Help support TMP


"RN carriers korean war?" Topic


4 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Modern Aviation Discussion (1946-2015) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

Beer and Pretzels Skirmish (BAPS)


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Amazon's Snow Queen Set

If snowflakes resemble snowy bees, then who rules over the snowflakes?


Featured Workbench Article

Round Bases, Round Labels

Using self-adhesive labels to identify your minis.


Featured Profile Article

The Simtac Tour

The Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.


947 hits since 4 Jun 2013
©1994-2026 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

desert war04 Jun 2013 1:35 p.m. PST

The Royal Navy aircraft carriers made a big contribution to the UN effort in Korea, but why didn't they deploy jets on their carriers? They had sea vampires and seahawks.

martin goddard Sponsoring Member of TMP04 Jun 2013 1:43 p.m. PST

Possibly because the support carriers like Unicorn were too small to launch jets?

Martin

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP04 Jun 2013 2:12 p.m. PST

It would also depend on their role. I don't know anything about their service but prop planes were still flying close support missions. Having them doesn't mean you have to deploy them.

Personal logo Doms Decals Sponsoring Member of TMP04 Jun 2013 2:36 p.m. PST

Bit of both – the carriers used in Korea were all light fleet carriers (Triumph, Glory, Theseus and Ocean, plus HMAS Sydney – the support carrier Unicorn was actually slightly heavier than the operational carriers.)

They were really on the small side for jet operations (doable, but not desirable….) and their ground support tasking made it pretty academic – jets would've taken up more deck space for less useful load, and even air to air, the Vampire wasn't a great improvement on the prop stuff anyway – the FAA was still at the stage where its jets weren't up to much, having persevered for a couple of years too long with milking the last ounce of performance from piston engined types.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.