Have to agree, in the early part of the war the RN despite its problems was the most powerful navy, but after that, thanks to a colossal building programme by the USA, the USN was at the wars end the supreme naval power.
Hi Keith,
I’m not sure that it was an oversight.
I have the Battlefield documentary series and remember some comments made concerning the damage control systems of American carriers prior to the battle of Midway.
Battlefield: The Battle of Midway - Prelude to Battle (Time-Life)
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_v/102-3240256-7489714?url=search-alias%3Dvhs&field-keywords=Battlefield%3A&Go.x=10&Go.y=12
I believe this documentary series was produced in Britain.
I replayed the parts from the video The Battle of Midway - Prelude to Battle - US Pacific Fleet: Weapons and have transcribed the comments here.
…All three of the carriers that were to take part in the Battle of Midway were of the Yorktown class. They were the aircraft carriers Yorktown, Hornet and Enterprise. Yorktown carriers were notable for their advanced damage control systems to minimize the risk of fire. Aviation gas [avgas] fuel lines could be filled with carbon dioxide when an enemy attack was imminent. The carrier’s decks were also specially designed for combat conditions. The flight deck was unarmored and constructed with 6-inch planks of teak - more easily repaired than metal and less likely to cause severe splinter wounds to crewmen…
… Where the Americans had a real edge on the enemy was in damage control. Damage control parties were highly trained in their duties, and their ability to deal with fires (the greatest threat to any warship) was unsurpassed. At the battle of Midway the relative damage control skills of each side would prove a key factor in deciding the outcome of the fight.
Some related information:
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/archive/index.php/t-165.html
IDonT quote: 10-08-2005, 07:21 PM
The Forrestal and Enterprise fires on the Vietnam war was primarily the result of ordinance and jet fuel from aircraft that was already parked on the deck. They were being prepared to be lauched. IN no way were both vessels under threat of sinking.When a carrier is about to be under attack, USN standard procedure is
1.) Lauch all the aircraft
2.) Flood the JP5 fuel lines with CO2This is carrier ops 101, learned the hardway in World War II.
What you are proposing is an ambush on an unprepared carrier at sea. This is a highly unlikely scenario. During war time scenario, carriers always have an AEW bird in the air.
IF such a scenario were to happen, US damage control teams are very good. Check USS Franklin. US were able to save the ship.
bd popeye quote: 10-08-2005, 07:29 PM
The flight decks of WW 2 USN CV’s were not armoured. I served on the USS Hancock in '74-'75. The Hancock was comissioned in 1944. The flight deck was made of teak wood laid over about 1" thick steel plating. Not amour. The wood on the flight deck was covered by an epoxy coating called no-skid.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/256293/message/1152917251/I+have+a+couple+of+questions…
Reading a new book regarding the battle of Samar… (Hornfischer’s “The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors”)
I understand from reading, the need for the wood flight decks (I didn’t know before) due to the explosive fuel vapors around metal; did these decks wear quickly and how were they cleaned? I imagine the spilled fuel and oil, soaking into the wood could make as volatile of a situation as dangerous as dropping a metal tool on a metal flight deck.
I don’t understand a 'needle-ball" other than it was used for airplane orientation…
(For those of you who are wondering what interested me in this particular book, Dad’s T was in CTU 79.5.2.)
http://www.network54.com/Forum/256293/message/1152923401/The+decks+were+cleaned+by…
…what was called Holy Stone. Composed of sandstone. This information is complimentary of my good friends, Fred and Webster.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/256293/message/1152934944/master+and+commander+of+the+scrubbin+rock
teak decks been scrubbed holy stones since day one, theres an exelent shot of this very activity going on
in the movie [Master and Commander] , I cant imagine what kind of labor it would have taken to do a carrier deck. or battleship deck.
BBhttp://www.network54.com/Forum/256293/message/1152990907/Answer
The wood planking did get saturated with aircraft fluids. It did receive a stain finish when installed to darken it. later years it was covered with Non-Skid. Water would get underneith and corrode the steel plate and it would leak when it rained. yes we did have a leaky roof as the Flight Deck is refered to as the “Roof”.If you Google the USS Oriskany you will find the wood planking had to be removed and disposed of at great expense because of petroleum and PCB’s in the wood.
Sherry only those Battleship sailors Holy Stoned decks which was TEAK over steel.SeaBat, the Needle is the Turn Rate indicator and the Ball is the Artificial Horizion.
Holystone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holystone
Holystone is a soft and brittle sandstone that was formerly used for scouring and whitening the wooden decks of ships. It was used in the British and American Navy for scrubbing the decks of sailing ships.
