History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Most important carrier opperation
brandydoguk
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 01:39 AM UTC
Hi guys, following on from the Most decisive battle topic I would ask what you all think is the most important carrier opperation? My vote would go to the attack on Taranto in the mediterranean war. Not only was it the first "strategic" success by carriers it showed what even limited naval air assets could achieve.
ukgeoff
Member Since: May 03, 2002
entire network: 1,007 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 03:51 AM UTC
I'd have to say it was Midway, as this was an important turning point in the war
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 05:52 AM UTC
My two cents are on Battle of the Philippines Sea in 1945 (The Marianas Turkey Shoot). The decisive employment of air and sea power in a climatic WW II battle.
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 06:48 AM UTC
How about the deployment of the Enterprise and Independence during the "quarantine" of Cuba during the missile crisis? Probably one of the best examples of carriers as forward force projection. The Soviets knew the were had. The couldn't possibly throw down against carriers without air cover and they didn't have any way to get theirs in theater...
Shaun
Shaun
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 08:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
How about the deployment of the Enterprise and Independence during the "quarantine" of Cuba during the missile crisis? Probably one of the best examples of carriers as forward force projection. The Soviets knew the were had. The couldn't possibly throw down against carriers without air cover and they didn't have any way to get theirs in theater...
Shaun
Shaun--Enterprise? Wow. She has been in the water for a long, long time. I wonder if she is the oldest carrier in the force.
thanks
DJ
chip250
Member Since: September 01, 2002
entire network: 1,864 Posts
KitMaker Network: 606 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 12:17 PM UTC
How about the "Stringbags" that struck the Bismarck?
~Chip
~Chip
warlock0322
Member Since: January 13, 2003
entire network: 1,036 Posts
KitMaker Network: 152 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 10:35 PM UTC
This is a very interesting question indeed. One I have thought of for a while. Having to pick just one I can't make up my mind. Unless I go with The war in the Pacific as a whole.
Before Pearl the carriers were a new untested concept. Then after Pearl that spurred the US to increase the production of the famed Carriers we all know and have gone down in the history books. All the while writing the book on the How to's to Carrier warefare. Having to adapt what works and what doesn't as they go with so much on the line.
All the before mentioned operations are very significant and I can't say one was more than another.
I guess I am just stuck on the fact that since the advent of the Carrier. Naval warfare as a whole changed once these beautiful engineering marvels took to the water.
Maybe that is another thread about. What was the most significnt invention that changed the face of warfare.
Paul
Before Pearl the carriers were a new untested concept. Then after Pearl that spurred the US to increase the production of the famed Carriers we all know and have gone down in the history books. All the while writing the book on the How to's to Carrier warefare. Having to adapt what works and what doesn't as they go with so much on the line.
All the before mentioned operations are very significant and I can't say one was more than another.
I guess I am just stuck on the fact that since the advent of the Carrier. Naval warfare as a whole changed once these beautiful engineering marvels took to the water.
Maybe that is another thread about. What was the most significnt invention that changed the face of warfare.
Paul
brandydoguk
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 11:36 PM UTC
Warlock I must agree with your comments on how carriers in WW2 changed the face of naval operations. Within a couple of years the battleship was replaced as primary capital ship by the carriers. What interests me is the fact that Britain was among the world leaders after WW1 in developing the concept of getting aircraft to sea and yet lagged so far behind the Americans and Japanese when WW2 broke out, both in terms of carrier design and aircraft quality.
ModlrMike
Member Since: January 03, 2003
entire network: 714 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 11:38 PM UTC
The most important carrier operation of WW2 was Pearl Harbour. If the Japanese had not attacked then the US may have not entered the war. At least the entry might have been delayed. Certainly, the attack "woke the sleeping bear", and the rest is history. 
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 03:37 AM UTC
Quoted Text
This is a very interesting question indeed. One I have thought of for a while. Having to pick just one I can't make up my mind. Unless I go with The war in the Pacific as a whole.
Before Pearl the carriers were a new untested concept. Then after Pearl that spurred the US to increase the production of the famed Carriers we all know and have gone down in the history books. All the while writing the book on the How to's to Carrier warefare. Having to adapt what works and what doesn't as they go with so much on the line.
All the before mentioned operations are very significant and I can't say one was more than another.
I guess I am just stuck on the fact that since the advent of the Carrier. Naval warfare as a whole changed once these beautiful engineering marvels took to the water.
Maybe that is another thread about. What was the most significnt invention that changed the face of warfare.
