What if: HMS Victorious as a United States Navy carrier (1942)

[oscssw]

Feb 19, 2020 22:51:32 GMT 1bigrich said:

As stated, 'Robin' was of course a call-sign. Here are some other USN call-signs from Task Force 58 later in the war



Regards,

Been a long time since I've seen a classic Formation 51 laid out on a maneuvering board. 

No, "you mean men" I was not in WW II but we still used this classical circular formation into the late stages of the Cold War.

Major difference was the inclusion of Skeleton ASW screen and sprint and drift tactics by both the sub and escorts. 

[oscssw]

Feb 20, 2020 18:07:18 GMT 1bigrich said:

Feb 20, 2020 17:39:13 GMT lordroel said:

But a carrier is a carrier, British ore american, if Victorious do its part against stopping the Japanse, i think nobody will care much if she is bigger ore smaller than a US Fleet carrier.

But Victorious is a smaller design, and she has less ordnance and aviation fuel than a larger carrier.   While she has a smaller air group, a little more than half of a US fleet carrier, she will still be exhausting stores at a faster rate than a larger carrier with about a quarter of the aviation fuel storage of a US fleet carrier.   Like the light carriers, that means at a heavy operational tempo, she is going to have to be replenished more often.   That means more replenishment ships, and the replenishment ships will have to store more often as well.  
Regards,

Ah yes UNREPS.  I would assume Victorious would have been brought up to USN standard for receipt of underway fueling, stores and ammunition.  RN deck apes would probably require little unrep training but they might have to learn a different but similar rig.   Her OODs would need practice going alongside USN auxiliaries also but most likely a lot less than new construction US carriers.

The Pork Chops (supply officers) and senior supply ratings would have a lot of learning to do.

They would have to operate in both the USN and RN supply systems which begs the question of spares for the ship, not the Air Group.   I would think special arrangements would have to be made to ensure RN specific items would be stocked in the supply ships. 

Any material difference in RN bunker fuel?

Any material difference in the level of on board maintenance for aircraft? 

[stevep]

Nov 19, 2020 22:03:07 GMT oscssw said:

Feb 20, 2020 18:07:18 GMT 1bigrich said:

But Victorious is a smaller design, and she has less ordnance and aviation fuel than a larger carrier.   While she has a smaller air group, a little more than half of a US fleet carrier, she will still be exhausting stores at a faster rate than a larger carrier with about a quarter of the aviation fuel storage of a US fleet carrier.   Like the light carriers, that means at a heavy operational tempo, she is going to have to be replenished more often.   That means more replenishment ships, and the replenishment ships will have to store more often as well.  
Regards,

Ah yes UNREPS.  I would assume Victorious would have been brought up to USN standard for receipt of underway fueling, stores and ammunition.  RN deck apes would probably require little unrep training but they might have to learn a different but similar rig.   Her OODs would need practice going alongside USN auxiliaries also but most likely a lot less than new construction US carriers.

The Pork Chops (supply officers) and senior supply ratings would have a lot of learning to do.

They would have to operate in both the USN and RN supply systems which begs the question of spares for the ship, not the Air Group.   I would think special arrangements would have to be made to ensure RN specific items would be stocked in the supply ships. 

Any material difference in RN bunker fuel?

Any material difference in the level of on board maintenance for aircraft? 

  On that last bit I have a vague memory on one of the naval boards of it being said that, possibly in part because they had less a/c on board the RN CVs were set up to do more repairs on-board whereas the USN with more a/c simply tended to ditch damaged a/c that couldn't be quickly repaired.  Possibly also a fact in that US production was so much larger so it was easy to replace a/c and spares.

  In terms of supplies and munitions as I understand it the RN carrier less on their CVs, at least in absolute terms.  It might have been more equal in terms of resources per a/c given the RN carried less of the latter.  However I think the RN CVs had less fuel capacity.  Partly due to being set up for a variety of theatres whereas the US was primarily orientated for a long war across the Pacific.  Plus of course with the empire Britain had far more naval bases across the world.

  Steve

[1bigrich]

Nov 20, 2020 11:07:46 GMT stevep said:

  On that last bit I have a vague memory on one of the naval boards of it being said that, possibly in part because they had less a/c on board the RN CVs were set up to do more repairs on-board whereas the USN with more a/c simply tended to ditch damaged a/c that couldn't be quickly repaired.  Possibly also a fact in that US production was so much larger so it was easy to replace a/c and spares.

