Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

BPF Aug 15, 1945

Discussion in 'The War at Sea' started by churchill17sp, Aug 15, 2006.

  1. churchill17sp

    churchill17sp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    portland, oregon
    via TanksinWW2
    Anniversary of last Royal Navy fighter victories against Japanese on VJ-day:
    Armored CV ("CVA"? - my term) HMS Indefatigable strike of Avengers and Seafires against Tokyo area; 9 Zeroes shot down over Odaki Bay for loss of 1 Seafire and 1 Avenger.

    Meanwhile, on Aug 14th the "Light Fleet" carriers HMS Colossus, Vengeance, Venerable, plus armored CV Indomitable were enroute to undertake airstrikes off north-east coast of China - that's how close the newest British carriers came to combat operations!
     
  2. Mic von Krate

    Mic von Krate New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    157
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Brunswick, Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    kool, thanks for the information
     
  3. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    i was unawere that the british were so active in the pacific. i only thought that they sended their fleet to india and let it stay there to tie up some of the japanese warships over there
     
  4. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    The British had only the most meager logistical system available in the Far East.
    As the end of the European war neared its end, there was a push to increase RN activity against Japan as a way to reclaim some of the prestige lost in 1941-42, but any significant force would be dependent to a large extent on American support. US Adm King knew that, in diverting support to a British fleet that was not maximized for Pacific operations, who would be weakening his own fleet to a degree that exceeded the strength of this British reinforcement--that is, the addition of British units made the Allies weaker. Ultimately there was no question of excluding the BPF; the Americans did not want to be alone when it came to invading Japan.
     
  5. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    Now that has a very familiar sound :grin:

    "Coalition of the Willing" is not a 21st century idea, obviously
     
  6. McRis

    McRis New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    a_centauri
    via TanksinWW2
    Except Okinawa, and the occasions mentioned before, did the RN fight in cooperation with the USN in the Pacific?
     
  7. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    There were the misadventures of the ABDA force early in the war. Victorious had a quick turn in the Pacific in company with Saratoga.
    Individual Commonwealth units worked with the Americans pretty much throughout the war.
     
  8. churchill17sp

    churchill17sp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    portland, oregon
    via TanksinWW2
    McRis wrote: "Except Okinawa, and the occasions mentioned before, did the RN fight in cooperation with the USN in the Pacific?"
    ---------------
    Well...in the INDIAN ocean area anyway, U.S.S. Saratoga operated with armored CV Illustrious, along with BB Queen Elizabeth, French BB Richelieu, possibly also BC Renown. I'm not exactly sure anymore if all of these operated on the same missions, but most did.
    I'm hoping someone remembers just what the operations were exactly.
     
  9. churchill17sp

    churchill17sp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    portland, oregon
    via TanksinWW2
    McRis wrote: "Except Okinawa, and the occasions mentioned before, did the RN fight in cooperation with the USN in the Pacific?"
    ----------------
    I had previously mentioned USS Saratoga and the EIF (East Indies Fleet);
    The BPF's (British Pacific Fleet) operations fell into 3 phases:
    1. Separate from the USN: The carrier attacks on the strategic oil targets in Sumatra, Jan '45. Very successful at reducing oil output that would have been available for the Japanese Navy.
    2. In support of the U.S. Marine landings at Okinawa March-May '45: USS Franklin, Wasp and Intrepid had been damaged, reducing the number of carriers available to cover the Okinawa landings; furthermore, Kamikazes were common now and the British CV's involved had 3" thick steel flight decks. Air strikes against nearby airfields were staged, coordinated to alternate with strikes from a USN Escort Carrier group. The BPF's CV's flew 5,335 sorties during these operations.
    3. Integrated within the USN 3rd fleet TF38, for the carrier and bombardment operations against the Japanese mainland, July-Aug '45: Carrier strikes against military installations, shipping, aircraft, railways, even a carrier. Battleship KGV bombarded Hitachi factory. Even the short-range Seafires were able to roam over Japanese mainland.
     
  10. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    "furthermore, Kamikazes were common now and the British CV's involved had 3" thick steel flight decks."
    The British carriers were more vulnerable to kamikazes than American carriers--not to mention the poor ships that had to escort the British carriers.
     
  11. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    I think RN carriers served with, but didn't see any action with, the US Pacific fleet following the Guadalcanal campaign. The USN was short of carriers while waiting for the new carriers to work up. One of the advantages the USN gleaned from the experience was much improved fighter control techniques.
     
  12. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, the American system tended to be micro-managed while the British gave their pilots a somewhat longer leash.
     
  13. McRis

    McRis New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    a_centauri
    via TanksinWW2
    That's very helpful information indeed :) .Except Okinawa my knowledge of RN opperations in the Pacific was a somehow lacking.
     
  14. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    HMS Colossus must have been a big carrier.
     
  15. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    Why?

    Colossus Class Light Aircraft Carrier:
    Displacement 13,400 tons
    Length: 695 ft
    Beam: 80 ft
    Speed: 25 kts
    48 aircraft

    Basically a smaller ship than the Illustrious class, built to commercial rather than military standards to speed construction time.

    Tom
     
  16. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    OH MAN!!! Why did the designers of the Colossus class misuse the word colossus so badly? Colossus means something big, and yet here it's used to describe a light carrier? If I was the chief desgner of the Colossus class, I'd make it the biggest carrier class in the British navy.
     
  17. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    Blaster,
    In the Royal Navy many ship names get reused, so one name goes from ship to ship.

    CVL HMS Colossus was the fifth ship of that name:
    1787: 74 Gun 3rd Rate (Lost during a storm in 1798)
    1803: 74 Gun 3rd Rate (Fought at Trafalgar)
    1882: Second Class Battleship (Scrapped 1908)
    1910: Dreadnought Battleship (fought at Jutland, Scrapped 1928)
    1943: Carrier (Sold to France, Scrapped 1978)

    The important thing is the history of the name and the battle honours she carries.

    btw, there are a large number of foreign names that pop up in the Royal Navy from ships that were captured. The first HMS Temeraire was captured in 1759 and there have been 3 (and a bit) more ships of that name in the RN.

    Tom
     
  18. McRis

    McRis New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    a_centauri
    via TanksinWW2
    The same think happened with HMS Ocean;

    1) Ship of the Line-1761
    2) Ship of the Line-1805
    3) Initialy designed to be wooden but finally it was built as an ironclad-1863
    4) Battleship-1898
    5) Carrier-1945
    6) Landing Platform,Helicopter-1995
     
  19. churchill17sp

    churchill17sp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    portland, oregon
    via TanksinWW2
    "The British carriers were more vulnerable to kamikazes than American carriers"

    ???????????
     
  20. churchill17sp

    churchill17sp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    portland, oregon
    via TanksinWW2
    Hancock was "seriously hurt by a suicide plane on 7 April, while supporting the Okinawa operation, suffering the loss of 62 crewmen killed and requiring shipyard repairs in the United States"

    HMS Formidable was back in action within an hour after Kamikaze hit
     

Share This Page