Axis

Members: 3,721
Threads: 14,493
Posts: 180,720
Online: 319

Newest Member:
born_soldier25611

 
 
 
Go Back   World War II Forums > Theaters of the Second World War > War in the Pacific
Register FAQ Gallery Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


War in the Pacific The Sino-Japanese War, the attack at Pearl Harbor to the atomic bombing of Nagasaki

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old April 26th, 2008, 07:47 AM
JCFalkenbergIII's Avatar
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland,Oregon
Posts: 2,322
JCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the rough
Default Fleet Air Arm in the Pacific

"Four aircraft-carriers plus a supporting fleet of battleships, cruisers, destroyers and a Fleet Train moved into the Indian Ocean during 1944, carrying out air strikes against Japanese installations in Malaysia en route to Australia where they would be based. In 1945 they joined the US Navy in operations against Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The British carriers were tasked with interrupting the flow of Japanese aircraft replacements through minor islands, freeing the larger US carriers to support the landings and resist kamikaze attacks.

British carriers could accommodate fewer aircraft than their US counterparts because of their heavily-armored decks, which weighed far more than the wooden decks of US carriers and took up much more internal space. On the other hand, during kamikaze attacks the British armored decks withstood the impact of enemy aircraft and bombs far better than their US counterparts. In one famous incident a kamikaze crashed abreast the island on a British carrier, making a large dent in the armored deck. It was promptly filled with quick-drying cement, and within ninety minutes the carrier was in full operation once more. US Navy officers observing the incident were amazed, saying that any US carrier suffering such an impact would be out of operation for months and require major shipyard repairs.

The FAA and Royal Navy Carriers also operated with the US Navy carrier task forces against mainland Japan. The Seafires still had the same limited range of their Spitfire forebears and couldn't carry as much ordnance as the larger, more powerful US aircraft, so they were usually assigned to Combat Air Patrol over the carriers to protect the ships. They performed very well in this role."

Bayou Renaissance Man: Weekend Wings #13: The Spitfire - The Legend Lives On
__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old April 26th, 2008, 08:00 AM
JCFalkenbergIII's Avatar
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland,Oregon
Posts: 2,322
JCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: Fleet Air Arm in the Pacific

You don't really hear anything about the Seafire being used in the Pacific. Usually the Hellcat or Corsair.

"The last Seafire squadrons to see action were Nos 801 and 880. Carrying American auxiliary fuel tanks which improved their range by 50%, their Mk IIIs shot down eight Zeros without loss while escorting Avengers on 15 August. On VJ-Day, there were 12 FAA Seafires squadrons, all but four flying the Seafire MkIII. The Griffon-engined Seafires were too late to see war service but then quickly replaced the Mk IIIs, the first of these being the Mk XV."

The Spitfire - An Operational History - 8. Victory
__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

Last edited by JCFalkenbergIII; April 28th, 2008 at 06:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old April 28th, 2008, 06:42 PM
JCFalkenbergIII's Avatar
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland,Oregon
Posts: 2,322
JCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: Fleet Air Arm in the Pacific

"On 15th August, 1945, 3 Seafire IIIs of 887 Squadron, flying from HMS Indefatigable, were providing top cover for Avengers and Fireflies flying at 1000ft, and set on making attacks in the Tokyo area.
Four Seafires from 894 Squadron, flying 1000ft above the attack aircraft, provided close escort, and the three Seafires from 887 Squadron gave top cover 3000ft above the close support Seafires.
A dozen A6M5c Zeroes from the 302nd Kokutai, based at Atsugi, attacked, and, in the ensuing battle, which took place over Tokyo Bay, the leader of the top cover trio, Sub Lt Victor Lowden, hit five, destroying two, and was credited with a third, shared with Sub Lt W J Williams.

