Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Coshy on May 02, 2007, 08:34:34 PM
-
In a discussion with my 11 yo nephew the question of carriers in WWII came up. There were some questions I didnt have an answer for. So in an attempt at answering my nephews questions ... I'll put them up here.
Were carriers used in anything other than the Pacific Theater?
I don't come close to being an authority on WWII naval activities, but I cant remember any refrences to carriers other than in the Pacific.
As a follow up ...
Who had/used carriers? Of course the U.S. and Japan, but what about Russia, England, Italy, Germany etc, etc.
What were the major differences between Escort carriers and regular carriers? Did both have the same planes availiable? The same defenses, etc, etc?
Yes, I could Google it, but then I'd have to slog through a bazillion links to find the answers to a few simple, specific questions.
And its been a while since I've started a thread.
-
Short answer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier)
-
Originally posted by Coshy
In a discussion with my 11 yo nephew the question of carriers in WWII came up. There were some questions I didnt have an answer for. So in an attempt at answering my nephews questions ... I'll put them up here.
Were carriers used in anything other than the Pacific Theater?
They were used in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean theaters as well. I have heard of some Japanese operations in the Indian Ocean too, but cannot confirm them.
Who had/used carriers? Of course the U.S. and Japan, but what about Russia, England, Italy, Germany etc, etc.
The United States, Japan and United Kingdom were the only operators of aircraft carriers in WWII. Germany was building one, but it was never finished. I do not know about Italy or the Soviet Union.
What were the major differences between Escort carriers and regular carriers? Did both have the same planes availiable? The same defenses, etc, etc?
There are many classes of each. In general Escort Carriers were far slower than Fleet carriers, carried a much smaller complement of aircraft and were lacked any armor protection. I know the Royal Navy flew F4Us off of Escort Carriers and that the FM2 (exclusively?)was principally used off of Escort carriers. I believe Japan operated all of its carrier based aircraft off of both Escort and Fleet carriers. I am not sure if Seafires or Hellcats operated off of Escort carriers. I am likewise unfamiliar with the defensive armaments of Escort carriers.
-
Didn't the British carriers also have armoured decks?
British escort Carriers carried at least -
Martletts
Swordfish
Sea Hurricane
Don't know about Seafires also.
-
The Brits did carriers better than the US did at that time: armored decks and enclosed bows. They also came up with the angled flight deck after the war.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
The Brits did carriers better than the US did at that time: armored decks and enclosed bows. They also came up with the angled flight deck after the war.
Don't forget they also came up with the steam catapult.
-
However their complement of aircraft was far, far smaller than that of American or Japanese fleet carriers.
And what is an Aircraft Carrier for? Carrying aircraft.
The United States and Japan had the most effective carriers in WWII from a war fighting standpoint.
-
True, but the basic design of the carrier itself was what I was focusing on.
Also the Japanese Carriers, save the Shinano, had smaller complement of aircraft. And even then, given it's huge size, the Shinano didn't carry a lot.
-
I dont remember numbers right now, but only several British carriers had armoured deck.
As far i know, USSR hadnt carriers until 1976.
-
I believe the Lexington and Saratoga had armored decks. The Japanese Taijo as well (which is why she blew her sides out after being torpedoed: the heavily armored flight deck largely contained the blast).
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I have heard of some Japanese operations in the Indian Ocean too, but cannot confirm them.
In early 1942, after he finished off everyone else, Nagumo took his fleet down to the Indian Ocean and kicked the Brits around for awhile:
http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=7
- oldman
-
Carriers in the Atlantic and Med during the were mostly used for Anti-sub warfare and were mostly Escort carriers. The big Fleet Carriers were assigned to the Pacific to deal with Japan.
-
Originally posted by Zippy41
Carriers in the Atlantic and Med during the were mostly used for Anti-sub warfare and were mostly Escort carriers. The big Fleet Carriers were assigned to the Pacific to deal with Japan.
Not quite correct. Both the British and Americans used Fleet sized carriers in the Med to support landings in N Africa, and Italy. Plus the Royal Navy conducted carrier strikes on Norway against the Tirpitz.
Good source for Royal Navy Carrier Operations (http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/)
-
Ranger spent most of the war in the Atlantic hauling army aircraft to exotic places. A number of CVLs and CVEs were ASW platforms hunting wolfpacks. By the end of the war Saratoga and Ranger were training carriers operating (mostly) around Perl.
US, Japan, and UK operated carriers. USSR, Germany, and Italy started carriers but never launched any. The German flattop was mostly completed, but Hitler wasn't much on surface naval operations. The USSR and Italian attempts were stillborn.
UK CVs had armored decks; they had much better survivability against Kamikaze attack than the wooden (Douglas fir or Oregon pine) American CVs, but by June of 1944 TF38/58 kept about 15 CVs with assorted CVLs and CVEs for support at any one time. We had more weight in AIRCRAFT (fully armed and fueled) operating off TF38 during the Battle of the Philippine Sea than the Jutland battle had in ships.
The CVBs weren't launched until after the war (I think Midway was about a month too late), but we had, as they say, a BOATLOAD of Essex and Ticonderoga class carriers in the water, along with the Big E, hundreds of kilotons of CVLs, and more CVEs than you could count. I have read one source that had a CV group (including CVL and CVE support, DDs, CL/CAs, and supply shipping) rolling off the ways every month. I think that's a slight exaggeration, but I know of 5 CVs and a number of CVBs that were canceled, some before they could get the keel laid, after the war. Conventional wisdom was "Golden Gate in '48". It wasn't until MUCH later that everyone realized just how expensive Cactus and the whole Solomons campaign was to the Japanese, so we were still cranking out ships for the invasion of Japan.
