USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by warspite1 »

In his thoughts on The British Pacific Fleet (Hobbs), Wirraway Ace thought the book a 'marketing document for the RN'. Intrigued by this I have just begun reading the book.

One early comment surprised me and I would be interested in thoughts on what the author may be referring to.

My understanding is that the USN/RN experience in carrier operations meant that the relationship quickly became one of teacher/pupil due to the extensive carrier operations carried out by the USN from the start of the Pacific War.

Hobbs, referring to 1943 when HMS Victorious was lent to the USN states:

Victorious' air direction team had extensive experience of combat operations in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, and they were able to pass on details of their tactical procedures, many of which were adopted by the USN.

Does anyone know what specifically the author is referring to here? I will check out Winton's book as well as Friedman's British Carrier Aviation, but it could be useful to get a heads-up before delving too deeply elsewhere.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by Barb »

I believe the 1943 experience handed from RN to USN was mainly about CAP direction by Radar - moving Avangers from HMS Victorious (USS Robin) to USS Saratoga and moving part of Wildcats the other way support this - USS Robin with her Radar direction interception room was to be used mainly as CAP carrier, while the Saratogas better on deck team was faster in plane spotting and launching strikes. Thus the answer to your question would probably be: Detection, contact tracking, direction of CAP, Interception, etc.

Source: http://www.armouredcarriers.com/uss-robin-hms-victorious/


In 1944 while Saratoga was operating in the Indian Ocean, it was the USN teaching RN about fleet maneuvering around carriers and strike launching from multiple decks (RN previous doctrine was to have Flag admiral in the supporting Battleship - thus a Turn procedure was usually - Radar contact by carrier, message to flagship, acknowledge, Admiral Commanding giving turn order, message to fleet, turn - On the other hand the USN had a more separation between ships, flag was on carrier, and all ships turned with the carrier without any messages).

Source: http://www.armouredcarriers.com/illustrious-and-saratoga/
Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Barb

I believe the 1943 experience handed from RN to USN was mainly about CAP direction by Radar - moving Avangers from HMS Victorious (USS Robin) to USS Saratoga and moving part of Wildcats the other way support this - USS Robin with her Radar direction interception room was to be used mainly as CAP carrier, while the Saratogas better on deck team was faster in plane spotting and launching strikes. Thus the answer to your question would probably be: Detection, contact tracking, direction of CAP, Interception, etc.

Source: http://www.armouredcarriers.com/uss-robin-hms-victorious/


In 1944 while Saratoga was operating in the Indian Ocean, it was the USN teaching RN about fleet maneuvering around carriers and strike launching from multiple decks (RN previous doctrine was to have Flag admiral in the supporting Battleship - thus a Turn procedure was usually - Radar contact by carrier, message to flagship, acknowledge, Admiral Commanding giving turn order, message to fleet, turn - On the other hand the USN had a more separation between ships, flag was on carrier, and all ships turned with the carrier without any messages).

Source:
http://www.armouredcarriers.com/illustrious-and-saratoga/
warspite1

Thanks - I recall in Winton's book that he mentioned USS Saratoga in 1944 in the Indian Ocean and the fact that the USN had to pass down their hard earned experience to the British carriers. That is where my idea of procedures flying one way came from. I don't recall him mentioning HMS Victorious in 1943 - though he may have done.

Plenty of reading ahead I feel [:)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by Barb »

Yup - the use of British Carriers in Med was quite different that USN in Pacific - and this included fleet tactics, procedures, and many other things (underway refueling too). Also between 1942 and 1944 most of the British Fleet Carriers got some serious repairs and refits - Thus the operational experience was not on hand for the newly forming BPF - especially with larger formations required in Pacific.
Image
User avatar
Leandros
Posts: 1934
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:03 pm
Contact:

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by Leandros »



I would be surprised if the USN, in 1943 in the Pacific, had much to learn from the RN carrier people.
Particularly if it was based on RN's Atlantic/European service. RN carriers in this area did not have to relate
to enemy carriers, which the USN had to from the start. As I understand it the RN saw carrier-based planes mainly as
a tool to attack enemy ships unprotected by own air assets. This can be seen by their carrier air complement in the
beginning of the war. Little emphasis was put on own carriers' defense against enemy planes.

As for fighter control the RN carriers usually operated in singles, while the USN carriers were used to operate together fairly
quickly. How good they were at coordinating this I do not know but I should think that in '43 they would have gained
a lot of experience in this that the RN wouldn't. USN carriers had radar from the start and used it.

Just my opinion.

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by BBfanboy »

I don't recall the British massing their carriers in groups of more than two until the attack on Tirpitz, so having to maneuver a fleet around independently maneuvering CVs was something they had little experience in. Only after the North Sea/North Atlantic/Mediterranean had been secured could the British concentrate larger numbers of CVs together.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Trugrit
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:31 pm
Location: North Carolina

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by Trugrit »


I think the most important tactic was carrier raids. The British Pioneered it.

The British attack at Taranto led to the development of fast carriers adopted by the U.S. Navy.
Surprise raids were adopted by the Japanese as well with devastating results.

