A soft spot for an "Odd Duck". CV-4 in Aircraft Carriers Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

A soft spot for an "Odd Duck". CV-4

Author	Comment
bomberjim		#21	[-]
Posts: 555 Mar 3 12 10:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ChrisPat wrote: bager1968 wrote: bomberjim wrote: Touching on the MAC's for a moment, I've always wondered what effect these oddballs would have had on the Convoy war if say 6 or 8 had been available in 1940... Certainly they could not be as effective as a dedicated CVE but they still would have been something of a nasty surprise for the U-boats. James Or if a couple had been available in September 1939... how would having one of them on that ASW patrol in the western approaches have altered things... how much would have having Courageous around for Norway have altered things... does Glorious still get surprised by S&G? If not, then the RN has 2 more "medium" fleet carriers available! Even if D'Oyly Hughes still gets her sunk through his stupidity, then there is still Courageous to boost resupply ops for Malta, add to the forces hunting Bismark & Prinz Eugen, and possibly to give Admiral Phillips some fighter cover off Singapore. AIUI U-Boats submerged on sighting an a/c early in the war, meaning they couldn't shadow a convoy to set up a wolfpack attack while not being able to get into an attack position themselves, depending on the speed of the convoy and the positions at the time of sighting. All of which helps a lot even if the a/c did't spot the boat, let alone attack it. I don't think they'd be a great surprise, it's kind of hard to explain away a wide open flat deck on an oiler or a grain ship...maybe you could put false clutter all over it but then your own aircrew couldn't train on it. Not sure a dedicated CVE would actually do much better than a MAC in '39 - '40. More a/c but not enough escorts to stay and kill a detected U-boat, no air or escort radars, no HF/DF, no Ultra, no Hedgehog or Squid. CVEs were part of a team and most of the rest of the team weren't there yet. Meanwhile more a/c might be a bit helpful but the FAA didn't have enough crews to fill the carriers they did have. Bager, one or both of those carriers surviving is one of my favourite what ifs. Add in the RN making the best of their aircrew shortage by having Furious brought up to a sort of Courageous with a full length flight deck and decent AA standard. That's three more "mediums" for the loss of a "small to medium". Good points re: the hunter killer groups and various improved weapons. The main advantage that I was thinking of with the CVE was (I believe) they had catapults and so could operate heavier planes than the MAC's could. IIRC the MAC's mainly carried bi-planes didn't they?? Don't much see the point of having one on ASW patrol of the western approaches...Sort of defeats the purpose of having a ship that can carry cargo AND launch and recover aircraft if you use her simply in a carrier role. James
	Remove this ad
lynn1212		#22	[-]
Posts: 865 Mar 4 12 3:07 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	iirc the mac ships carried hurricanes which were meant more as anti air protection against the big FW bombers Your Text Signature ...beware of strong drink, it cause you to shoot at liberals, and miss
bager1968		#23	[-]
Posts: 7588 Mar 4 12 5:00 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Actually, at least early on, they carried Swordfish... 3 in the tanker conversions and 4 in the grain carrier conversions. Wiki article wrote: According to the Fleet Air Arm historical website: "The Sea Hurricane Mk I were followed by about 300 Mk Is converted to Sea Hurricane Mk IB configuration, these having catapult spools plus a V-frame arrester hook: in addition 25 Mk IIA were modified as Sea Hurricane IB or Hooked Hurricane II fighters. Their initial role was a considerable improvement on CAM-ship deployment, for from October 1941 they began to go to sea aboard MAC-ships, these being large Merchant ships fitted with a small flight deck." NB. This date of October 1941 is inconsistent with the first MAC ship becoming operational in early 1943, and the same article also says "by 1943 the Sea Hurricane had all but disappeared from service". This is probably the author getting confused between MAC ships and Escort Carriers, a common mistake. Since work on the conversions only started in June 1942, with the first entering service in December 1942, I agree with the conclusion in the quote above. 1939 or 1940 conversions would have seen fighters on-board... likely initially Sea Gladiators, then Sea Hurricanes IF they could generate enough WOD... they were, after all, some 4-5 knots slower than the CVEs, but no longer. Who'd have thought 30 years ago Hermes would still be in active service when Invincible was at the breakers yard? Last Edited By: bager1968 Mar 4 12 5:27 AM. Edited 1 times.
