Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Pacific Flat Tops
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by mercury22 (U2744067) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Hi all,
Just watched on Cable, programme about the Pacific campaign, and the carriers involved,the brits were mentioned once as TF54, with no I.D. of any of the Carriers or other RN ships involved in the actions.
All books i have seen so far, are all predominantly American, which is as it should be, but there is not a lot of nfo re The Royal navy ships, would like to know what carriers etc too part
Cheers
Mercury22 -
Message 2
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Monday, 6th February 2006
The war at sea in the Pacific was mainly between the US Navy and the Japanese Navy.
Although there were some Royal Navy ships involved some times it was predominantly the Yanks what sorted out the Imperial Navy.
If there would have been a battle involving the Royal Navy ( apart of the Battle in the Java Sea and the sinking of Repulse and Prince of Wales) you would have heard and read all about it. -
Message 3
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Mercury,
Try this;
You don't here as much about the royal Navy carriers as they didn't sustain nearly as much damage as the Yank carriers, the British carriers had armoured decking, the yanks used wood... -
Message 4
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Famous message passed from U. S Commander to British Commander after British Carrier was hit by Sucide Aircraft. "What help do you require?" British reply. "Send more brushes." Amour plate was a good thing.
Fred -
Message 5
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Mercury,
Try this;
You don't here as much about the royal Navy carriers as they didn't sustain nearly as much damage as the Yank carriers, the British carriers had armoured decking, the yanks used wood...Β
Mani,
Knew you'd see sense one day!!!! Armour is indeed, a wonderful thing....
sorry, couldn't resist!!!
-
Message 6
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th February 2006
You and your armour! I'm sure Charlotte church in a suit of armour would give you a heart attack!
-
Message 7
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Hi all,
Just watched on Cable, programme about the Pacific campaign, and the carriers involved,the brits were mentioned once as TF54, with no I.D. of any of the Carriers or other RN ships involved in the actions.
All books i have seen so far, are all predominantly American, which is as it should be, but there is not a lot of nfo re The Royal navy ships, would like to know what carriers etc too part
Cheers
²Ρ±π°ω³¦³ά°ω²β22Μύ
One British carrier was loaned to the Americans for a short time when many of their carriers were damaged. HMS Victorious was renamed USS Robin for a time.
MB -
Message 8
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
The American fleet won the key battles, the British carriers were tied up in the Atlantic and Med.
They went to the Indian Ocean and then the Pacific as and when they could be spared from their other duties.
I understand the drawback of the armoured decks was that it meant a lot fewer plane could be carried.
As an aside, had the invasion of Japan gone ahead, I understand the RN could have deployed at least 52 carriers of all types and the USN considerably more, I think the Canadians had carriers so all in all that would have been some fleet. -
Message 9
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
Mr Pedant,
As far as I'm aware the only drawback of armoured decking was the fact that shopuld it be damaged, it was a lot harder and slower to repair or replace... -
Message 10
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
Quick (if belated) answer - all of the RN Fleet Carriers. It was the largest carrier task force the RN put together in WWII and had HMS Indomitable, Indefatigable, Implacable, Illustrious, Formidable and Victorious - a full house - although Illustrious withdrew after Formidable joined.
It is a neglected aspect of the RN's war. The Pacific War was seen by the USN as its own private war and outside involvement was resented. The BPF was welcomed by Spruance's 5th Fleet, but when the Anglophobe Halsey's 3rd Fleet took over, relations declined. Halsey did his best to prevent RN ships being in Tokyo Bay for the surrender.
This is a shame, because the achievements of the BPF have been suppressed. The last VC of the war went, posthumously, to a RCNVR pilot operatiing off Japan. -
Message 11
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
There were Australian Navy ships involved in the Pacific, serving with the US fleet. One of them, HMAS Australia experienced kamikaze attacks
I don't think it was a matter of the US Navy seeing this as its own 'private war' and resenting outsiders at all. The decision taken at the Arcadia Conference in late 1941/early1942 by Churchill and FDR was to prioritise the European conflict.
It was the US Navy and countries in the region like Australia which promoted the importance of the Pacific War -
Message 12
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 8th February 2006
wollemi
I should have prefaced the comment with "By 1945..". RAN and RNZN ships did erve in the PAcific, and HMS Victorious did a cruise with USS Saratoga in '43.
However, Admiral King ("the most even-tempered man in the Navy")never accepted the "Germany First" strategy and continuously diverted naval assets to the Pacific in defiance of the Combined Chiefs of Staff and his own political masters.
The USN was reluctant to accept the BPF and insisted it bring its own logistics, not entirely in keeping with the situation in other theatres. As I said, Relations with Spruance's 5th Fleet were good, and they were co-operative on logistics. However, it was a different story when the BPF joined 3rd Fleet.
Halsey excluded the BPF from the major strike on the Japanese Navy at Kure in order "to forestall a possible post-war claim by Britain that she had delivered even a part of the final blow that demolished the Japanese Fleet" (his own words).
