I noticed that some of the British deck crews wore canvas "gym" shoes as well as sandals! Job well done! Most of that combat footage I've never seen before.
The USN Essex Class carried 90 aircraft, and the FAA Implacable Class carried 54 aircraft. So there WAS a reason why the Americans went the path they did.
Peter Southern Boy true, the Essex carriers were excellent, however, all design is compromise. The US navy went for large air complement at the expense of survivability. If an Essex was hit by a kamikaze, it was out of operation for weeks or even months. If an implacable was hit by a kamikaze it was back in full operation in a matter of hours, very useful if you only have a comparatively small number of hulls and can’t afford to loose any. Both navies got the carries they needed, both were excellent in their own ways.
The truth is, whether unarmoured or armoured was not something the US Navy or Royal Navy sailors and airmen could influence. They all worked together in the Pacific to defeat the common foe facing a fanatical enemy together. They did their duty and their bravery as allies is the important thing. My father was on HMS Formidable and whilst he was a proud Englishmen, he was full of praise for his US buddies who took the lion’s share of the action in the Pacific. Formidable as with the rest of the RN Fleet Carriers for the most part operated Corsairs, Avengers and Hellcats - way more effective than their British equivalents. That’s not to say that there wasn’t rivalry, Dad had a wonderful story of entertaining a USN sailor, getting him blind drunk (the US ships were ‘dry’) and tattooing ‘Rule Britannia’ on his chest! Here’s to the US and UK partnership.
Eric Dickison - It would be reasonable to argue that if the Yorktown, Hornet, and Enterprise were armored the US loses the Battle of Midway based on known US Carrier bomber and torpedo plane attrition. Especially since the four Japanese carriers would have carried 160 more aircraft than three armored 1930’s vintage carriers.
Eric Dickison - if the US Navy had built Implacables instead of Essex class - they’re back in the Gilbert and Marshall Islands in Spring 1945, because their aircraft striking power was reduced by 50%. Kamikazes didn’t start seriously damaging US Carriers until 1945. Your point is spot on - both carrier designs had advantages and disadvantages
Another great doco ... Love this stuff .. thank you.
I noticed that some of the British deck crews wore canvas "gym" shoes as well as sandals! Job well done! Most of that combat footage I've never seen before.
Brilliant production.
Triple fighter landing simultaneously on carrier (outro). Wow!
My God, what a Navy we had ! Makes you proud and that's coming from an ex squaddie. Brave chaps one and all
Incredible images of this operation
and truthful comments of those taking part... Salute!
The real tragedy is that torpedo bombers turned out to be ineffective… this was ultimately realized and replaced by dive bombers…
Go Royal Navy!
The USN Essex Class carried 90 aircraft, and the FAA Implacable Class carried 54 aircraft. So there WAS a reason why the Americans went the path they did.
Peter Southern Boy true, the Essex carriers were excellent, however, all design is compromise. The US navy went for large air complement at the expense of survivability. If an Essex was hit by a kamikaze, it was out of operation for weeks or even months. If an implacable was hit by a kamikaze it was back in full operation in a matter of hours, very useful if you only have a comparatively small number of hulls and can’t afford to loose any.
Both navies got the carries they needed, both were excellent in their own ways.
The truth is, whether unarmoured or armoured was not something the US Navy or Royal Navy sailors and airmen could influence. They all worked together in the Pacific to defeat the common foe facing a fanatical enemy together. They did their duty and their bravery as allies is the important thing. My father was on HMS Formidable and whilst he was a proud Englishmen, he was full of praise for his US buddies who took the lion’s share of the action in the Pacific. Formidable as with the rest of the RN Fleet Carriers for the most part operated Corsairs, Avengers and Hellcats - way more effective than their British equivalents. That’s not to say that there wasn’t rivalry, Dad had a wonderful story of entertaining a USN sailor, getting him blind drunk (the US ships were ‘dry’) and tattooing ‘Rule Britannia’ on his chest! Here’s to the US and UK partnership.
Eric Dickison - It would be reasonable to argue that if the Yorktown, Hornet, and Enterprise were armored the US loses the Battle of Midway based on known US Carrier bomber and torpedo plane attrition. Especially since the four Japanese carriers would have carried 160 more aircraft than three armored 1930’s vintage carriers.
Eric Dickison - if the US Navy had built Implacables instead of Essex class - they’re back in the Gilbert and Marshall Islands in Spring 1945, because their aircraft striking power was reduced by 50%. Kamikazes didn’t start seriously damaging US Carriers until 1945. Your point is spot on - both carrier designs had advantages and disadvantages
Eric Dickison - good analysis from a Brit on the trade offs: th-cam.com/video/_dHdGHP8hCg/w-d-xo.html
😎