Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

British vs. US Carrier Design in WWII


  • Please log in to reply
1283 replies to this topic

#881 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 8 Months and 23 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 20 February 2012 - 12:47 AM

How are you, mate? 'S been a while, hope things are going ok with you. :)

Some heavy units available in the summer of '44 would be the cruisers Hipper and Prinz Eugen- large, well balanced, heavy cruisers- pocket battleships Lutzow and Admiral Scheer and of course the mighty Tirpitz was still afloat until November.

To that you can add four light cruisers and twenty one destroyers, the Schnellboote force, the torpedoboots and the still numerous and deadly U-boats.

Worth keeping a few strike aircraft handy with that lot no further than the Baltic and Norway, less than a days passage away…:D

#882 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,120 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 4 Months and 23 Days
  • 100 topics

Posted 20 February 2012 - 12:58 AM

Even if you think your enemy is trodden underfoot, always be prepared in case they rise up and thump you.


Exercise Tiger comes to mind.

#883 ickysdad

ickysdad

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 869 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 11 Months and 7 Days
  • 39 topics

Posted 20 February 2012 - 01:25 AM

How are you, mate? 'S been a while, hope things are going ok with you. :)

Some heavy units available in the summer of '44 would be the cruisers Hipper and Prinz Eugen- large, well balanced, heavy cruisers- pocket battleships Lutzow and Admiral Scheer and of course the mighty Tirpitz was still afloat until November.

To that you can add four light cruisers and twenty one destroyers, the Schnellboote force, the torpedoboots and the still numerous and deadly U-boats.

Worth keeping a few strike aircraft handy with that lot no further than the Baltic and Norway, less than a days passage away…:D


Things are going pretty good I must say,I have been debating,along with Indy, over on warships1 pertaining to wether or not Germany followed Treaty of Versaillies and AGNT 35 !!!! LOL!!!!

On heavy units of the KM ,well was Tirpitz really sea-worthy? Anyways I asked Stewart the question because remember the Allied bombardment force something like 6 BB's.


Oh we're only 26 replies short of a record..I just bumped up the "Best Fighter' thread which had 907 posts ,this one has 881.

Edited by ickysdad, 20 February 2012 - 01:39 AM.


#884 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 8 Months and 23 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 20 February 2012 - 12:13 PM

And not just the Tirpitz! :D The KM forces were roughly handled and badly stretched, especially in the Baltic. But the same could be said of Allied equipment throughout the war. How many ships did we send to sea with knackered turrets, jammed lifts, defective main machinery, twisted hulls? We knew what could be achieved with half a ship and we planned accordingly.
The heavy Allied naval presence would undoubtedly have defeated any KM attack, but that would be cold comfort if the attack managed to cut the expeditionary force off. Combine it with a heavy counter attack ashore and a surge of Luftwaffe aircraft overhead and you have the ingredients for the heaviest Allied defeat of the war.
It didn't happen. But the potential was there. The Kasserine Pass was only fourteen months back, Exercise Tiger just three; the Allies had to be prepared for the very worst. The Axis had turned us over far too often already to risk showing them anything other than the utmost respect.

#885 Lightning

Lightning

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 4 Months and 9 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 20 February 2012 - 04:05 PM

...they made their position quite clear seventy years ago.
They decided to use Barracudas against the heaviest defended anchorage in Europe, in spite of large numbers of Avengers being available.


And, after repeated attempts, the Tirpitz remained afloat for several months until sunk by Lancasters. Also, when you read about the attacks, those defenses were very ineffective.

They sent a large number of Avengers to the Pacific. They sent almost as many Barracudas after them.


But the Barracudas experienced performance problems there and they were replaced by Avengers. It is significant to note that there were more Avengers on British carriers at war's end than there were Barracudas.

I'm easy on your overall assessment- the Avenger was a great plane, the Barracuda suffers from a terrible reputation.


I don't doubt that that "terrible reputation" was overstated, but not entirely so. There is just no way that the plane got that reputation without there being good reason. The Avenger never got a bad reputation--terrible or otherwise--and that was also for good reason.

I hope you've accepted at least some of the points I raised about the aircrafts' capabilities..


I have repeatedly said that the Barracuda was an effective airplane. I just maintain that the Avenger was, overall, more effective.

For example, if the main threat existed in the West, the RN would keep their best or most suitable strike aircraft to face it.


But they initially kept their Avengers in the West while sending their Barracudas to the Pacific. Did they therefore consider the greatest threat to be in the Pacific? They only sent those Avengers to the Pacific when the Barracuda began to exhibit performance problems there. As I said, "You can't have it both ways."

The possibility that the greatest threat was assessed to be in the East is the one your entire argument rests on....