bomberjim		#24	[-]
Posts: 555 Mar 4 12 5:02 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	lynn1212 wrote: iirc the mac ships carried hurricanes which were meant more as anti air protection against the big FW bombers This article says that either three or four Swordfish were embarked. The Pic below also shows swordfish on "Adula".
ChrisPat		#25	[-]
Posts: 5864 Mar 4 12 3:39 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	U-boats submerged for Swordfish too. If you want to chase off Condors you might have a problem, but I thought they didn't become a great problem until after the fall of France. Was RATO in service then and / or can we foresight in CAM ships? CVEs and MACs were both thought of before the war, but not sure for CAM. If there were MACs could they have been fitted with a CAM type catapult and still operate Swordfish and if so could they recover the fighter, either ready to re use or at least giving the pilot a better chance to get back on board?
bomberjim		#26	[-]
Posts: 555 Mar 4 12 6:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ChrisPat wrote: U-boats submerged for Swordfish too. If you want to chase off Condors you might have a problem, but I thought they didn't become a great problem until after the fall of France. Was RATO in service then and / or can we foresight in CAM ships? CVEs and MACs were both thought of before the war, but not sure for CAM. If there were MACs could they have been fitted with a CAM type catapult and still operate Swordfish and if so could they recover the fighter, either ready to re use or at least giving the pilot a better chance to get back on board? I would say that the answer to both your questions would be yes - they could have installed a catapult and also recovered the hurricane - but at what cost in time? The catapult was probably no big deal, but I'm not so sure about the arresting gear. How much heavier arresting gear is required to stop a Hurricane vs a Swordfish? The Swordfish weighed less and while I couldn't find stall speeds for each, I suspect there is an appreciable difference there as well. In fact, while I couldn't find a number, many sites comment on it's "Low stall speed". Since the historical idea was to get the MAC's out with a fairly minimal change and loss of merchant load, heavier modifications were likely not seen as "cost effective" especially with dedicated CVE's already in the pipeline. James
Bob Henneman		#27	[-]
Posts: 1582 Mar 4 12 9:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Swordfish landed at a relative wind speed of 46 MPH, and stalled at about 36 MPH. Move the ships at 11 MPH (10 knots) and add a 10 MPH wind over the bow, and the Swordfish could come in only doing about 20- 25 MPH relative to the ship. The Hurricane stalled at about 70 MPH, so it would be going twice as fast, but still very reasonable. The Sea Hurricane Mk IB was initial fitted with basic arresting gear and catapult spools and would have been excellent for MAC operations starting in October 1941, had the ships been ready by then. The version with the 4 wing cannon was a pretty good u-boat hunter (I think they sank 2 or 3) and would have torn up a Condor pretty good, though the max speed of the fighter was only 50 MPH faster than the Condor. As it worked out, by the time the MAC ships entered service the Sea Hurrucane had pretty much been withdrawn from service- too slow. The planes that replaced the Sea Hurricane were not really suited for MAC ships, as they were supstantially heavier, and landed at higher speeds. But of course by then escort carriers were becoming available in numbers, so the MAC ships did not need to be fitted with the newer aircraft.