The term may have come from the fact that ‘holystoning the deck’ was traditionally done on one’s knees, as in prayer. [1]
According to one source holystoning was banned in the US Navy in 1931 as it wore down the decks (and with the demise of teak decked battleships became unnecessary)[1]. However, a photo on the US Navy’s Navsource photo archive of the USS Missouri) purports to show Navy Midshipmen holystoning the deck of the USS Missouri in 1951 (albeit in a standing position)[2] A Time Magazine article (June 8, 1931) discusses the end of holystoning (archive article (fee) ) in the US Navy.
John Huston’s 1956 film Moby Dick (IMDb Entry), and most recently Peter Weir’s 2003 film “Master and Commander: Far Side of the World” (IMDb Entry), shows sailors scrubbing the deck with holystones. Holystoning is referenced in Richard Henry Dana’s 1840 classic novel Two Years Before the Mast in what he calls the “Philadelphia Catechism”: [3]
“Six days shalt thou labor and do all thou art able,
And on the seventh—holystone the decks and scrape the cable.”
From: The Pacific War Encyclopedia, James F. Dunnigan & Albert A. Nofi, Checkmark Books, 1998, p 20.
The Japanese had a policy of not storing aircraft on deck, a practice that the US Navy adopted before the war, and embraced enthusiastically during it. As a result, US carriers of comparable size usually could operate as many as 65% more aircraft (90-100 as against 55-65). British carriers tended to have smaller aircraft capacity (55-65), due to a decision to provide relatively heavy armor. In compensation, British carriers were much more survivable ships.
A second critical factor in carrier effectiveness, and more important than carrier size, was the ship’s capacity to carry avgas (aviation fuel) and fuel, which determined operational endurance. While this was, of course, partially connected to the size of the vessel, once again policy decisions and design were a factor. In consequence, US carriers tended to have greater fuel capacity than either Japanese or British ones, which meant American carriers could generate more missions between trips to the barn.
I plan to post more within the next few days - including an article on the British Pacific Fleet. …Well, it’s getting late.
01
From Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt. Col. Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, DSO, MC, MA, H.S. Stuttman Inc. Publishers, 1978, Volume 17, pp 2368-2380
(CONTINUED BELOW)
(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
02
From Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt. Col. Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, DSO, MC, MA, H.S. Stuttman Inc. Publishers, 1978, Volume 17, pp 2368-2380
(CONTINUED BELOW)
(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
03
From Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Lt. Col. Eddy Bauer and Brigadier Peter Young, DSO, MC, MA, H.S. Stuttman Inc. Publishers, 1978, Volume 17, pp 2368-2380
SEE ALSO:
British Pacific Fleet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/BPF/Britishpacificfleethomepage.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/LondonGazette/38308.pdf
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Navy-c24.html
http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/kamikaze/books/related/eadon/index.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/british-pacific-fleet
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/4017.pdf
http://www.dive-bombers.co.uk/Task%20Force%2057.htm
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/general/pacfleet.html
http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/SLINGER/SLING-12.HTM
the u s a did how ever i read some say that as well then the said germany did in the first part of ww2 but what i dont think he knows is that germany had no carries at the time thy started to bild one near the end of ww2 then they sank it so that the u.s.a or russia could not take it i found out about at strange military.com this site also have some weapons of ww2 and some wild pic i hope i could help and give this site on here and if not sorey
i must said the US Navy, because the air superiority that came from their carriers
Thats kinda harsh… no mention of the RCN in the poll (even in the ()'s in the ‘other’ option). This despite the RCN being the 3rd largest Allied Naval force in the world behind the US and UK.
Most ppl tend to lump Canada into the UK commonwealth forces. Which is right and wrong. Sorry to say the huge effort Canada put forth in WW2 tends to get overlooked by default.
In the beginning of the war-1939 I believe the RN was just shaded by the Japanese Imperial Navy. The USN would be third, though large in terms of numbers much of their equipment required modernization.
War losses gradually eroded the RN strength, so by the beginning of the Pacific War the Japanese Imperial Navy was the best and probably maintained that lead until the Battle Of Midway. Thereafter the USN was the superior navy in most categories.
Regards Digger.