“In 1939 the only combatant nation to possess a significant carrier fleet was the United Kingdom. “
“But although Britain lost five of the seven carriers that it possessed at the start of the war, its experiences proved essential in the development of aircraft carrier tactics in World War II. Even as its carriers were sunk one by one the Royal Navy experimented with tactics and hit on one at which carriers excelled: surprise raids.”

“The commissioning of the HMS Illustrious, first of four carriers of its class, gave Britain a new level of aircraft carrier performance. Equipped with an armored flight deck and able to keep over fifty aircraft in its hangar, Illustrious launched an attack in November of 1940 against the main Italian naval base of Taranto. Utilizing torpedoes and striking at night, the Italian navy was caught unawares and crippled in one fell swoop. The aircraft carrier had found its calling.”

http://www.brighthubengineering.com/mar ... world-war/

"A man's got to know his limitations" -Dirty Harry
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by Zorch »

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


I think the most important tactic was carrier raids. The British Pioneered it.

The British attack at Taranto led to the development of fast carriers adopted by the U.S. Navy.
Surprise raids were adopted by the Japanese as well with devastating results.

“In 1939 the only combatant nation to possess a significant carrier fleet was the United Kingdom. “
“But although Britain lost five of the seven carriers that it possessed at the start of the war, its experiences proved essential in the development of aircraft carrier tactics in World War II. Even as its carriers were sunk one by one the Royal Navy experimented with tactics and hit on one at which carriers excelled: surprise raids.”

“The commissioning of the HMS Illustrious, first of four carriers of its class, gave Britain a new level of aircraft carrier performance. Equipped with an armored flight deck and able to keep over fifty aircraft in its hangar, Illustrious launched an attack in November of 1940 against the main Italian naval base of Taranto. Utilizing torpedoes and striking at night, the Italian navy was caught unawares and crippled in one fell swoop. The aircraft carrier had found its calling.”

http://www.brighthubengineering.com/mar ... world-war/

Towards the end of WWI the British had plans for a multi-carrier strike on German U-boat bases. Did they ever execute it?
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


I think the most important tactic was carrier raids. The British Pioneered it.

The British attack at Taranto led to the development of fast carriers adopted by the U.S. Navy.
Surprise raids were adopted by the Japanese as well with devastating results.

“In 1939 the only combatant nation to possess a significant carrier fleet was the United Kingdom. “
“But although Britain lost five of the seven carriers that it possessed at the start of the war, its experiences proved essential in the development of aircraft carrier tactics in World War II. Even as its carriers were sunk one by one the Royal Navy experimented with tactics and hit on one at which carriers excelled: surprise raids.”

“The commissioning of the HMS Illustrious, first of four carriers of its class, gave Britain a new level of aircraft carrier performance. Equipped with an armored flight deck and able to keep over fifty aircraft in its hangar, Illustrious launched an attack in November of 1940 against the main Italian naval base of Taranto. Utilizing torpedoes and striking at night, the Italian navy was caught unawares and crippled in one fell swoop. The aircraft carrier had found its calling.”

http://www.brighthubengineering.com/mar ... world-war/
Not quite true - the USN had Ranger, Lexington and Saratoga in the early 1930s and by the late 1930s had at least Yorktown and Enterprise. They war-gamed raids against Pearl Harbour, among other fleet exercises. True they were considered an adjunct to the battleship line, but the Carrier men of the navy all knew that they could be much more dangerous when they were cut loose to raid and interdict.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Barb

I believe the 1943 experience handed from RN to USN was mainly about CAP direction by Radar - moving Avangers from HMS Victorious (USS Robin) to USS Saratoga and moving part of Wildcats the other way support this - USS Robin with her Radar direction interception room was to be used mainly as CAP carrier, while the Saratogas better on deck team was faster in plane spotting and launching strikes. Thus the answer to your question would probably be: Detection, contact tracking, direction of CAP, Interception, etc.

Source: http://www.armouredcarriers.com/uss-robin-hms-victorious/


In 1944 while Saratoga was operating in the Indian Ocean, it was the USN teaching RN about fleet maneuvering around carriers and strike launching from multiple decks (RN previous doctrine was to have Flag admiral in the supporting Battleship - thus a Turn procedure was usually - Radar contact by carrier, message to flagship, acknowledge, Admiral Commanding giving turn order, message to fleet, turn - On the other hand the USN had a more separation between ships, flag was on carrier, and all ships turned with the carrier without any messages).

Source:
http://www.armouredcarriers.com/illustrious-and-saratoga/
warspite1

Thanks - I recall in Winton's book that he mentioned USS Saratoga in 1944 in the Indian Ocean and the fact that the USN had to pass down their hard earned experience to the British carriers. That is where my idea of procedures flying one way came from. I don't recall him mentioning HMS Victorious in 1943 - though he may have done.

Plenty of reading ahead I feel [:)]
warspite1

Yes, as expected there was only the minimum of prose dedicated to Victorious/Robin in 1943 in Winton's book - so no further detail on this question from that source. From looking through Friedman's work there is no obvious comparison in the index here either.

