Naval History Forums

If GB builds more carriers in the early 30,s to mid 30,s does the war go better in the med and other fronts due to better carriers and less Battleships.

Probably, but I can't imagine the RN nailing down the northern theators with out the KGVs.

tameraire01 wrote:If GB builds more carriers in the early 30,s to mid 30,s does the war go better in the med and other fronts due to better carriers and less Battleships.

... By the time the other Major carrier-equipped powers entered the war (Japan, USA - Dec 1941), Britain had a good amount of carriers operational, despite losing 3 earlier in the war.
The problem was not the number of carriers, but the number of aircraft carried and their performance.
In Apr 1942, HMS Indomitable carried ~ 40 warplanes, compared to ~ 65 warplanes on Akagi and ~ 75 warplanes on Enterprise.

It was both a matter of smaller carrying capacity (Indomitable could carry up to 56 warplanes in 1942 vs 88 Akagi and 85 Enterprise) as well as insufficient FAA squadrons to fully equip all carriers.

List of existing fleet carriers and usual number aircraft, Apr 1942:

British:
- Furious (~45), Eagle (~ 20), Hermes (~ 20), Illustrious (~ 50), Formidable (~ 50), Indomitable ( ~ 50), Victorious (~ 50). [previously lost - Glorious, Courageous, Ark Royal each wih 50 planes]
TOTAL: 7 fleet carriers and 2 light carriers; 3 fleet carriers previously lost. usualy ~ 280 warplanes emarbked; maximum capacity with full complement ~ 380 warplanes

American:
- Yorktown (~ 65), Enterprise (~ 75), Hornet (~ 75), Saratoga (~ 70), Lexington (~ 70), Ranger (~ 70), Wasp (~ 70)
TOTAL: 7 fleet carriers ~ usualy with 500 warplanes embarked; maximum capacity with full complement ~ 600 warplanes.

Japanese:
- Akagi (~ 65), Kaga (~ 65), Soryu (~ 55), Hyryu (~ 55), ZUikaku (~ 60), Shokaku (~ 60), Ryujo (~ 40), Shoho (~ 25), Zuiho (~ 20), Hosho (~ 15),
TOTAL: 6 Fleet carriers, 3 light carriers, 2 escort carriers, usualy with 450 warplanes embarked. Maximum capacity with full complement ~ 600 warplanes.

===

As can be seen, if including the 3 fleet carriers previously lost by the British , the carrier forces were roughly equal, but the types of aircraft carried were drastically different, with the BRitish Fulmar/Swordfish/Skua combo being easily the worst combination.

The FAA also had the Albacore, and the Sea Hurricane.

The Fulmar wasn't much worse than the F4F-4 or Martlet, at low altitudes while the Sea Hurricane was somewhat better than the F4F-4 in turning, rolling, climb and low altitude speed. By June of 1942 the Fulmar was also cleared to carry a 250 or 500lb bomb, in lieu of it's drop tank, and it could drop the bomb in 60 deg dives.

dunmunro wrote:The FAA also had the Albacore, and the Sea Hurricane.

The Fulmar wasn't much worse than the F4F-4 or Martlet, at low altitudes while the Sea Hurricane was somewhat better than the F4F-4 in turning, rolling, climb and low altitude speed. By June of 1942 the Fulmar was also cleared to carry a 250 or 500lb bomb, in lieu of it's drop tank, and it could drop the bomb in 60 deg dives.

The difference was small between Sea Hurricane/Wildcat variants. They were both outmatched by the Zero.
In terms of strike aircraft, the Dauntless was superior to the Val/Skua, while the Kate was superior to the Devastator/Albacore [with the obvious caveat that the Albacore had radar, which allowed them to do night ops, a thing which the others couldn't do ].

So there was no edge for the BRitish aircraft, except in night ops.

dunmunro wrote:The FAA also had the Albacore, and the Sea Hurricane.

The Fulmar wasn't much worse than the F4F-4 or Martlet, at low altitudes while the Sea Hurricane was somewhat better than the F4F-4 in turning, rolling, climb and low altitude speed. By June of 1942 the Fulmar was also cleared to carry a 250 or 500lb bomb, in lieu of it's drop tank, and it could drop the bomb in 60 deg dives.

With respect, dunmunro, it's difficult to believe that the Fulmar "wasn't much worse than the F4F-4 or Martlet". The Wildcat was, as you know, not perfect, but was still 40 to 50 mph faster than the Fulmar, which was not fast enough to catch fast bombers. The Fulmar had qualities of his own, but was definitively not a good air defense fighter.

Francis Marliere wrote:

dunmunro wrote:The FAA also had the Albacore, and the Sea Hurricane.

The Fulmar wasn't much worse than the F4F-4 or Martlet, at low altitudes, while the Sea Hurricane was somewhat better than the F4F-4 in turning, rolling, climb and low altitude speed. By June of 1942 the Fulmar was also cleared to carry a 250 or 500lb bomb, in lieu of it's drop tank, and it could drop the bomb in 60 deg dives.

With respect, dunmunro, it's difficult to believe that the Fulmar "wasn't much worse than the F4F-4 or Martlet". The Wildcat was, as you know, not perfect, but was still 40 to 50 mph faster than the Fulmar, which was not fast enough to catch fast bombers. The Fulmar had qualities of his own, but was definitively not a good air defense fighter.

RAE testing showed that:
Fulmar II Vmax = 268mph at 6600ft and 264 at 9600ft (12lb boost at 6600ft, with 16lb boost after Jan 1942 speed would increase to about 272mph at ~4000ft)
Martlet II Vmax = 293mph at 5400ft and 13800ft
Martlet IV Vmax = 278mph at 3500ft and 298mph at 14600ft ( 275mph at 6600ft)

Sea Hurricane 1B Vmax = 315mph at 7500ft and 308mph at 18000ft.

The F4F-4 with the two stage engine had a Vmax of ~318mph at 20,000ft but under 10,000ft it's performance was roughly similar to the Martlet II/IV.

Would building the implacables sooner and more of them be enough to change the size of the FAA

tameraire01 wrote:Would building the implacables sooner and more of them be enough to change the size of the FAA

If the RN had built Indomitables or Implacables instead of the Illustrious class, it would have helped considerably. Implacable and indefatigable could have been in service in 1942-43 if their construction had not been suspended for almost year during the crisis after the Fall of France. OTOH, there would have had to have been an increase in FAA aircraft production, and aircrew training to have filled up the hangars of the new carriers.

Was there anything the USN did better than the British? Or was the RN just simply equal or better than the USN at all things of any significance in WWII?

Steve Crandell wrote:Was there anything the USN did better than the British? Or was the RN just simply equal or better than the USN at all things of any significance in WWII?