The third Seafire F III pilot, Sub Lt Gerry Murphy, shot down two Zeroes in turning combat, which, to quote David Brown's fine book, 'The Seafire', "should have favoured the enemy", but "ended with them both being shot down by some fine deflection shooting."
Jiro Horikoshi's immortal Zero was noted for its manoeuvrability, but, in this encounter at least, was out-turned by Gerry Murphy's Seafire III, the carrier-borne version of Reginal J Mitchell's Spitfire.
Although take-off, and, especially, landing on a heaving deck, was tricky, to say the least, once in its element, the Seafire was a formidable interceptor.
Indeed, I have in front of me a photocopy from an aircraft publication (I'm afraid it has no identification apparent), with the page heading "Far and away the best interceptor", in which an Admiral wrote a scathing report comparing a proposed new model Seafire with contemporaryAmerican naval fighters. The article then says "The DAW&FT (sorry, I don't know what this stands for..RJK) swiftly replied saying "Neither the Corsair nor Hellcat can look at the Spitfire MkIX or XII. It has been decided to produce a naval version of the XII and when we get this, or a modified MkIX, we shall have far and away the best interceptor in the world, greatly in advance of anything the Americans have now, or, as far as we can see, even projected.""
The skill required by Seafire pilots will well be appreciated by anyone who has watched films showing various Grumman fighters, with their long stroke undercarriages, making the familiar 'controlled crash' onto their carriers.
Not only did the Seafire pilot have to contend with the relatively fragile narrow-track short-stroke undercarriage of the Seafire, but they were denied the relatively good view from the Grumman fighters' cockpits, having to make do with a forward view consisting entirely of the cowling of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine!
When this painting project commenced, I spoke to Victor Lowden, who passed me on to Gerry Murphy, who, to quote Victor Lowden, "lives a bit closer to you than I do!" (Surrey vs Dundee), and it was hoped that both Victor Lowden and Gerry Murphy would be able to countersign the prints.
Sadly Victor Lowden died before the painting was finished, but I remember with fondness the conversation I had with him, and especially remember his enthusiasm for the project. He sounded as bright as a button, and I was shocked to learn that he had died, when I 'phoned only a few months later to check on some details of the encounter.
Gerry Murphy, with patience and good humour, painstakingly went through his memories of the battle, and I have tried, with the help of colleagues at Duxford, Jerry Shore at Yeovilton, the restoration team at Earl's Colne (at that time restoring a Seafire III), and all manner of contacts, including input from a Japanese Naval pilot, to make this painting as accurate as possible.
Especial thanks are due to Mark Huggins, who suggested likely markings for the Zero in the picture, and subsequently wrote an article for Aeroplane Monthly (published in the June 2001 issue).
Most thanks are, of course, due to Gerry Murphy, who is a remarkably lively, likeable and modest man.
When I remarked that, downing Zeroes in turning combat was pretty impressive, his modest response was that the Japanese pilots were "probably young and inexperienced". Only later, with Mark Huggins' help, did we learn that he was up against the 302nd Kokutai, one of Japan's crack naval squadrons, charged with the defence of Tokyo! Although trials of earlier marks of Seafire against earlier marks of Zero had confirmed the Zero's manoeuvrability advantage, later marks of Zero had put on a bit of weight, to help counter the threat from US Navy aircraft, and the Seafire had added rather more power in the meantime, so the balance of manoeuvrability had perhaps swung the other way.
We may never know for sure, but it is nice to know that the Royal Navy was in the thick of the battle right up to the end."

Final Combat, Picture and words
__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old April 29th, 2008, 05:07 AM
TA152's Avatar
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 2,797
TA152 is a jewel in the roughTA152 is a jewel in the roughTA152 is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: Fleet Air Arm in the Pacific

At least they had sense enough to use the Seafire and not send out Fairey Fireflys with Fairey Barracuda's. That company never made decent aircraft !

So many crews died in the Fairey Battle for nothing.
__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old April 29th, 2008, 05:55 AM
JCFalkenbergIII's Avatar
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland,Oregon
Posts: 2,322
JCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: Fleet Air Arm in the Pacific

Not sure what ya mean. Fireflies were used for Flak supression and as a supplementary fighter in 1945. They seemed to be able to do what they needed to do.

"In July 1945 1772 Naval Air Squadron[Fireflies] boarded HMS Indefatigable and joined the British Task Force 37 which then joined the US Task Force 38 in the northern Pacific for the final assault on the Japanese Mainland."

"From January 1-7, 1945, 1770 Squadron's Fireflies flew rocket strikes against the Pangkalan Brandon refinery on Sumatra, during which Lieutenant D. Levitt shot down a Ki.43 Hayabusa while Sub Lieutenants Redding and Stot shared another in air combat on January 4. 1770 scored two more Ki.43s on January 24, during strikes on the Palembang refineries at Pladjoe and Songei Gerong that required the aircraft to attack through balloon barrages and heavy AAA fire. On January 29, the Fireflies added three more Ki-43s to their score before departing Southeast Asia for service with Task Force 57, the British Pacific Fleet, during the coming invasion of Okinawa.
Five days before D-Day, TF 57 launched strikes on Miyako-jima, southwest of Okinawa, following up during the next 25 days with 13 days of strikes against Japanese forces on Okinawa and Taiwan, with the Fireflies participating in all these actions.
When the BPF retired to Sydney for replenishment in late May, they were joined by HMS "Implacable" and the Fireflies of 1771 Squadron. After strikes against Truk, 1771's Fireflies gained the distinction of being the first British aircraft to fly over Japan on July 10, 1945; on July 24, Fireflies from 1771 and 1772 Squadrons - the latter having relieved 1770 aboard "Indefatigable" - became the first British aircraft over Tokyo. By VJ-Day, another Firefly squadron - 1790 - was operating with the BPF in the night fighter role. A year of successful combat had only begun to show what the airplane was capable of."