Steve,

I could see that being US practice from mid-1943 on, when the flood of CVEs is backing up the fleet carriers with spare aircraft and pilots. But earlier in the war US carriers tended to do their own heavy repairs and maintenance.

As I recall, RN carriers tended not to do heavy repairs, and that was the reason for the construction of Unicorn, Perseus and Pioneer. That makes sense to me as with the limited air-group, why bog the RN carriers down with a plane being repaired or in deep maintenance? The maintenance carriers free them from having to send the planes to a depot, and one repaired can rejoin active carriers as needed.

  In terms of supplies and munitions as I understand it the RN carrier less on their CVs, at least in absolute terms.  It might have been more equal in terms of resources per a/c given the RN carried less of the latter.  However I think the RN CVs had less fuel capacity.  Partly due to being set up for a variety of theatres whereas the US was primarily orientated for a long war across the Pacific.  Plus of course with the empire Britain had far more naval bases across the world.

  Steve

Agreed, context is important.

I've often said the USN was looking at the baseless expanse of the Pacific, while the RN had a worldwide network of bases. Just one set of competing factors in different design choices.

Regards.

[stevep]

Nov 21, 2020 14:16:16 GMT 1bigrich said:

Nov 20, 2020 11:07:46 GMT stevep said:

  On that last bit I have a vague memory on one of the naval boards of it being said that, possibly in part because they had less a/c on board the RN CVs were set up to do more repairs on-board whereas the USN with more a/c simply tended to ditch damaged a/c that couldn't be quickly repaired.  Possibly also a fact in that US production was so much larger so it was easy to replace a/c and spares.

Steve,

I could see that being US practice from mid-1943 on, when the flood of CVEs is backing up the fleet carriers with spare aircraft and pilots. But earlier in the war US carriers tended to do their own heavy repairs and maintenance.

As I recall, RN carriers tended not to do heavy repairs, and that was the reason for the construction of Unicorn, Perseus and Pioneer. That makes sense to me as with the limited air-group, why bog the RN carriers down with a plane being repaired or in deep maintenance? The maintenance carriers free them from having to send the planes to a depot, and one repaired can rejoin active carriers as needed.

  In terms of supplies and munitions as I understand it the RN carrier less on their CVs, at least in absolute terms.  It might have been more equal in terms of resources per a/c given the RN carried less of the latter.  However I think the RN CVs had less fuel capacity.  Partly due to being set up for a variety of theatres whereas the US was primarily orientated for a long war across the Pacific.  Plus of course with the empire Britain had far more naval bases across the world.

  Steve

Agreed, context is important.

I've often said the USN was looking at the baseless expanse of the Pacific, while the RN had a worldwide network of bases. Just one set of competing factors in different design choices.

Regards.

  1bigrich ,

  OK probably then I'm remembering it wrong way around and it was the USN that did the greater amount of on-ship repairs.  That might also fit in with the larger US hangers meaning more room to work although my initial idea was in part some sense that since the US often hung spare air-frames above the others making use of the higher hanger spaces.  Getting too damned old to rely on the gray matter.

  Steve

[1bigrich]

Nov 21, 2020 19:03:34 GMT stevep said:

  1bigrich ,

  OK probably then I'm remembering it wrong way around and it was the USN that did the greater amount of on-ship repairs.  That might also fit in with the larger US hangers meaning more room to work although my initial idea was in part some sense that since the US often hung spare air-frames above the others making use of the higher hanger spaces.  Getting too damned old to rely on the gray matter.

  Steve

Hi Steve,

Correct, spares wee hung between hangar rafters, in a dis-assembled state.  They did not interfere with hangar height.   It could take some time to reassemble those aircraft, but they did provide spares for the normal attrition and wear-and-tear of operations.  It also kept the carrier at sea with a nominal full-strength air group, as opposed to having to return to base or at least pass a nearby friendly airfield to acquire replacements.    

The IJN used a similar practice.   Occasionally, their complement will be seen with '+reserve' or '+disassembled', but most online sites just give total number of aircraft, even one as good and detailed as Nihon Kaigun/Combined Fleet.

Regards,