And that's an argument that you haven't been able to refute. I never compared the relative gravity of the East vs West threats. What escalated the threat to, and the capabilities of, the RN carriers in the East was the degraded performance of the Barracuda. That happened. It was a real-world, real-war fact that can't be rationalized away.

Likewise your lengthy and unnecessary commentary on the Barracuda fan book. The point I was making was one on the nature of popularity- 'countless' reference's to the qualities of the Avenger are a thoroughly circular reinforcement of a preferred opinion. I offered a similar publication [note use of the singular] offering the same treatment of the Barracuda.


Popularity and reputation are not the same. Popularity is not based on recorded facts or history but more on emotional appeal. Popularity is much more fickle and fleeting than reputation. Reputations are earned. not so popularity.

"Preferred opinion"? Sounds like a far-reaching conspiracy of many people over many decades--and still going on! I don't think so.

Quite why the British origin of a pro-Avenger site should carry any more weight than a New Zealand, Canadian or American one escapes me.


It carries equal rate. It is also a ".org" (not ".com") site in the UK, so I don't agree that it is necessarily a "pro-Avenger site. If you cite one of those others that presents the Avenger in an equally negative light, I would certainly consider it, but for any such site (if you can find one), there are many sites and reference sources that contain less-than-complimentary comments and evaluations of the Barracuda.

Also, did the Canadians use the Avenger during the war? I know they were post-war users of the aircraft.

Surely you don't imagine a national bias in this discussion? (innocent)


And you don't?

However, the removal of it from one role, in one theatre, as the perceived direct result of a well known failing of the airframe could be used in the same manner as you use the withdrawal of far fewer Barracuda airframes.


I've made it quite clear that compressibility was a phenomenon that affected numerous fighters--P-38; P-47; P-51; Spitfire--to name several. It was not a "failing" in the airframe of any of these aircraft. There was no out-of-specification issue involved. Those planes were fully capable of performing as designed and built.

The Barracuda, on the other hand, experienced a loss of performance that made it unable to meet its design specifications. This is made obvious by the fact that they were originally expected to meet those specifications, otherwise, they wouldn't have been sent to the South Pacific in the first place. (Quite possibly, the RN Avengers would have been sent instead. :D)

Flo, we're not only repeating ourselves in individual postings but in multiple postings. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Just let me say that both airplanes played important roles in the winning of the war. It would be next to impossible for both to have contributed exactly equally--one had to have been the better of the two to one degree or another. It's just that we disagree as to which one that was.

Regards,

Lightning


__________________

#886 dunmunro1

dunmunro1

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 499 posts
  • Joined 9 Years, 6 Months and 19 Days
  • 3 topics

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:44 PM

And, after repeated attempts, the Tirpitz remained afloat for several months until sunk by Lancasters. Also, when you read about the attacks, those defenses were very ineffective.



The defences were based upon a combination of smokescreens, flak and fighters. The fact that Tirpitz survived multiple attacks by the FAA and RAF heavy bombers is a testament to the effectiveness of the defences, and I can't possibly imagine how you could think otherwise.

#887 stewartg

stewartg

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Joined 9 Years, 5 Months and 4 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:20 PM

I know that the Fulmar carried bombs during the Raid on Kirkenes...

I suspect that Brown's trials experience related purely to assisted TO.



Fulmars with bombs at Kirkenes? That's news to me, what's your source?

On the Firefly bombs problem, Brown says explicitly it occurred during arrested landings as well.

#888 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 8 Months and 23 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:55 PM

:D Lightning, you're missing almost every point I make. I thought it was my inability to put down my thoughts coherently- as I've said before, English isn't my first language- but some others seem to 'get' what I'm saying straight away.

And, after repeated attempts, the Tirpitz remained afloat for several months until sunk by Lancasters. Also, when you read about the attacks, those defenses were very ineffective.

The high value unit remained afloat, therefore the defences were extremely effective, right up until the RAF got bored p*ssing around and plastered the whole anchorage with Tallboys. The RN aircraft which hit with less ordinance on each successive attack didn't change, nor did the crews. An assumption that they were incompetent has to be weighed against the large number of hits and near misses scored against Tirpitz as she got under way in the first attack- a greater accuracy and hit rate than the IJN at Pearl Harbour, or the Luftwaffe against Grand Harbour in Malta. Since the attackers didn't change- if anything they grew stronger- the only reasonable conclusion is the defences became more effective.

But the Barracudas experienced performance problems there and they were replaced by Avengers. It is significant to note that there were more Avengers on British carriers at war's end than there were Barracudas.