The strength of the RN in 1939 was as follows
15 capital ships
7 aircraft carriers
15 heavy cruisers
46 light cruisers
181 destroyers
54 escort ships
Japanese navy 1941
10 capital ships
8 aircraft carriers
18 heavy cruisers
20 light cruisers
108 destroyers
The Japanese navy was far stronger than the RN in terms of the amount of aircraft its navy could deploy, it was however fatally weaker in both the amount of ASW vessels it could deploy, and its ASW tactics.
there some very good articles on the web (i’ll look!) about the tactical, service life, and strategic costs to the RN of this design decision.
here they are
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-042.htm
IIRc the articles do fairly set out the reasons behind the decision, I would also add that the RN’s best AA predictor system for high angle medium and heavy gun AA fire - in the late 1930’s - was, at the very least flawed, and perhaps the carrier designers knew of this waekness aginst high level bombers and dive bombers.
IIRC the whole ship could easily be seriousy damaged by a single hit, even by close nera misses, warping the entire hull. this has as the articles show, quite serious ‘all of ship’ effects.
Summing up the USN was the first navy to get - anti aircraft and carrier issues understood, as a ‘whole’.
their directors were already good by 1939 and only got better. their Hudon gun if maintained well was a good weapon for its period. and they had ONE medium calibre/DP gun, the 5/38! yes, I know about the 5/25" but it fired the same shells, at least!
I forget how many MC/DP guns the RN had but there were 4 calibres, 4", 4.5", 4.7", and 5.25", and several different guns within the 4 and 4.7’s at least and differnt ammo for EACH. And, half of them were not DP’s either no AA ability!
For thos reason alone I think USN should come first, closely followed by the RN for its overall effort considering itsparlous stae by 39, and its ASW development, which the USN basically picked up on.
I think the IJN comes a plain third due to its excellent performance early on, against which are the failure to use convoy, and not using its subs effectively.
there some very good articles on the web (i’ll look!) about the tactical, service life, and strategic costs to the RN of this design decision.
here they are
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-042.htm
IIRc the articles do fairly set out the reasons behind the decision, I would also add that the RN’s best AA predictor system for high angle medium and heavy gun AA fire - in the late 1930’s - was, at the very least flawed, and perhaps the carrier designers knew of this waekness aginst high level bombers and dive bombers.
IIRC the whole ship could easily be seriousy damaged by a single hit, even by close nera misses, warping the entire hull. this has as the articles show, quite serious ‘all of ship’ effects.
Summing up the USN was the first navy to get - anti aircraft and carrier issues understood, as a ‘whole’.
their directors were already good by 1939 and only got better. their Hudon gun if maintained well was a good weapon for its period. and they had ONE medium calibre/DP gun, the 5/38! yes, I know about the 5/25" but it fired the same shells, at least!
I forget how many MC/DP guns the RN had but there were 4 calibres, 4", 4.5", 4.7", and 5.25", and several different guns within the 4 and 4.7’s at least and differnt ammo for EACH. And, half of them were not DP’s either no AA ability!
For thos reason alone I think USN should come first, closely followed by the RN for its overall effort considering itsparlous stae by 39, and its ASW development, which the USN basically picked up on.
I think the IJN comes a plain third due to its excellent performance early on, against which are the failure to use convoy, and not using its subs effectively.
Thanks for the info and links Timbo.
Very informative. I found the articles from your links to be extremely interesting:
Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?
by Stuart Slade and Richard Worth
Updated 14 June 2002
Armor Protection on American and British Carriers
©2000 Stuart Slade
The Armored Box: The War’s Verdict
©2002 Richard Worth
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
Kamikaze Damage to US and British Carriers
by Tony DiGiulian
Updated 21 November 2006
US Carriers
British Carriers
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-042.htm
The nation with the winning navy.
I guess it doesn’t get any simpler than that.
This thread reminds me of an oddity that I read somewhere.
Who had the largest navy in WWII?
The US Army, by raw number of ships. Obviously not by offensive naval capacity, but apparently by war’s end the army had a huge number of transports etc, primarily in the Pacific.
Japan used her navy for the wrongly. Her carriers did not use tactics that were as great as the US navy and she also used her subs wrongly. After Pearl Harbor the US navy used tactics that would prove not the best planes or ships will win a battle, but the way you use them.
Well, US navy was the biggest, but I don’t think that producing a lot of stuff makes navy “good”. There is lot of ice in the north pole, but that doesn’t make it “best” at anything. There are many cases when US navy bombed inaccurately ie.
I have to vote for UK for several reasons: individuals were good (lot of naval-tradition) from sailors to leaders, and both tactics and strategy were pretty solid (they had to make pretty difficult decisions since they had many theaters to consider), keeping their spirits up against bigger and stronger enemy.
_
i think they had the best battleships and also they had better aircraft carriers against the japs or the german . because this two axis forces had good navy forces