Larrikin22		#28	[-]
Posts: 4334 Mar 5 12 1:47 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bager1968 wrote: Before Torch she ferried P-40s to west Africa (well south of French territory), and afterwards she served with the British Home Fleet through all of 1943... cruising north along Norway and north-west to Iceland, not exactly Luftwaffe hot-spots. Mr Picky says French territory in Africa stretched in dribs and drabs all the way down to the Congo, and across to the Nile. You should refer to Vichy territory and FF territory. You can lead a leftard to knowledge, but you can't make them think
HK		#29	[-]
Posts: 654 Mar 5 12 2:23 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bomberjim wrote: If I remember right, part of the problem with Ranger was "tonnage limitations". The designers tried to fit too much into too little, but the navy didn't want to waste the tonnage allowance so they went ahead. Of course even negative lessons learned are valuable lessons and the highly successful Yorktown class benefited from mistakes made on Ranger. Obi Wan Russell wrote: As for Ranger, I regard her as being a positive, simply on the grounds that as an engineer, one of the first things you are taught is that you learn nothing from a successful test! She was far from perfect, but she was a one off and supplied enough information to the designers to produce the Yorktown class, and thence to the Essex class. Not bad for two steps in the design process. She was still capable of serving in combat during the War and indeed survived in one piece (albeit going to the breakers yard in 47). USS Wasp CV7 was effectively an improved Ranger, eliiminating the worst aspects of the design (Funnel placement being the most obvious) but she was still handicapped by small size. Ranger is a very interesting topic. I disagree with the above though. IMHO Ranger was an absolute failure, because building her was irrelevant to the learning process: the fact is that the Yorktown and Wasp designs both predate Ranger's commissioning by a long-shot. Here are the timelines for Ranger, Yorktown & Wasp. Notice how Yorktown and Wasp both have their roots in the design studies of summer 1931, which were the first to incorporate the learnings from Lex/Sara in the fleet problems of 1929-30. Ranger: Design study 1927, plans approved Dec 1929, contract negotiations Sep-Oct 1930, shakedown cruise Aug-Oct 1934, 1st deployment & fleet problem Apr-May 1935 Yorktown: Design study Aug 1931, general arrangements Feb-Mar 1932, revisions & contract Jun-Aug 1933, shakedown cruise Jan-Mar 1938 Wasp: Design study Aug 1931, preliminary design Jun-Oct 1934, contract Sep 1935, shakedown cruise Jul 1940 Now what's true is that a lot was learned during Ranger's drawn-out design process. This was extremely valuable, but the process should have been taken to its logical conclusion... which would have been to throw out the unsatisfactory Ranger design in 1930 prior to going to contract. And then re-start design studies from scratch in 1931, within the same tonnage restrictions approved by Congress & naval treaties, based on all that had been learned from Lex, Sara and Ranger. This would have delayed Ranger by no more than a 1.5 yrs. To illustrate the non-sequitur that was Ranger, by July 1931 (i.e. 2 months before Ranger's keel was laid ), BuAer was leaning towards a 13,800t balanced design called "Scheme B", with a full island and protected to heavy cruiser standards. The only cost compared to Ranger was a 20% smaller airgroup (still 65 aircraft though, about 10 fewer than Wasp and 25 fewer than Yorktown) http://books.google.com/books?id=-UT7MDTeKj8C&lpg=PA91&dq=intitle%3Acarriers&pg=PA88 CV 'Scheme B', July 1931 13,800t standard 675 x 74 x 21.25 ft wl -- 55ft shorter than Ranger, 15ft shorter than Wasp 42ft deep hull -- 1 less deck than Ranger/Wasp/Yorktown, to provide for stability on a 6ft narrower beam 65 aircraft -- 20% fewer than Ranger 500x57ft hangar -- approx. 75% of Ranger, 70% of Wasp, 65% of Yorktown 670x 80/85ft flight deck - likely could have been extended to 710ft based on Yorktown & Wasp experience 31kts on 77,000shp "Better than CA-38 protection" Last Edited By: HK Mar 5 12 2:46 AM. Edited 4 times.