Paul
Paul--what don't you start a question on your last statement?
Very interesting point. We get great responses from folks on this intriguing questions.
DJ
m60a3
Member Since: March 08, 2002
entire network: 778 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 05:12 AM UTC
I am torn between the Battle of the Atlantic against the U-boats and Midway. Each changed the course of the war greatly.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 07:38 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I am torn between the Battle of the Atlantic against the U-boats and Midway. Each changed the course of the war greatly.
Bob--good to hear from you again. By Battle of the Atlantic, I take it you are referring to the use of escort carriers with convoys?
thanks
DJ
m60a3
Member Since: March 08, 2002
entire network: 778 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 07:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI am torn between the Battle of the Atlantic against the U-boats and Midway. Each changed the course of the war greatly.
Bob--good to hear from you again. By Battle of the Atlantic, I take it you are referring to the use of escort carriers with convoys?
thanks
DJ
Yes,sir! Sorry to have been away for so long!
Certainly the development of the Hunter-Killer anti-submarine tactics which "closed the gap" in the Atlantic played a huge role in assuring the security of the convoy supply lines. Should the escort aircraft carrier not be deployed there, the Wolfpacks would have enjoyed a much larger operational area devoid of Allied airpower. Even now, although the equipment and tactics of ASW have changed, naval aviation has as prominent a role in this type of warfare as it had in 1942-1945.
Although a part of the sum in the U-Boat War, I feel the use of the aircraft carrier in the Battle of the Atlantic was an essential part of that sum. Without it, the U-Boat menace may have taken a much greater toll on the Allied effort, especially when it pertains to the resupply of Britain and Russia.
I guess considering my dissertation, I am going to propose that the Escort Carrier and her aircraft played a very decisive role in the U-Boat War.
brandydoguk
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 08:07 AM UTC
That's a good call M60. The convoy escort role was certainly one of the most vital if unspectacular parts of carrier ops. Nice one
Martin
Martin
Mar-74
Member Since: May 04, 2003
entire network: 679 Posts
KitMaker Network: 166 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 08:15 AM UTC
not the most desicive by any means but what about the british naval task force during the falklands war. Without our carriers there the war would have almost definately dragged on and the argentinians would have air supperiorty and wreaked even more havoc on both land and naval forces. Certainly one to think about.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 08:26 AM UTC
Two responses here:
Bob--- do you have details on the escort carriers? Seems they had a limit aircraft load (wonder how many) and used the Wildcat and Avenger for the ASW work in the Atlantic while in the Pacific I'd imagine they used the Avenger.
Martin-- are the vessels used in the Falkland War aircraft carriers or converted ships with jump ramps?
thanks
DJ
Bob--- do you have details on the escort carriers? Seems they had a limit aircraft load (wonder how many) and used the Wildcat and Avenger for the ASW work in the Atlantic while in the Pacific I'd imagine they used the Avenger.
Martin-- are the vessels used in the Falkland War aircraft carriers or converted ships with jump ramps?
thanks
DJ
brandydoguk
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 08:32 AM UTC
You make a good point there mar6874, if the British had lost one of the carriers it could have been catastrophic. Ironically if the Argentinians had delayed their occupation of the falklands by six months the Invincible would have been sold to Australia. It is doubtful if the British could or would have sent a taskforce based on one small carrier almost 30 years old and able to carry a only handful of sea harriers. The vulnerability of the taskforce ships to air attack, (even the specialist air defence destroyers found dificulty protecting themselves) came as a nasty shock to the MoD. Without the second carrier it may have been a very diferent outcome. Once again the need for modern fighter defence and AEW for the fleet was shown to be vital for any out of area deployment.
Mar-74
Member Since: May 04, 2003
entire network: 679 Posts
KitMaker Network: 166 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 08:52 AM UTC
210
They are actual carriers, granted no where near the same size as our american friends. But carriers just the same. We had HMS Ark Royal and HMS Invincible out there at the time.
(we also had HMS Ark Royal in WW2 - but unfortunately it sunk!)
They are actual carriers, granted no where near the same size as our american friends. But carriers just the same. We had HMS Ark Royal and HMS Invincible out there at the time.