Not very Alliance-minded, I would suggest, and sounds very like a private war to me. -
Message 13
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 8th February 2006
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't King so Anti British that he refused help over the U Boats second Happy Time off the U S East Coast, leading to the deaths of hundreds of U S sailors So much so that it was suggested that he should have got The Iron Cross for his service to Germany.
Fred -
Message 14
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Thursday, 9th February 2006
wollemi
I should have prefaced the comment with "By 1945..". RAN and RNZN ships did erve in the PAcific, and HMS Victorious did a cruise with USS Saratoga in '43.
However, Admiral King ("the most even-tempered man in the Navy")never accepted the "Germany First" strategy and continuously diverted naval assets to the Pacific in defiance of the Combined Chiefs of Staff and his own political masters.
The USN was reluctant to accept the BPF and insisted it bring its own logistics, not entirely in keeping with the situation in other theatres. As I said, Relations with Spruance's 5th Fleet were good, and they were co-operative on logistics. However, it was a different story when the BPF joined 3rd Fleet.
Halsey excluded the BPF from the major strike on the Japanese Navy at Kure in order "to forestall a possible post-war claim by Britain that she had delivered even a part of the final blow that demolished the Japanese Fleet" (his own words).
Not very Alliance-minded, I would suggest, and sounds very like a private war to me.Β
Yes, King was the most important influence in promoting US Navy involvement in the Pacific
However, after the Germany First strategy was decided, Britain was seen as 'Alliance minded' for Europe, not for the Pacific War, certainly in Australia. Around this time the Australian PM Curtin announced in the Melbourne Herald that Australia was realigning from Britain to the US, and from 1942 the RAN then integrated with the US Navy, albeit in a minor role.
So the Australian Government was also less than enthusiastic about the British Pacific Fleet, although it did contribute. Halsey's perception about the political motivation for the BPF was held here too. -
Message 15
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Thursday, 9th February 2006
Didn't the British contribute a naval force to the final landings of the Pacific War? Also, didn't Admiral King despise the British and the ROyal Navy.
-
Message 16
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 9th February 2006
it was the yanks upper echelons jealous and afraid of a little nation that stood against several of the great powers alon, and inflicted bloody losses against them! (patriotic rant over now) i remember reading in one of theose janes military books (cant remember which) tat pre-war, american military magazines often produced articles regarding how there air forces and navies were the best in the world (specifically the air forces), along with the unnassailability of americas military. it actually quoted one, but i admit i cant remeber any more that the vagaries i just wrote!
-
Message 17
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Thursday, 9th February 2006
Well there were certainly big egos involved!, but 2 issues can be argued to have resulted from the Germany First decision wrt the Pacific War
1. It gave a 'green light' to the Japanese who were running amok through the region, There was not going to be an all out effort to defeat them
2. If the region is of lesser importance to Britain, then Britain becomes of lesser importance to the region.
Basically, the US Navy ran its own campaign outside politics wrt the Pacific War. That suited Australia. -
Message 18
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 16th February 2006
You and your armour! I'm sure Charlotte church in a suit of armour would give you a heart attack!Β
I'd prefer Miss Church in the back of a Warrior!!! -
Message 19
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Thursday, 16th February 2006
Mr Pedant,
As far as I'm aware the only drawback of armoured decking was the fact that shopuld it be damaged, it was a lot harder and slower to repair or replace...Β
Actually, it was a bit more than that. The US ship builders used the hangar deck as their ''strength'' deck (the deck around which the other decks would flex), so damage to the flight deck wouldn't seriously affect the structural integrity of the ship. The British used the flight deck as the strength deck and while the armour prevented the Brit carriers from suffering the serious damage the US carriers did when hit by Kamikazes, the structural integrity of the ships was seriously affected. They survived the battles, but the flight decks were bent or twisted badly and repair proved impossible without just about rebuilding the entire vessel and they ultimately had to be scrapped.
Using armour on the flight decks did indeed reduce the number of a/c that could be carried. Carriers built along US designs with armoured flight decks like the British would have been the ideal solution.
Building carriers with wooden flight decks seemed reasonable when they were constructed for many reasons. First of all, none of the allied leaders dreamed any military would use mass, organized suicide as a means of attack or defence. The a/c used in the suicide attacks could not seriously damage the armoured decks, but bombs could, and carrier a/c could and often did carry armour-piercing bombs, as they demonstrated when they attacked PoW and Repulse and other heavily armoured ships. To the buildiers' minds, adding armour would not only reduce the number of a/c the carriers could haul aboard, it would also make the craft top heavy, more difficult to handle at sea, and cost a lot more. Viewed in that light, wood seemed like a better idea than armour. -
Message 20
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 16th February 2006
Did you know, that the U S had two paddle wheel carriers. They were bigger than the fighting carriers, and used as training ships. They took two timber carriers from the Great Lakes put flat decks on them, and used them rather than take a carrier out of service.
Fred
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.