Yuku free message boards

My Recent Posts · ( 2-May-2008

OK - in 1944 the USN began the process of expanding the fighter complements of their carriers, up from 36 (organised as a single VF squadron?). Initially around 18 planes were added, taking the total up to ~54. But the newcomers were designated as fighter-bombers, in a separate "VBF" unit.

I'm curious about how this worked. How were the VBF pilots trained? Were they "really" fighter pilots or attack pilots (to use the modern term), or a super combination of both?

How were they used? Did they only do attack and strike escort (?), or did they take part in CAP / fleet defence as well? If the latter, were they seen as equal to the VF guys at air-to-air, ors seen more as a second line of defence?

Just curious, and please correct any mistakes in the above.

My Recent Posts · ( 2-May-2008

StewartG wrote:
OK - in 1944 the USN began the process of expanding the fighter complements of their carriers, up from 36 (organised as a single VF squadron?). Initially around 18 planes were added, taking the total up to ~54. But the newcomers were designated as fighter-bombers, in a separate "VBF" unit.

I'm curious about how this worked. How were the VBF pilots trained? Were they "really" fighter pilots or attack pilots (to use the modern term), or a super combination of both?

How were they used? Did they only do attack and strike escort (?), or did they take part in CAP / fleet defence as well? If the latter, were they seen as equal to the VF guys at air-to-air, ors seen more as a second line of defence?

Just curious, and please correct any mistakes in the above.

To some extent, the USN had always some level of mission cross-over, with dive bombers also serving as scout aircraft, torpedo bombers as level bombers, and fighters in scout and attack roles (there's a reason the F4B had a bomb rack, about 15 years before Pearl Harbor). I suspect that the VBF squadrons were primarily bombing squadrons, operating with what were considered primarily fighter aircraft. Interestingly, at least according to the USN History Center, the VBF designation predates WW2; it just wasn't used. Just browsing the history for one squadron (VA-12) which began as VBF-4 shows it with both F6F and F4U aircraft assigned on 23 May 1945, so it's possible that one set of pilots were primarily trained in bombing, the other in aerial combat.

...added in edit....

I suspect that the USN carrier squadrons were never as large as 36 aircraft.

My Recent Posts · ( 5-May-2008

My Recent Posts · ( 5-May-2008

I tend to use "I suspect" to mean something close to "I've really no evidence, but I think that my limited knowledge of the subject causes me to conclude..." I was not aware that USN carrier-based squadrons ever became as large as 24, let alone 90 aircraft.

My Recent Posts · ( 6-May-2008

Most of the VBF squadrons in already existing air groups were established in January 1945. A look at the aircraft locations returns for full strength VF squadrons (and leaving out the working up squadrons with FM-2s in their inventories and VF training squadrons such as VF-100 at Barbers Point, but including those noted as "Ready" but unassigned) in late November 1944 shows that there was an average of slightly more than 53 fighters for each of 23 squadrons, with a high of 70 and a low of 43.

After the VBF squadrons were firmly established, say around the beginning of April 1945, inventories for up to strength (or otherwise noted as "Ready" but unassigned) VF and VBF squadrons strengths averaged out to slightly more than 33 fighters for each of 38 squadrons, with a high of 40 and a low of 25. VF squadrons averaged 33.8 aircraft and VBF squadrons averaged 32.6 aircraft.

Rich

My Recent Posts · ( 7-May-2008

Thanks for the replies gents, this is interesting.

I discovered some fragmentary notes of my own on a related issue. These are from a 23 May 1945 document called BPF 932/Ops, which was an abstract of various operational research reports done for Admiral Fraser. It includes some US numbers for the bombing efficiency of the VBFs:

Tons dropped per attack sortie: VF/VBF 13, VB 64, VT 77
Tons dropped per loss to AA: VF/VBF 10, VB 27, VB 39

...with the implication that the USN weren't actually too impressed with the VBF concept!

It's also interesting to note that the RN didn't decide to increase its standard squadron size from 12 to 18-24 until June 1944. Worried about the ability of officers to manage that size of unit, according to ADM 1/16484. The USN clearly didn't agree.

RLeonard - that sounds like a fantastic source for US squadron sizes / availabilities, is it available anywhere?

My Recent Posts · ( 7-May-2008

StewartG wrote:

RLeonard - that sounds like a fantastic source for US squadron sizes / availabilities, is it available anywhere?

Despite not being Rich, I can answer. It is available in non-searchable PDF files:

http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/ww-ii/loc-ac/loc-ac.htm

Max

My Recent Posts · ( 7-May-2008

Yup . . . Max hit it.

My Recent Posts · ( 7-May-2008

If you want operational data you might want to look at

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

A 3.6 Mb pdf file, "US Naval Aviation Combat Statistics - World War II". One of my favorite sources, but a word of caution to double check the math on anything you want to use. Calculation errors did creep in and can give you the wrong idea if you aren't careful. I put all the tables into spread sheets and recalculated them all.