(we also had HMS Ark Royal in WW2 - but unfortunately it sunk!)
brandydoguk
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 09:28 AM UTC
DJ the carriers used in the Falklands, Hermes and Invincible were both designed and built as small carriers. Hermes had a displacement of 28,000 tons and was originally completed with arrester gear and angled deck. In later refits she had the arrester gear removed and converted to the assault carrier role equipped with helicopters and landing craft. She was again refitted for the ASW role (retaining the assault capability) and the ski jump added to enable sea harriers to be shipped for defence against long range Russian maritime aircraft. Invincible had a displacement of 16,000 tons and was designed as an ASW carrier operating only helicopters. The design was changed later to incorporate a ski jump to allow sea harrier ops. For the Falklands war the ships' airgroups were reinforced to get the maximum number of sea harriers to the Sout Atlantic.
m1garand
Member Since: February 08, 2002
entire network: 1,248 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 09:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
do you have details on the escort carriers? Seems they had a limit aircraft load (wonder how many) and used the Wildcat and Avenger for the ASW work in the Atlantic while in the Pacific I'd imagine they used the Avenger.
Here's a book about the escort carriers in the Atlantic that I really liked:
"Hunter-Killer: U.S. Escort Carriers in the Battle of the Atlantic"
by William T. Y'Blood
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553294792/qid=1056750099/sr=1-21/ref=sr_1_21/103-3831889-2999011?v=glance&s=books
warlock0322
Member Since: January 13, 2003
entire network: 1,036 Posts
KitMaker Network: 152 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 01:40 PM UTC
Brandy:
I agree with you totally that the Brisish were among the leaders after WWI in the carrier concept.
I think the lag behind that they suffered at the outbreak of WWII may be attributed to the fact that the war was actualy 2 years old when the US and Japan entered the war.
By the Germans bombing England almost daily that Englands industrial sector had to have suffered severely thus hindering them to further their concept and production.
If this is the case or not I cannot say for sure.
DJ i found this for ya it not very detailed but it does shed a little light on the question you asked about the Escort Carriers
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-escrt.html
hope this sheds a little light on this subject for you
I agree with you totally that the Brisish were among the leaders after WWI in the carrier concept.
I think the lag behind that they suffered at the outbreak of WWII may be attributed to the fact that the war was actualy 2 years old when the US and Japan entered the war.
By the Germans bombing England almost daily that Englands industrial sector had to have suffered severely thus hindering them to further their concept and production.
If this is the case or not I cannot say for sure.
DJ i found this for ya it not very detailed but it does shed a little light on the question you asked about the Escort Carriers
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-escrt.html
hope this sheds a little light on this subject for you
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2003 - 11:20 PM UTC
Fellows--great replies. Fascinating about the escort carriers lot to learn about bouncing in the Atlantic on that baby! As for the Falkland Island Campaign. I recall that the Brits lost a destroyer (Shefield?) to an aircraft launched missile. Were there any hits on the carriers? Also, what carriers do the British possess now.
thanks
DJ
thanks
DJ
brandydoguk
Member Since: October 04, 2002
entire network: 1,495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 12:05 AM UTC
DJ the British lost 4 frontline warships in the falklands. The destroyers Sheffield to exocet, the Coventry to bombs, and the frigates Ardent and Antelope to bombs. The destroyer Glamorgan was hit by exocet but survived. The carriers were not damages but the Argentinians claimed a hit on Invincible.
The Royal Navy currently has 3 carriers in service all of the same type. They are Invincible, Illustrious, and Ark Royal. Two are in service at any one time whilst the third is in refit. They have had their missile systems removed and flightdeck space increased to allow for increased deck parking. Current planning is to replace them by the end of the decade with 2 large carriers of about 60,000 tons, operating 40 to 50 aircraft each.
The Royal Navy currently has 3 carriers in service all of the same type. They are Invincible, Illustrious, and Ark Royal. Two are in service at any one time whilst the third is in refit. They have had their missile systems removed and flightdeck space increased to allow for increased deck parking. Current planning is to replace them by the end of the decade with 2 large carriers of about 60,000 tons, operating 40 to 50 aircraft each.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 12:33 AM UTC
I did not know that the British were planning further carrier development. I believe the US has the Reagan just about to christen and the Bush in construction. Can someone clarify?
thanks
DJ
thanks
DJ
Cob
Member Since: May 23, 2002
entire network: 275 Posts
KitMaker Network: 95 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 01:10 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I did not know that the British were planning further carrier development. I believe the US has the Reagan just about to christen and the Bush in construction. Can someone clarify?
thanks
DJ
If I recall correctly DJ, the Bush will be the last of the Nimitz class. A new CVN is in the works. I'll see if I can get more (unclas) details tomorrow at work but I seem to remember that it will have electromagnetic catapults vice steam catapults ( another Brit innovation by the way)
v/r,
Cob
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.