raided by ?? 20 ?? Swordfish, so the IJN copiers and hits Pearl Harbor with about 200 attack planes.
At Matapan, 1 CV, again with about 20 Swordfish has to be the eyes of the Fleet as well as a Strike force.
All the time ABC doesnt know where his next ship is coming from.

[Dili]

The 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 (which took place before the WITP time frame even begins).

Just one example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Sirte I wonder also how the 2 Littorio class Battleships keep being torpedoed in 1941 and 1942...

.............................

The answer to the op could be a mix of this:
The British had a low numbers of planes and those with too low performance, their pilots maybe were not good enough against fast ships, Italian AA fire and Italian maneuvering .
Now mix in proportions desired

Concerning the aircraft. It made the Taranto and other night/day attacks possible in harbor - forgetting the torpedo net issue - but a super slow aircraft was probably not so good in a fleet battle against fast moving ships.

There was several attacks by fleet based Swordfish against Italian fleet in open sea but everyone of them failed except Pola/VV at Matapan - The Albacores were based in land but that don't change they could have been in a carrier so that should count as success. Final note to say that Albacore that put the torpedo in VV was downed by AA and the crew killed.
You can count probably around 50 torpedo launches from British aircraft carriers planes based on land and CV's in fleet actions and they got about that 2 hits.
They were much better against ships in harbor including at night.
If one checks the closely the story of Mediterranean war it is surprising how many air attack hits were made at night.

[Andy Mac]

HMS Illustrious by Norman Hanson is a great book for exploring Carrier Ops by RN and has a chapter on with Saratoga.

Little book very old but good read

[Andy Mac]

Carrier Pilot (I had an older copy called HMS Illustrious)
by Norman Hanson published by Futura Publications, London, 1980

Norman Hanson was a Naval Volunteer Reservist during WWII, who flew Corsair fighters off the British carrier HMS Illustrious. This is his account of his war service, from joining up, through his training in Britain and the United States, to operations in the Mediterranean and then with the British Pacific Fleet. It is an excellent book; often funny, sometimes sad and very difficult to put down. Hanson writes very well and leaves the reader with an excellent impression of what life was like for carrier aircrew.

[JeffroK]

2 Books,

To War in a Stringbag.
&
Carriers in Combat by Chester G Hearn from Stakpole Books. This has 4-5 on the RN without really getting into details of operations.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

Warspite1,

These are a couple of pricey copies but I would suggest to look for these at your local library:

British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and Their Aircraft by Norman Friedman. I happen to run across Friedman back in 2001 at the USNI Warfighting expo in Va Beach, VA, USA. I had asked about this book and he talked about the research was interesting and challenging with the whole Royal Navy Air Service going back into the RAF and then becoming the FAA made chasing some information down "complicated" to use a forum friendly description.

British Naval Aviation by Tim BenBow this in another history of the development of the FAA from seaplanes and the first Naval Air Strike in 1918 to the Falklands. I saw this at the Royal Navy's Historical Library at HMNB Portsmouth and just flipping through it it looked very interesting, but at the time the only copy that I could find online was a couple hundred US Dollars. WHich was out of my price range.

British Naval Aviation in World War II: The US Navy and Anglo-American Relations : I saw this at the US National Naval Air Museum's research library when they had a special display on the history of the RN and FAA in Pensacola/USA during the war. Again another book that looked interesting and if I had the $$ I would have it in my library.

These are just a start, but if I were you I would suggest either a travel to RNAS Yeoviltin or HMNB Portsmouth to thier research libraries and librarians and see if they could help you out.

warspite1

Well I kept looking on Amazon, and managed to find the Friedman book (Used) for a third of the cheapest price at the start of the week [:)] Still expensive so I hope its worth it!!

[oldman45]

I bet you snagged the one I was looking at. Thinking about getting it this weekend. I hope it is a good book so you can tell us about it and then I can look for another deal to show up. [8D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I bet you snagged the one I was looking at. Thinking about getting it this weekend. I hope it is a good book so you can tell us about it and then I can look for another deal to show up. [8D]

warspite1

If so then soz oldman45 [;)]

I am grateful for all the recommendations here, but based on the other Friedman books I have, I really think this one should give me the answer I'm looking for. Before I found the cheaper Friedman book, I also took a chance on Carrier Glorious: The Life and death of an Aircraft Carrier which should arrive soon.

I will let you know how British Carrier Aviation shapes up when it arrives.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I bet you snagged the one I was looking at. Thinking about getting it this weekend. I hope it is a good book so you can tell us about it and then I can look for another deal to show up. [8D]

warspite1

If so then soz oldman45 [;)]

I am grateful for all the recommendations here, but based on the other Friedman books I have, I really think this one should give me the answer I'm looking for. Before I found the cheaper Friedman book, I also took a chance on Carrier Glorious: The Life and death of an Aircraft Carrier which should arrive soon.

I will let you know how British Carrier Aviation shapes up when it arrives.

Warspite1

Just finished Carrier Glorious - The Life and Death of an Aircraft Carrier.

An excellent book and I thoroughly recommend this. The answers to my original questions were not to be found in here (as expected) and I will have to wait for British Carrier Aviation (due to arrive on the 24th).

However, there were some interesting bits that have helped increase my - sadly negligible - understanding of carrier operations. Interestingly the book mentions early on that upon recovering aircraft, Glorious had to take each plane down to the hangar before the next plane could land... I assume that a crash barrier was later fitted and this was not always the case - although the book does not say as much.

The British did use Glorious and Courageous in particular in the annual fleet exercises between the wars - and using carrier aircraft in offensive operations (as opposed to just reconaissance and ASW) was very much part of the game plan - including attacking the enemy in port.

Interesting when reviewing the results of one such exercise (in which much damage was done to ships of the fleet) one dyed in the wool Admiral confidently states that it would be different in a real war once all the AA guns are let loose at the attacking aircraft...

The book touches on the whole Admiralty vs RAF debate for who should be responsible for naval aircraft - with the result that the aircraft used by the RN were obsolete at the start of the war. The Skua could not keep up with any German bomber except the Ju-87....

Without doubt, and as expected of John Winton, this is a very enjoyable read, but ultimately it is a very sad story about the totally avoidable loss of just over 1,500 men, a valuable ship (and her two valiant escorts) and for reasons that we will likely never know for sure.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I bet you snagged the one I was looking at. Thinking about getting it this weekend. I hope it is a good book so you can tell us about it and then I can look for another deal to show up. [8D]

warspite1

oldman45 this is a really good book. Am just reading the intro at the moment but already am getting answers to my questions! I like the fact that Friedman compares positions with the US or Japan from time to time to put statements into context. This is a really comprehensive tome that takes us from the WWI prototypes through to the "through-deck cruisers" of the Invincible-class, although I am pleased the focus is on the area I am most interested in - WWII and the build up to it.

Well illustrated - line drawings and pictures, full of aircraft and carrier data (the book even a has a breakdown of numbers of FAA aircraft (by type) at key points in the war) and a very readable writing style. A little expensive, but really pleased I took the plunge!