Grand Phoenix 1/48 Fireflly I
__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old April 30th, 2008, 07:36 AM
TA152's Avatar
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 2,797
TA152 is a jewel in the roughTA152 is a jewel in the roughTA152 is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: Fleet Air Arm in the Pacific

If you are going into hostile areas would you take a Seafire or a Corsair or would you rather take a large Firefly ? I would go with the single seaters. The Firefly successes were more likely due to the Japanese pilots not being experinced in air to air combat.

I think a veteren Japanese pilot would have a great scoring day shooting down Fireflys.
__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old April 30th, 2008, 01:56 PM
JCFalkenbergIII's Avatar
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland,Oregon
Posts: 2,322
JCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the roughJCFalkenbergIII is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: Fleet Air Arm in the Pacific

Depends on the mission. It seems that the FAA thought the Firefly was "decent" enough for Flak suppresion and ground attack and if need be a fighter. If I had my choice I would have chosen the Corsair to do all three.
__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old May 7th, 2008, 02:40 AM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 25
mavfin is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Fleet Air Arm in the Pacific

From things that I have read, the main reason the British kept their own fleet formations, instead of joining TF58/38 was that their tanking method was different than the USN method, and the fleet commands decided keeping the two navies in their own formations would be simpler.

Any comments on this?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old May 7th, 2008, 03:16 AM
Slipdigit's Avatar
Good Ol' Boy
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Deep in the Heart of Dixie
Posts: 3,442
Slipdigit is just really niceSlipdigit is just really niceSlipdigit is just really niceSlipdigit is just really niceSlipdigit is just really niceSlipdigit is just really nice
Default Re: Fleet Air Arm in the Pacific

Quote:
Originally Posted by mavfin View Post
From things that I have read, the main reason the British kept their own fleet formations, instead of joining TF58/38 was that their tanking method was different than the USN method, and the fleet commands decided keeping the two navies in their own formations would be simpler.

Any comments on this?
Agreed.
__________________
Best Regards,
Not Slipdigit

Flag of the State of Alabama
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old May 7th, 2008, 03:22 AM
TA152's Avatar
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 2,797
TA152 is a jewel in the roughTA152 is a jewel in the roughTA152 is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: Fleet Air Arm in the Pacific

It also helped to keep the big egos apart.
__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old May 7th, 2008, 04:52 AM
Devilsadvocate's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: St. Helens, OR
Posts: 60
Devilsadvocate is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Fleet Air Arm in the Pacific

Quote:
British carriers could accommodate fewer aircraft than their US counterparts because of their heavily-armored decks, which weighed far more than the wooden decks of US carriers and took up much more internal space. On the other hand, during kamikaze attacks the British armored decks withstood the impact of enemy aircraft and bombs far better than their US counterparts. In one famous incident a kamikaze crashed abreast the island on a British carrier, making a large dent in the armored deck. It was promptly filled with quick-drying cement, and within ninety minutes the carrier was in full operation once more. US Navy officers observing the incident were amazed, saying that any US carrier suffering such an impact would be out of operation for months and require major shipyard repairs.

There is an article at this link

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm

which concludes that the British armored deck carriers were actually failures in the sense that the design feature of having the flight deck as the strength deck led to irreparable hull damage which essentially ended the carrier's career.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Soviet Baltic Fleet Kai-Petri Information Requests 9 January 29th, 2008 10:19 PM
No Pacific Fleet tikilal What If? 27 September 28th, 2007 04:11 AM
Royal Navy and the Spanish Fleet Kai-Petri Military History 3 April 5th, 2004 02:55 PM
Vichy Fleet prepared Ross Hackett What If? 3 November 27th, 2003 10:56 PM
The Forgotten Fleet Mahross War in the Pacific 1 May 9th, 2003 11:12 AM


Google
 

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5
Copyright © 2000 - 2007, the World War II Network, all rights reserved.Ad Management by RedTyger

Allies