-
don't forget that the brits were the first to land F4U's on a moving flight deck. The USNAF said that it was "unsafe to land the F4U on a carrier due to its long nose and huge prop.
-
Originally posted by B3YT
don't forget that the brits were the first to land F4U's on a moving flight deck. The USNAF said that it was "unsafe to land the F4U on a carrier due to its long nose and huge prop.
It was only a little about the nose, and the prop had nothing to do with it.
It was more about bouncy landing gear, and the stall characteristics.
The plane was not the reason VF-17 didn’t got to war on a carrier, it was lack of parts in the supply line since all other carriers were going to use hellcats.
F4U-2 night fighters operated of US CVs with the birdcage canopy I am fairly sure.
-
Um, no. The Americans first landed an F4U on a moving deck long before the Brits ever saw theirs. The Brits are the first to do it operationally. They developed the technique of making a sweeping left hand turn rather than a straight in approach. That let the pilot see the LSO (and the CV) as long as possible. Necessity was the mother of this invention; the Commonwealth powers didn't have a front-line carrier based fighter in 1943 and the F4U was a blessing.
VF-17 was all set to go operational when they were given the choice of being a Hellkitty squad or a land based squad. They kept their aircraft and VF-18 took their slot on CV-17. This actually made the Marines happy, as they got a top-o-the-line second generation fighter to play with rather than some outdated Navy hand-me-down. This was very, very bad for the Japanese trying to defend the Solomons.
It wasn't until the carriers started crying desperately for fighter squadrons in (I think...need to look this up in Tillman again) '44 that Marine F4Us went to sea. Marine squadrons have pretty much been sailing ever since.
Once Vought and the field guys corrected the hook design and oleo bounce issues the F4U wasn't all that hard to operate off a CV. The Marines did so occasionally even before the Corsair became a "carrier" aircraft, though generally the hooks were removed on land based aircraft. The big problem was still that wicked left wing drop near stall speed, though.
Still and all, the British get credit for showing the pencil necks in Washington what the drivers in the Pacific already knew.
By all accounts the Marines LOVED landing on the CVs to re-fuel and re-arm; it was a chance to eat Navy chow rather than their usual Spam and mud salad, and they took every opportunity while their aircraft were being serviced.
The Navy and Marine squadrons got along beautifully in the Pacific for the most part. Navy F4U squads frequently relied on Marine ground crews, and when the Marines went aboard ship with their squads and service people the Navy made them feel at home. Pretty good for an era when inter-service rivalry was an art form and the Marines were still pretty unhappy with the Navy for abandoning them on the canal.
-
The American Escort Carrier, USS Bogue was vital in the search for the Japanese submarine I-52. After finding the I-52, TBM's were launched from her deck to sink the sub in the Atlantic Ocean. For more information;
http://www.cdnn.info/news/industry/i050419.html (http://www.cdnn.info/news/industry/i050419.html)
Obie:aok
Also as a side note, this was the only Japanese sub to have been sunk in the Atlantic.
-
Saratoga wasn't used for training. She was laid up undergoing repairs from kamikaze attacks when Japan surrendered.
-
I'd like to thank each of you for the replies. My nephew has done some research on his own, this will add to what he has discovered.
It seems the talk he and I had sparked an interest in him. He has a whole list of links relating to WWII, not just about carriers and aircraft, but also about the war in general.
Hopefully I can instill a bit of respect in him for those who gave everything for their country.
-
You should get him on the game...
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Saratoga wasn't used for training. She was laid up undergoing repairs from kamikaze attacks when Japan surrendered.
Used mostly for training 1944-1945; returned to combat 1945. Bombed 21 Feb 1945; severe damage. Repaired at Bremerton Navy; rear elevator removed, half the hanger converted to berthing. Final wartime displacement well over 52,000 tons. Used as troopship postwar. Deemed unfit for further service due to age and wear; used as target ship for Operations Crossroads atom bomb tests. Survived first test blast, but was sunk by second test 25 July 1946. Stricken 15 Aug 1946.
-
Actually after the second test they STILL had to manually scuttle her.
-
First carrier strike ever: British in WWI.
And yes, they certainly did have carriers, as well as developing many breakthrough tricks in carrier ops.
It was the British that torpedoed Bismarck in 1941 from a bouncing carrier in the N-Atlantic. Already in 1940 they landed LAND-BASED Hurricanes on a carrier (No special equipment). It was the Brits who torpedoed the Italian battlefleet at Taranto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto) more than a year before the Japs copied the act at Pearl, - and it was done at NIGHT. And it was the Brits (Jeffrey Quill) who came up with the turning approach for landing a long-nosed (and forward winged) aircraft on a carrier, - in that case the Seafire.
To cut a long story short, the Brits used carriers extensively and in all theaters, the carrier ops starting in 1939 and ending in 1945.
-
Web site for USN ships, http://navysite.de/ships.htm
RN web site, http://www.naval-history.net/index.htm
-
i sorta stand corrected .
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
True, but the basic design of the carrier itself was what I was focusing on.
Also the Japanese Carriers, save the Shinano, had smaller complement of aircraft. And even then, given it's huge size, the Shinano didn't carry a lot.
SHINANO actually wasn't designed as a "Fleet Carrier" but more as a floating repair/replenishment base for the Main Fleets aircraft. She wasn't designed to fight in the front line but to repair and replace aicraft for the "Fleet" carriers.
Because of losses to the regular FLeet Carriers she was pressed into this role and was sunk by the submarine (USS Archerfish I think) on the way to battle.
! :aok