bomberjim		#30	[-]
Posts: 555 Mar 5 12 2:48 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	HK - Good points on the design sequences etc... But I still like Ranger. but maybe that's just me....I just liek this "odd duck"... I would still hold that there are things left "unlearned" until the "hull is in the water" (like the rubber meets the road. During this whole time from the 20's thru the Thirties there was still a lot to be learned on the water in how best to deploy and utilize carriers. Ranger provided valuable service. James
	Remove this ad
bomberjim		#31	[-]
Posts: 555 Mar 5 12 2:52 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bob Henneman wrote: The Swordfish landed at a relative wind speed of 46 MPH, and stalled at about 36 MPH. Move the ships at 11 MPH (10 knots) and add a 10 MPH wind over the bow, and the Swordfish could come in only doing about 20- 25 MPH relative to the ship. The Hurricane stalled at about 70 MPH, so it would be going twice as fast, but still very reasonable. The Sea Hurricane Mk IB was initial fitted with basic arresting gear and catapult spools and would have been excellent for MAC operations starting in October 1941, had the ships been ready by then. The version with the 4 wing cannon was a pretty good u-boat hunter (I think they sank 2 or 3) and would have torn up a Condor pretty good, though the max speed of the fighter was only 50 MPH faster than the Condor. As it worked out, by the time the MAC ships entered service the Sea Hurricane had pretty much been withdrawn from service- too slow. The planes that replaced the Sea Hurricane were not really suited for MAC ships, as they were substantially heavier, and landed at higher speeds. But of course by then escort carriers were becoming available in numbers, so the MAC ships did not need to be fitted with the newer aircraft. Thanks Bob for that info. I had found the stall speed for Hurricane but couldn't find anything on Swordfish. With those speeds a swordfish would nearly "float" down to a landing. Arresting cables anchored by sandbags would probably stop it... ;-) James
bomberjim		#32	[-]
Posts: 555 Mar 5 12 3:02 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The intriguing things about MACs to me is just the ingenuity behind them that said, "Hey we can provide air coverage for our convoys without sacrificing an entire supply ship for the purpose". Planes on top - supplies underneath. Smaller crew requirements than a dedicated CVE plus, as it turned out when the U-boat menace was put down, the ability to ferry planes on that wide open deck. Overall a really good idea that got going just a tad bit too late...Though 19 were completed and served well. James
emc		#33	[-]
Posts: 6741 Mar 5 12 3:07 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I do remember reading (iirc, in Friedman's US Cruisers) that there were a number of high ranking naval officers who felt that the Lexington and Saratoga were too big, and tied up too much of the USN's treaty allotment in too few hulls. Why is it the same people who promote evidence-based medicine and evidence-based school systems object so strenuously to evidence-based biology and evidence-based climate science?
sergeante		#34	[-]
Posts: 4252 Mar 5 12 4:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	emc wrote: I do remember reading (iirc, in Friedman's US Cruisers) that there were a number of high ranking naval officers who felt that the Lexington and Saratoga were too big, and tied up too much of the USN's treaty allotment in too few hulls. That only makes sense if one could reasonably expect a war to be fought under treaty restrictions. (Which is of course nonsense.) It's the attitude of people worried about the first few months of a war, not about the ultimate outcome.
IcelofAngeln		#35	[-]
Posts: 5919 Mar 5 12 6:18 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	sergeante wrote: emc wrote: I do remember reading (iirc, in Friedman's US Cruisers) that there were a number of high ranking naval officers who felt that the Lexington and Saratoga were too big, and tied up too much of the USN's treaty allotment in too few hulls. That only makes sense if one could reasonably expect a war to be fought under treaty restrictions. (Which is of course nonsense.) It's the attitude of people worried about the first few months of a war, not about the ultimate outcome. There was an ongoing debate in USN circles between big-carrier and small-carrier factions (something of the sort happened in the 70s too). It was experience with Ranger which gave the big-deck side the upper hand. Some of the small-carrier side simply believed in putting the eggs in more baskets, but there were also a lot who still really saw the carriers as little more than scouting assets, adjuncts to the cruiser force.