Rich

Author	Comment
StewartG	USN CV fighter-bombers	Lead	[-]
Posts: 499 ( 2-May-2008 10:22:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	OK - in 1944 the USN began the process of expanding the fighter complements of their carriers, up from 36 (organised as a single VF squadron?). Initially around 18 planes were added, taking the total up to ~54. But the newcomers were designated as fighter-bombers, in a separate "VBF" unit. I'm curious about how this worked. How were the VBF pilots trained? Were they "really" fighter pilots or attack pilots (to use the modern term), or a super combination of both? How were they used? Did they only do attack and strike escort (?), or did they take part in CAP / fleet defence as well? If the latter, were they seen as equal to the VF guys at air-to-air, ors seen more as a second line of defence? Just curious, and please correct any mistakes in the above.
emc		#1	[-]
Posts: 3724 ( 2-May-2008 17:00:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	StewartG wrote: OK - in 1944 the USN began the process of expanding the fighter complements of their carriers, up from 36 (organised as a single VF squadron?). Initially around 18 planes were added, taking the total up to ~54. But the newcomers were designated as fighter-bombers, in a separate "VBF" unit. I'm curious about how this worked. How were the VBF pilots trained? Were they "really" fighter pilots or attack pilots (to use the modern term), or a super combination of both? How were they used? Did they only do attack and strike escort (?), or did they take part in CAP / fleet defence as well? If the latter, were they seen as equal to the VF guys at air-to-air, ors seen more as a second line of defence? Just curious, and please correct any mistakes in the above. To some extent, the USN had always some level of mission cross-over, with dive bombers also serving as scout aircraft, torpedo bombers as level bombers, and fighters in scout and attack roles (there's a reason the F4B had a bomb rack, about 15 years before Pearl Harbor). I suspect that the VBF squadrons were primarily bombing squadrons, operating with what were considered primarily fighter aircraft. Interestingly, at least according to the USN History Center, the VBF designation predates WW2; it just wasn't used. Just browsing the history for one squadron (VA-12) which began as VBF-4 shows it with both F6F and F4U aircraft assigned on 23 May 1945, so it's possible that one set of pilots were primarily trained in bombing, the other in aerial combat. ...added in edit.... I suspect that the USN carrier squadrons were never as large as 36 aircraft. Last Edited By: emc 2-May-2008 18:23:49. Edited 1 times.
maxs75		#2	[-]
Posts: 317 ( 5-May-2008 19:17:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Last Edited By: maxs75 5-May-2008 19:53:52. Edited 2 times.
emc		#3	[-]
Posts: 3730 ( 5-May-2008 19:52:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I tend to use "I suspect" to mean something close to "I've really no evidence, but I think that my limited knowledge of the subject causes me to conclude..." I was not aware that USN carrier-based squadrons ever became as large as 24, let alone 90 aircraft.
RLeonard		#4	[-]
Posts: 49 ( 6-May-2008 17:18:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Most of the VBF squadrons in already existing air groups were established in January 1945. A look at the aircraft locations returns for full strength VF squadrons (and leaving out the working up squadrons with FM-2s in their inventories and VF training squadrons such as VF-100 at Barbers Point, but including those noted as "Ready" but unassigned) in late November 1944 shows that there was an average of slightly more than 53 fighters for each of 23 squadrons, with a high of 70 and a low of 43. After the VBF squadrons were firmly established, say around the beginning of April 1945, inventories for up to strength (or otherwise noted as "Ready" but unassigned) VF and VBF squadrons strengths averaged out to slightly more than 33 fighters for each of 38 squadrons, with a high of 40 and a low of 25. VF squadrons averaged 33.8 aircraft and VBF squadrons averaged 32.6 aircraft. Rich
StewartG		#5	[-]
Posts: 502 ( 7-May-2008 18:40:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Thanks for the replies gents, this is interesting. I discovered some fragmentary notes of my own on a related issue. These are from a 23 May 1945 document called BPF 932/Ops, which was an abstract of various operational research reports done for Admiral Fraser. It includes some US numbers for the bombing efficiency of the VBFs: Tons dropped per attack sortie: VF/VBF 13, VB 64, VT 77 Tons dropped per loss to AA: VF/VBF 10, VB 27, VB 39 ...with the implication that the USN weren't actually too impressed with the VBF concept! It's also interesting to note that the RN didn't decide to increase its standard squadron size from 12 to 18-24 until June 1944. Worried about the ability of officers to manage that size of unit, according to ADM 1/16484. The USN clearly didn't agree. RLeonard - that sounds like a fantastic source for US squadron sizes / availabilities, is it available anywhere?
maxs75		#6	[-]
Posts: 318 ( 7-May-2008 19:01:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	StewartG wrote: RLeonard - that sounds like a fantastic source for US squadron sizes / availabilities, is it available anywhere? Despite not being Rich, I can answer. It is available in non-searchable PDF files: http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/ww-ii/loc-ac/loc-ac.htm Max
RLeonard		#7	[-]
Posts: 50 ( 7-May-2008 19:04:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Yup . . . Max hit it.
RLeonard		#8	[-]
Posts: 51 ( 7-May-2008 19:11:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	If you want operational data you might want to look at http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf A 3.6 Mb pdf file, "US Naval Aviation Combat Statistics - World War II". One of my favorite sources, but a word of caution to double check the math on anything you want to use. Calculation errors did creep in and can give you the wrong idea if you aren't careful. I put all the tables into spread sheets and recalculated them all. Rich

Yuku free message boards

USN CV fighter-bombers

USN CV fighter-bombers

Quick Reply