Thanks for the link Barb I shall have a read.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Korvar
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:04 pm

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by Korvar »

I don't know specifics of what the RN was teaching the USN about carrier tactics by the time of WW2, but I would surmise that there was still a healthy two-way exchange even as the flow of information tended to flow from the USN to the RN as time went on. One specific instance that sticks out in my mind is that the RN figured out how to land the Corsair safely - but that is something I've 'known' for years and haven't verified with a specific source.

Very early on in carrier use the USN benefited greatly from the RN; the RN more or less saved the US from the multi-deck carrier design, whereas the Japanese had to learn the hard way with Kaga.
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by geofflambert »

Could you be more specific? CVs all had flight decks and hanger decks complete with elevators, sometimes not enough. What deck are you referring to being unneeded?

User avatar
Korvar
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:04 pm

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by Korvar »

To be more specific, I should say multi flight deck carrier. The single flight deck wasn't a foregone conclusion until various navies got some experience under their belt with carrier ops.

Here is Kaga as originally refitted from a BB. Note the three separate flight decks. It had to undergo an expensive 2nd refit in 1934/35 to convert it to the single flight deck design (with the bottom two flight decks becoming the hangar decks) that it had during WW2.

Image
dave sindel
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Millersburg, OH

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by dave sindel »

This thread is precisely the type of give and take, and valuable exchange of information, that makes this forum so interesting to me. A fascinating subject that I'd not thought much about previously.
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by Zorch »

ORIGINAL: Korvar

To be more specific, I should say multi flight deck carrier. The single flight deck wasn't a foregone conclusion until various navies got some experience under their belt with carrier ops.

Here is Kaga as originally refitted from a BB. Note the three separate flight decks. It had to undergo an expensive 2nd refit in 1934/35 to convert it to the single flight deck design (with the bottom two flight decks becoming the hangar decks) that it had during WW2.

Image
Kaga started out as a BB and was converted to CV only after BC Amagi was damaged by the Tokyo earthquake, Evidently it is harder to convert a BB to a CV than a BC. This is why Kaga is slower than the other KB carriers.
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by geofflambert »

I'm still interested, Korvar, was the USN considering such carriers and at what time, do you know?

User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by geofflambert »

I would say if you could put a "launching deck" below the hangar deck, that would be a very interesting idea.

User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by geofflambert »

The thing is, a flight deck's efficiency is (in WWII) dependent on the elevators serving it. If you up to effectively 3 decks the efficiency goes down the tube. Now, if you had sufficient elevators serving from the hangar deck to the flight deck as well as from the hangar deck to the launching deck, that might be a workable concept. Question is (or rather was) could you engineer a way for the hangar deck elevator(s) serving the launch deck serve the flight deck in a pinch?

User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Leandros



I would be surprised if the USN, in 1943 in the Pacific, had much to learn from the RN carrier people.
Particularly if it was based on RN's Atlantic/European service. RN carriers in this area did not have to relate
to enemy carriers, which the USN had to from the start. As I understand it the RN saw carrier-based planes mainly as
a tool to attack enemy ships unprotected by own air assets. This can be seen by their carrier air complement in the
beginning of the war. Little emphasis was put on own carriers' defense against enemy planes.

As for fighter control the RN carriers usually operated in singles, while the USN carriers were used to operate together fairly
quickly. How good they were at coordinating this I do not know but I should think that in '43 they would have gained
a lot of experience in this that the RN wouldn't. USN carriers had radar from the start and used it.

Just my opinion.

Fred

US defensive fighter control was pretty pitiful in the carrier battles of 1942 and early 43. (As was the Japanese) Many times fighters just failed to intercept enemy attacks or were too late. My understanding is that they picked up some very useful ideas while working with the Victorious. A year's time in wartime is like ten years of peacetime experience. I doubt that there was much of anything the British could bring to the table when they eventually came to the Pacific in force. The US really was not really interested in having the British involved in the major show as they approached the Japanese homeland. British carriers were a bit slower, had shorter range and the US command thought that British carriers did not have enough fighter protection and would require American fighters to support them. Also, the presence of British ships and aircraft greatly increased the logistical problems faced by the Allies.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: USN/RN Carrier Operations: Operating Procedures

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The thing is, a flight deck's efficiency is (in WWII) dependent on the elevators serving it. If you up to effectively 3 decks the efficiency goes down the tube. Now, if you had sufficient elevators serving from the hangar deck to the flight deck as well as from the hangar deck to the launching deck, that might be a workable concept. Question is (or rather was) could you engineer a way for the hangar deck elevator(s) serving the launch deck serve the flight deck in a pinch?

I think the idea on Kaga was to have the hanger deck portion aft and just roll the aircraft forward to the open area for launching. At that time they were flying small bi-planes that could take off in a very short distance given the speed of the ship.

Incidentally, the Yorktown class carriers had those big hull side openings to the hanger deck not just for ventilation, but to launch aircraft - out the side of the ship! They had something like four catapults on the hangar deck. IIRC these catapults were there until just after the Battle of the Coral Sea.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”