HK		#36	[-]
Posts: 654 Mar 5 12 6:39 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	sergeante wrote: emc wrote: I do remember reading (iirc, in Friedman's US Cruisers) that there were a number of high ranking naval officers who felt that the Lexington and Saratoga were too big, and tied up too much of the USN's treaty allotment in too few hulls. That only makes sense if one could reasonably expect a war to be fought under treaty restrictions. (Which is of course nonsense.) It's the attitude of people worried about the first few months of a war, not about the ultimate outcome. I think you judge a bit harshly. During the first fleet problems they participated in, Lex & Sara kept getting sunk...repeatedly. Either they would blunder into opposing surface forces (often at night/dawn, when their speed couldn't save them), or they would both launch scouts, mutually locate and then promptly sink each other in a matter of hours. One admiral commented that the carriers were like "blindfolded men with daggers in a ring. There is apt to be sudden destruction of one or both." (Both problems turned out to be historically accurate - see Glorious vs. the twins, and Coral Sea/Midway). ...anyway, the logical conclusion was that carriers wouldn't survive very long in a high threat environment, no matter how much armor you fitted them with. By that measure, a large number of smaller, less armored carriers would be much better than Lex & Sara. At the very least, the lessons from the fleet problems should have led to the removal of their 8" battery, which would have freed up ~1,400t that could have been put to better use on Wasp (which IMHO was actually quite a good carrier already). Last Edited By: HK Mar 5 12 6:44 AM. Edited 1 times.
bager1968		#37	[-]
Posts: 7588 Mar 5 12 1:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	HK wrote: At the very least, the lessons from the fleet problems should have led to the removal of their 8" battery, which would have freed up ~1,400t that could have been put to better use on Wasp (which IMHO was actually quite a good carrier already). Actually, this wouldn't have done that. The WNT only allowed 33,000 tons each for Lex & Sara. The treaty also allowed "up to 3,000 tons" to be added to "existing capital ships" to improve protection against submarines and aircraft... this was "free" tonnage, not counting against either total class tonnage or individual ship tonnage limits. The USN completed Lex & Sara with this extra tonnage already used. They were completed at 36,000 tons... but only counted 33,000 each towards the treaty total tonnage. Reducing their actual tonnage by 1,400 tons would still leave them above their "treaty counted" 33,000 tons, and thus would not free up any tonnage for other ships. Who'd have thought 30 years ago Hermes would still be in active service when Invincible was at the breakers yard?
ChrisPat		#38	[-]
Posts: 5864 Mar 5 12 1:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think it also depends what war you expect to fight. Half a dozen Vindictive sized carriers would be little use to the USN fighting big battles with the IJN but for the RN hunting German raiders early in the war or escorting convoys after those raiders' demise they'd be handy indeed.
ChrisPat		#39	[-]
Posts: 5864 Mar 5 12 2:09 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bomberjim wrote: I would say that the answer to both your questions would be yes - they could have installed a catapult and also recovered the hurricane - but at what cost in time? The catapult was probably no big deal, but I'm not so sure about the arresting gear. How much heavier arresting gear is required to stop a Hurricane vs a Swordfish? I'm asking for better recovery than a CAM ship, so pilot alive and dry on his own ship, a/c wrecked is OK. As a bonus the engine should be saveable too. Barrier rather than wire? Handily saves having to fit a hook to the Hurricane or find a catapult fighter that can catch and kill a Condor in '39 or '40, which is when I'd want them. Ideally the proto MACs would have been built earlier as fleet oilers that can provide ASW cover to the groups they operate with.
sergeante		#40	[-]
Posts: 4252 Mar 5 12 3:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	HK wrote: ...anyway, the logical conclusion was that carriers wouldn't survive very long in a high threat environment, no matter how much armor you fitted them with. By that measure, a large number of smaller, less armored carriers would be much better than Lex & Sara. The same logic could have been applied to battleships. Sitting opposite each other in opposing battle lines blasting away at each other was almost pure attritional combat. But of course you can't apply that logic, because a smaller battleship is a less effective battleship. The same is true for a smaller carrier vis-a-vis a larger one, though the reasons are somewhat more nuanced.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

A soft spot for an "Odd Duck". CV-4