Ah, lightbulb moment! You do know the replacement/substitution of Avengers was largely a paper exercise? The majority of the carriers who would operate them were still in European waters. I.e. the Eastern Fleet consisted of two Fleet carriers, consisting of two squadrons of Barracudas and one of Avengers, the latter operating off Saratogas deck. Aircrew were a rotation of various squadrons utilising the available decks.
As compared to the BPF, a different fleet of five Fleet carriers, (three additional) with completely new airgroups, including replacement Corsairs, Hellcats, Fireflys, Seafires etc.
Which should lead you back to my original point about aircraft moves- they happened constantly, for a variety of reasons. I don't believe either type was a replacement for the other. Nor do I believe either type was specifically held in reserve back in Blighty to support the Home Fleet. That point was intended to demonstrate where your reasoning and your speculation leads and how it's equally likely that the opposing view to yours holds true.

On numbers of one versus the other? The Light Fleets were four smaller ships. If the additional Light Fleets building at wars end joined the BPF they'd have equalled and eventually exceeded the number of Avengers in theatre. It still wouldn't change my contention that both were still in service.

Caveat- of course the transition from EF to BPF wasn't anything like that simple. Ships, personnel and even aircraft were moving between the two theatres before, during and (post war) after the formation of either fleet.


I don't doubt that that "terrible reputation" was overstated, but not entirely so. There is just no way that the plane got that reputation without there being good reason. The Avenger never got a bad reputation--terrible or otherwise--and that was also for good reason.

Agreed, but the 'good reason' is one of education, Lightning. The career of the Avenger is well known, that of the Barracuda relatively obscure. We no longer have that excuse. We now know that structural defects in the Barracuda were corrected, operating procedures were modified and that it had a better safety record than RN Avengers. We also now know that similar defects were discovered and corrected in the RNs Avengers.

I have repeatedly said that the Barracuda was an effective airplane. I just maintain that the Avenger was, overall, more effective.

Again, you're missing my point. In RN service it was less effective as a strike aircraft. Had the USN operated Barracudas and enjoyed less success with them, then your point about the considerable success enjoyed by the Avenger would be valid. Since they didn't, we have to consider an alternative service who operated both aircraft. Their experience, which is to say the real world, historical record, is at odds with your assessment.

But they initially kept their Avengers in the West while sending their Barracudas to the Pacific. Did they therefore consider the greatest threat to be in the Pacific? They only sent those Avengers to the Pacific when the Barracuda began to exhibit performance problems there. As I said, "You can't have it both ways."

I'm not, mate. The number of aircraft sent to accompany the Eastern Fleet was relatively small, enough for the RN to launch a series of Barracuda strikes against the Tirpitz throughout the Spring and summer.

And that's an argument that you haven't been able to refute. I never compared the relative gravity of the East vs West threats. What escalated the threat to, and the capabilities of, the RN carriers in the East was the degraded performance of the Barracuda. That happened. It was a real-world, real-war fact that can't be rationalized away.

I'm not rationalising anything away, Lightning. I am demonstrating where your assumptions and sweeping statements are inconsistent with the evidence or can be interpreted in opposition to your view. What you see as self explanatory is anything but.
This is a great example of drawing a simplistic conclusion from the ashes of a highly complex decision.
No-one, least of all me, is challenging the disappointing performance of the Barracuda in the face of a combination of light airs, high temperatures and the requirement to deliver a long range strike at a target on the other side of a mountain range. Where we differ is that I don't think a planning process considering every possible permutation of equipment, threat, logistical support and about a hundred other factors is going to base it's conclusions solely on two successful strikes in an area unlikely to be revisited.


Popularity and reputation are not the same. Popularity is not based on recorded facts or history but more on emotional appeal. Popularity is much more fickle and fleeting than reputation. Reputations are earned. not so popularity.

So you know the reputation, in RN service, of aircraft that went out of service sixty years ago? (out of smilies, imagine a wink here!)

"Preferred opinion"? Sounds like a far-reaching conspiracy of many people over many decades--and still going on! I don't think so.

Lmao! Don't pretend to be coy, Lightning, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Change the markings on the fuselage and you know which airframe would be more popular.

It carries equal rate. It is also a ".org" (not ".com") site in the UK, so I don't agree that it is necessarily a "pro-Avenger site. If you cite one of those others that presents the Avenger in an equally negative light, I would certainly consider it, but for any such site (if you can find one), there are many sites and reference sources that contain less-than-complimentary comments and evaluations of the Barracuda.

