"British carrier aircraft in the PTO late war" Topic

Sorting through a few computer games (a very early spring cleaning) and realized that the PTO scenarios have a lot of USA manufactured aircraft on the British carrier squadrons listing.

Not a slam on the Brits and not jingoistic USA observation, but why?

Going on memory.some CVs have Fulmars/(Sea) Hurricanes/(Sea Spitfires) Spitfires while others Wildcats (IIRC,) and correspondingly some have biplanes attack planes (Albacore? ) others have USA attack planes (Avengers?) in various combinations. What was the reason for this? Availability in numbers? Upgrading of older fighters for newer ones -attrition replacement? Concerns about capability of older FAA planes versus the newer IJN/IJA models?

The Bismark can testify to the effectiveness of British torpedo damage so why the changeover?

Those better qualified can comment, but I believe it may have had to do with logistics. I seem to recall that there were some Barracuda attack a/c used late war.

Yes, the chief issue was logistics, but also quality of British aircraft – most of the British aircraft you've mentioned were struggling by '41 and obsolescent by '42. (Frankly many of them weren't that hot even in their prime – the FAA really suffered from being the RAF's red-headed stepchild, and kit like the Fulmar and Skua were barely satisfactory even at the start of the war, let alone years into it.)

In the torpedo bomber role, the Barracuda was capable enough in the end, but had a very troubled development and early service, and could only operate off of fleet carriers. The Avenger was readily available, vastly outperformed the older British types, and could operate off of shorter decks, which the Barracuda couldn't.

For fighters, the fragility of the Seafire's undercarriage meant the FAA was badly lacking a high performance fighter later in the war – we got through dozens a day just in landing accidents supporting Operation Torch, which really confirmed the need for a more robust option. With Corsairs and later Hellcats becoming readily available, they just made sense.

Museum pieces, seri'ously, imagine yourself in a daylight attack against any IJN warship flying a swordfish or an Albacore.

Their mid-war RN aircraft were plagued by developmental delays and mediocre performance. The pilots notes for how to take off were written by witnesses of the first seventeen attempts to take off. "Poor engine power in a pig of an overweight aircraft designed in opposition to the concept of airflow." Best summary I've heard yet.

For evidence, look at the Fulmar. A twelve gun fighter based on the Battle. The Barracuda, oh it could dive alright, just like a brick, only getting it airborne was the problem.

The dependancy on the mid power Merlin inline engine doomed most naval aircraft due to their weight. The only aircraft that were light enough to be succesful, were either too short a range or they had that poor spacing of the landing ear that doomed the Seafire.

The only quasi-succes story was the Firefly. Designed as a three amn fighter, (anyone see a problem yet?), it only came into its' own when it was used for long range recconnaisance and as a ground strafer.

The RN really did want the Helldiver and even had enough in the UK to train a squadron, but the USN insisted on the entire production run otherwise and kept them out of the RN for the most part.Despite a large part of Helldivers being produced in Thunder Bay in Caanda!

The Avenger was in widespread production in multiple plants and the USN didn't mind the RN getting them. The Idea of a Torpedo plane was losing favour in the USN and so the USN was not as interested in keeping them all anymore.

The Brewster Buccaneer (or Bermuda), a dive bomber, really never got past carrier trials. Despite many claiming it was not a bad performer in the air. Problems more in line with the Brewster company sparked accusations and investigations that would stagger most aviation fans to this day.

The Dauntless was adored by their crew, the limited and being at the end of their production, made the navy keep hold of as many as they could. I think the French may have got a few in Europe before wars end.

The Wildcat, in mass production, take all you need, especially from '43 on and een more so once the Hellcat started production.

The Hellcat was freely offered once production ramped up by the end of '43.

The Corsair was starngely enough offered openly and equally as the USN just about refused to use it on carriers. Seriously, it was the RN who pioneered using Corsairs on carriers. The USMC were really the ones who forced the USN to accept them. They had the attitude, "If they can do it, then we can do it too", and proved their point.

US aircraft, reliability, performance and availibility. They had it all.

Somewhere in my basement I even have a photgraph of Vultee Vengeances on a carrier deck, probably off Hng Kong after the end of the war. A land based dive bomber extraordinaire, it makes a heck of a what if in the fanatsy of my mind.

At the end of the war, the RN aircraft only came in to tehir own with the use of the Griffon engine replacing the Merlin for the Barracuda, the Seafire, the Firefly. The Centaurus powered Sea Fury was a world of its own probably comparable to the Bearcat.

As for carrier use in the RNs Pacific task force, remember the Implacable and indefatigable could only use Hellcats since the extra hangar deck had shorter deck height snad the Corsairs didn't fit. (Until they cut the wingtips short!)

Sorry for the long winded and lack of spell checking, I hope it helps a bit.

"The Bismark can testify to the effectiveness of British torpedo damage so why the changeover?"

Because the Bismark didn't have Zeros for CAP.

Long winded is good – nice rundown there.

Dom, Troopwo, OldGrenadier thanks! Makes sense.

emckinney, LOL! Point taken.

Also keep in mind that RN units operating with the USN needed to rely on USN logistic support. Using US aircraft kept things running smoothly.

