WW2 Carrier Flight Deck Procedures

[artik]

I had found this interesting video about WW2 operations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfkwjU8k6W4
 
From what I had read WW2 carriers ususally couldn't perform launch and recovery simultaniously and for that reason 2 carriers operated together so one can over another during recovery and respotting.
Is that correct? Were there procedures that would allow "simultanious" operation, lets say to have some stand by grould for interception in during aircraft recovery. Or for example in case of emergency after takeoff so the plane could recover as fast as possible?
Have there been navies that did practiced simultanious launch and recovery during WW2?

[bortas1]

  nice to see ya still kicking.

[Zimme83]

I guess that they launched fighers as cap before they started to land planes

[Muzzy]

I had found this interesting video about WW2 operations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfkwjU8k6W4
 
From what I had read WW2 carriers ususally couldn't perform launch and recovery simultaniously and for that reason 2 carriers operated together so one can over another during recovery and respotting.
Is that correct? Were there procedures that would allow "simultanious" operation, lets say to have some stand by grould for interception in during aircraft recovery. Or for example in case of emergency after takeoff so the plane could recover as fast as possible?
Have there been navies that did practiced simultanious launch and recovery during WW2?

The design of WW2 Carriers made simultaneous launch and recovery aboard a single ship impossible. The straight deck meant that landing planes that missed the wire had to continue straight over the bow for a go-around. There was a crash barrier (basically a giant set of rubber bands strung across the flight deck) but it was only deployed for emergency landings. Furthermore, most carriers had 2 or 3 elevators mounted in the center of the flight deck. The elevators aft would have to remain raised for landing, while the forward elevator would be used for lowering planes to the hangar deck. It wasn't until the creation of the angled flight deck and edge-mounted elevators that carriers could launch and recover at the same time.

Early USN procedure when operating carriers in groups was to assign one carrier for scouting, CAP and antisubmarine duties, while the others reserved their planes for offensive operations. Originally the dive bombers were split into two squadrons, a scouting squadron and a bombing squadron. A carrier on scouting duty would launch the scouting squadron for scouting and ASW duties, and hold back its bombing squadron, while the other carriers would use both scout and bombing squadrons for attacking. If an incoming attack was discovered, all carriers would launch additional fighters to augment the CAP. Around mid-war the scouting and bombing designations were dropped as more often TBM avengers and Hellcats were used for scouting.

The IJN pretty much used its carriers in groups for the entire war. If I recall correctly, each carrier would launch a small number of planes for CAP duties. Scouting was normally done by cruiser float planes (which was a serious fault in IJN doctrine) and there wasn't really a system where one carrier would cover the others during launch and recovery.

[Rich46yo]

I think that conditions dictated the operation tempo of CVs in the USN during the war. Most of all until 1943 when the first Essex class CVs started turning up and the war took a turn.

Fly during Day, fly at night, fly to support ground Ops, launch attacks groups, recover groups, launch spotters, and on and on...the tempo of operations were controlled by the tempo of battle and the amount of flat tops and airplanes operational. No they couldnt launch and recover at the same time but if there was an operational doctrine set in stone then Im unaware of it. They did what they had to do, even if it meant ditching airplanes or bulldozing them off the deck.

The air war of the central Pacific was a war of attrition. Ships, airplanes, trained pilots, and in such a war the IJN never stood a chance. And it wasnt just the numbers, the USN also evolved into an overwhelmingly superior technological foe. From superior airplanes, to superior radars, proximity fuses, "smart torpedos".

By 1944 we were sending huge CV groups into battles, both fleet and escort types. I dont remember any one plan other then to sortie the enemy into the graveyard.

[artik]

nice to see ya still kicking.

 

Ok thanks guys for answers...

Was something different for UK Navy? Or for escort carriers?

How the problem of "emergency scramble" was solved during aircraft recovery?

[Rich46yo]

The RN had the luxury of not having to fight CV vs CV. They operated mostly in the Med or in the Atlantic until some time in 1944 when the reduction of the German threat allowed the creation of a RN Pacific CV presence. By then the biggest threat to CVs was from Kamikaze's.

"Emergency scrambles" were done before recoverys. All the Navies kept fueled reserve aircraft ready to go , most of all the IJN, and there was no question losing some planes to a ditch was preferable then losing a CV. The USN and RN also had the advantage of having better radars so they had a clearer picture of the aeriel battlefield then the Japs did. They also had far better AA on all their ships along with better fire control.

Ok thanks guys for answers...

Was something different for UK Navy? Or for escort carriers?

How the problem of "emergency scramble" was solved during aircraft recovery?

[Muzzy]

Escort carriers in a Pacific combat zone typically operated in groups of 4-6, so I expect the same USN rules applied. One or two decks would be dedicated to patrols (CVE's typically did not scout) with the rest providing ground support and distant CAP over the landing areas. In the Atlantic the primary concern was ASW so a single CVE could operate at the center of a distant escort or hunter killer group without too much concern.

One interesting experiment that never got tested in combat: when HMS Victorious operated with USS Saratoga in 1943, the Sara handled all the attack aircraft and Victorious had all the fighters. It was found that the British carrier had difficulty operating Avengers, but she had better fighter coordination facilities than the American flat top.

[Mace2004]

Even the modern US Navy doesn't launch and recover at the same time except for during CQ (Carrier Quals) and for short periods at the end of the launch when only a few planes are left to shoot off the bow as the recovery begins.  The reason is space on the flight deck.  I'm sure you've seen pictures of CV/CVN packed with aircraft and that makes the whole process a big shell game cycling between launch and recovery and moving aircraft around. 

At the beginning of the day the deck is spotted for the first launch with aircraft moved clear of the cats.  Flight ops start when you launch Event 1.  An hour and a half later you launch Event 2.  As soon as the Event 2 launch is complete you now have lots more space on the deck so you can recover Event 1.  As each aircraft lands it taxis out of the landing area and is stacked on the bow and along the starboard side of the ship.  When the Event 1 recovery is complete they refuel/rearm the aircraft  and then restack them for the Event 3 launch.  Launch Event 3, recover Event 2, Launch Event 4, Recover Event 3...etc., etc.  Many times they'll still have a few planes that they shoot off the bow as the recovery begins but there just isn't enough space to do a lot of this since they have to park the recovered planes on the bow. 

During CQ we had much fewer aircraft on deck so it's easy to land one, taxi it straight to the bow and shoot it again but that's generally only done during CQ.  There's lots of other things going on (launch and recovery of the helo and tankers for instance) but that's the general idea.  It's obviously much, much more complicated than it sounds and requires a tremendous amount of skill but it's also a very flexible system.