Education, education, education. 'For every pro Mustang site there are many sites and reference sources that contain less-than-complimentary comments and evaluations of the P-38.' It's a true statement, but I disagree with the Lightning detractors. Not because I'm a fan of the aircraft (although I am) but because I actually know a little about the history and characteristics of both aircraft.
Lightning, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. We share an interest in the performance and history of warbirds, but I refuse to base my opinions on a popularity contest. It makes no sense. If I did I'd be forced to concede that the Nazis won the Second World War handily, excepting for the part where Ben Affleck single handedly destroyed those pesky commie Japs. :rolleyes:


Also, did the Canadians use the Avenger during the war? I know they were post-war users of the aircraft.

The aircraft is popular with most canucks. (innocent)

And you don't?

Not in this case- I consider both frames highly successful RN aircraft. :P C'mon Lightning, you know how highly I rate Hellcats. This isn't about which nation made the best 'planes, it's about the basic operational differences between two of my nations strike aircraft.

I've made it quite clear that compressibility was a phenomenon that affected numerous fighters--P-38; P-47; P-51; Spitfire--to name several. It was not a "failing" in the airframe of any of these aircraft. There was no out-of-specification issue involved. Those planes were fully capable of performing as designed and built.

Again, my point isn't about compressibility, it's about a popular perception forcing an incorrect assumption. See below.

The Barracuda, on the other hand, experienced a loss of performance that made it unable to meet its design specifications. This is made obvious by the fact that they were originally expected to meet those specifications, otherwise, they wouldn't have been sent to the South Pacific in the first place. (Quite possibly, the RN Avengers would have been sent instead. :D)

Actually, RN Avengers were 'sent', they operated off Saratogas decks in '43 and again in early '45. I'm not aware where the Fairey design was specified to be able to take off in zero wind conditions, with a full load, and strike across a mountain range. If that was the desired requirement, wouldn't it have had a two stage supercharger?


Flo, we're not only repeating ourselves in individual postings but in multiple postings. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Just let me say that both airplanes played important roles in the winning of the war. It would be next to impossible for both to have contributed exactly equally--one had to have been the better of the two to one degree or another. It's just that we disagree as to which one that was.

No mate, we're not! You claim one was better. You claim it was so much better it forced the withdrawal from service of it's rival. I'm making no such claim. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to claim that if the British had larger carriers both would have been carried- after all, at various points in the campaign the British had both aircraft in service. Both hit Sumatra, for instance. The RN had every intention of flying both against the Japanese mainland.
I'm at a loss to how I can make you see what I'm driving at.
Try this. Would you say the Avenger was better than the Helldiver? If so, why?


Regards,

Lightning


__________________


Mate, I'm sorry to labour the point, but you're completely missing what I'm saying! You're drawing a raft of conclusions that I believe are unsound and poorly reasoned, trying to defend against what you perceive as my attacks on the Avenger.
But my posting only addresses your contentions. I'm not attacking the Avenger, nor am I making any of my own, beyond the simple assertion that they were different kinds of aircraft. Their abilities overlapped. Perhaps if you try to imagine the Fairey as a half way stop between Helldivers and Avengers? It might let you see what I'm getting at.

Anyway, take care mate,

Speak to you soon.

#889 dunmunro1

dunmunro1

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 499 posts
  • Joined 9 Years, 6 Months and 19 Days
  • 3 topics

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:55 PM

Fulmars with bombs at Kirkenes? That's news to me, what's your source?

On the Firefly bombs problem, Brown says explicitly it occurred during arrested landings as well.


Fulmars at Petsamo:

14. The fighter ' escort proceeded South
keeping to the West of the torpedo aircraft and
climbing above them.
They patrolled to the Southward of the target
area, keeping between it and the nearest aerodrome
some fifteen miles to the South. They
then acted in accordance with the general plan,
in which, if no enemy aircraft were encountered,
they were to assist the striking force by
attacking ground targets with bombs and
machine-gun fire, with the restriction that not
more than half their ammunition was to be
expended on ground targets.
http://www.ibiblio.o...zette/38300.pdf

Posted Image
From:Fairey Fulmar, 4+ Publication


I don't doubt Brown, on the Firefly's arrested landing problems, but all this meant was that aircraft would have to jettison their bombs prior to landing; of course this might not always be possible if a bomb hung up.

Edited by dunmunro1, 20 February 2012 - 08:06 PM.


#890 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 8 Months and 23 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:29 PM

I've just downloaded it. What a gem! How much detail? It's even got the aerial arrangements, right down to a description of the Mk IV AIs Yagis! Gods, I could have done with this when I was finishing my wee model off. Thanks again, mate. :D

Fulmars at Petsamo:


Posted Image
From:Fairey Fulmar, 4+ Publication


I don't doubt Brown, on the Firefly's arrested landing problems, but all this meant was that aircraft would have to jettison their bombs prior to landing; of course this might not always be possible if a bomb hung up.


:D Always fun if that happens when the diversionary field is weather bound!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com