Bob

Just to add, while the Seafire had good performance it had poor range/endurance. Good for CAP, not so good for escorting long range strikes. As for the effectiveness of the Swordfish and it's torpedoes, two hit Bismarck, one caused a slight leak of fuel oil and caused minor flooding, the other, in what even the Royal Navy admitted was an incredible piece of luck jammed her rudder, and managed to jam it when Bismarck's helm was hard over so she couldn't be steered by manipulating engine power and using her remaining rudder. I think that if you were asking FAA pilots in 1944 if they would rather have been attacking Yamato in Avengers or Swordfish the answer would be decidedly for the Avenger. As has been pointed out the FAA wasn't the priority that the RAF was.

But also it just made sense. The Americans were designing and producing perfectly good Naval aircraft which they were willing to share. Why waste production space that could be used for other aircraft? For national pride? IIRC the first kill in a Martlet/Wildcat is made by a British pilot.

One of the biggest caveats that the USN made was that if the RN operated in the Pacific, it was going to be on its' own with NO logistical support. Most people are not aware of this.

They gathered the most motley collection of ships ever seen to use as a fleet train. Their forward port was based out of Sydney and they sometimes were allowed to use Manus(?) as a forward operating base. I think even the French and Italians contributed ships to support them.

As Jowady says the development of naval aircraft was on the bottom of the priority list the entire war. "What do you mean, something better than a Skua! Mankind can't improve on it!", Was the attitude that prevailed.

Sure some strikes from the Swordfish hit Bismark, but that is more a testimony to the bravery, skill and obstinacy of the crew than to the airframe having a place in a daylight strike against a warship with modern AA, gun directors and radar. As a matter of fact given the Swordfish daylight attacks against major warships, I guess there was a one in four opportunity to win a VC with much better odds of earning a unmarked watery grave.

In March of '42 the RN nearly had that chance to fight a carrier battle in the Indian Ocean against the IJN. The only odds the RN had was if they could have used their Albacores in a open ocean night attack against the IJN. Otherwise if they had the chance to have met, it would have been a decidedly one sided affair.

The FAA pilots were good. Trained throughout the BCATP and even alongside Americans in training establishments throughout the US too. Combined with decent aircraft and those utterly reliable and powerful radial engines, they did a great job.

If you can get a hold of the book, "Task Force 57", I highly recommend it. Try ABE or advanced book exchange to search out some of these out of print or second hand books.

"To War in a Stringbag" by Charles Lamb is a favourite too. A Swordfish pilot at Taranto, torpedoing Italian shipping from Malta and Albania at night, prisoner of the Vichy French for a year or two, and finally as officer conducting flight deck operations off a fleet carrier against the Japanese. A great read about a miraculous life.

"Carrier Observer", I forget the author as I lost my copy in a basement flood. Commissioning a new fleet carrier and trials off Bermuda, with a tear jerking story of the ships grounding on a reef. Imagine all the crew mustered on the aft flight deck jumping in unison to the the Royal Marine band playing, "It's a Small World After All" in an attempt to refloat the carrier. He also gives a detailed description of what could have been the greatest disaster the RN may have achieved in a battle against the IJN in March of '42. He later was assigned to be an observer in a Barracuda Squadron on the way to the Pacific battles and his testimony is simply damning against the Barracuda.

Funny, the FAA is not what I would consider my strong suit yet I remember this much. Glad to help.

"Carrier Observer" by Gordon Wallace

link

A new and reasonably-priced book, which answers your questions:

link

MH

Thank you for correcting my faulty memory Trooptwo.

I just re-read the Fleet Train bits of "The War At Sea" by Stephen Roskill.

He wrote that while the RN Fleet Train was barely adequate for the task at hand that US logistics officers defined "self-sufficient" in very liberal terms and made stores available to the RN as needed.

Perhaps then it was a fortunate coincidence that the two naval air services could use the same spare parts.

Bob

No problem at all.
I suspect that the 'no support' policy was a combination of the Adm King anglophobia, combined with the USNs' struggle against MacArthhur, making sure no one could get control over any navy priority.

At the lower level, the USN and sailors did everything they could to help the RN. The greatest American contribution of the American servicemen, has been and is, their willingness to help out, when they see someone making a good effort at something. The common attitude of your everyday sailor was, "Take it all, so long as you keep the kamikazes off our back!".

On the army level, I often have had the pleasure to experience this and am grateful. It is a joy to be able to reciprocate when I can. This Canuck likes Yanks.

@ trooptwo;

Never heard of a 12 gun Fulmar; only eight. The Fulmar was terrific in one particular role: Combat Air Patrol. It had almost double the endurance of a Seafire or Sea Hurricane, plus a second pair of eyes to scan for foes. It's speed and manouevrability were more than adequate for dealing with Italian torpedo bombers. Remember, no-one in the West knew about the Zero until Dec. 1941, so the Fulmar was fine by the standards they knew about.

The Skua was a good aircraft,too. Unfortunately after the Norwegian campaign Britain had a shortage of large. fleet carriers. The Skua couldn't take off from the deck of Argus, Hermes, or Eagle. That's why the Swordfish stayed in service so long; short take-off run! The Skua ultimately faded away because the Blackburn factories were co-opted into building Spitfires during the Battle of Britian.

the Firefly, was a great ground attack and scout plane but useless against a zero in a dogfight,

the Seafire too fragile for the sustained ops and too short ranged, though great at intercepting kamakazies

the Baracuda, had too many teething problems and some carrier handling problems.

Grumman build great airplanes and enough of them for everyone so why not just fly those