"HMS Victorious" Topic

During the latter half of 1943 HMS served alongside Uss Saratoga in the Pacific with a mixed RN and USN flight crew…My question is--Would she have been dry like the USN ships or wet like the RN and would the American crews have been allowed a tot or more if she was wet????

A British ship with a British captain would have followed British practices. I can't imagine that the additional USN flight crew would have been excluded, but I don't know for sure.

OK, I've read up a bit more on this. Seems she was code named USS Robin. I think it all depends on who the captain was, and the flag she was flying. US captain and US flag = US rules, British captain and British flag = British rules.

According to the book "Carrier operations in World War 2 : Vol 1" that I have, Victorious was commanded by a RN officer during her short time with the US Navy.

HMS Victorious remained British. She would have retained all the British practices. No doubt that would have resulted in her having a lot of American visitors.

I read recently that British warships berthed in Murmansk, could usually expect American visitors after a hard slogging convoy run. It seems they needed the British canteen facilities to steady their nerves!!!

Mal your right my DAD had 3 runs up to Murmansk and the only place you could go was the docks he could not go out side of them stopped by the guards
But going to other ships was the norm if you had time
the Americans wear good for swaps they had shoes and our lads had boots (shoes went back home or beeped for best ) plus a wet canteen
one trip coming home they lost all the merchantmen sad i know
going up to there Dad spent 48 hours on a 4" gun and had to be carded off if it and placed on the wardroom table to throw out in the siting position it give him problems to day still

She would have been 'wet'.

I also know from having talked to a RN officer who was seconded to the USN that his quarters were permitted to be 'wet' as well when serving on an American ship. This would have been in the 50s or 60s.

This made him very popular, though ironically he was teetotal.

Maybe it's just me, but describing one's quarters on a ship as "wet" sounds like the quality of the welding left somethign to be desired.

Yes, HMS Victorious was wet when in the Pacific. It was actually very common for US Navy & Marine aircraft to make 'emergency' landings on British carriers then take off again after a trip to to well-stocked wardroom.

The anecdote from my Father, who served in the Fast Carrier Group RN in late 1944 and 1945 was that not only did US types like the wet nature of the ship, but they also discovered the delights of the 4am Cocoa issue (cocoa powder, hot water, condensed milk and tot), it certainly woke the dawn watch up ready for that very dangerous time.

It was also a staple on convoy runs especially NAtlantic and Arctic.

Gents;

I have corresponded with more than a few FAA and USN chaps that flew on and off Victorious during her time in the USNPacific Fleet. She was mosr assuredly "wet". USS Saratoga had a much ice creme. During the South Pacific foray Victorious was designated the fighter carrier, operating all her F4Fs and two-thirds of Saratoga's, while all the TBFs operated off Saratoga (BTW, the FAA swapedd out their new Tarpons for USN machines marked as FAA). Many a TBF found reasons to land on Victorious during the trip, and for some reason thaey were all carrying cases of ice creme which was swaped for varyingly marked boxes of food stuffs that, somehow, always contained alcohol.

Mark

cheers--good to know our American allies could have a drink on our ships!!!!

You know, sometimes hearing these and similar stories, as I have for many years, I have wondered if these gaps in assorted stores were maintained deliberately by the higher ranks because they knew the lower ranks of the different nations/arms of the services <delete as appropriate> would set up these covert swapping relationships and it would foster a sense of collaboration between the different branches of service personnel.

Unfortunately, the practises of the PC police regarding the demon drink means that nearly all British Merchant Ships are now "dry". With unannounced testing to ensure compliance……

Chouan wrote:

Unfortunately, the practises of the PC police regarding the demon drink means that nearly all British Merchant Ships are now "dry". With unannounced testing to ensure compliance……

Well, it's not as if we have much of a Merchant Navy left, more's the pity.

All the best,

John.

It's even worse in the Sub Forces (USN SUBPAC): We couldn't even have near-beer onboard, while a Carrier could have pallets of cases.

Near Beer--Isn't that Budweiser???

No, Budweiser doesn't come anywhere near being proper beer.

John, it seems that we have some ships under the Red Ensign. However, calling them "British" is something of a misnomer. The "British" flagged box-boat "Napoli",infamous a couple of years ago when it went aground on the south coast, was called "British", and was under the Red Ensign. But the only British people on board were 2 Cadets!
"Napoli's crew was of mixed
nationality, coming from Bulgaria, Ukraine, Turkey, India and the Philippines. The vessel's master was Greek and there
were two British cadets on board."
Shameful.

Suggest you read Carrier Pilot by Norman Hanson, he ended up in the Far East, but learnt to fly in the States under lend lease. He comments quite a lot about the differences between the RN and USN.

He was quite glad the USN didn't like Corsairs for carrier ops, as it meant he got to use them.