As an American I found this video to be very educational and enjoyed it immensely. It's easy for me to find plenty of stuff on the U.S and our actions in the Pacific but it's much harder for me to find things about our allies like British and Australians. For the gentleman in this video thank you for your service and thank you for sharing for us to learn from.
Please stop! Lol That's because they weren't there until it was over. And their only motivation was to reclaim their former Emperical colonies. Read this if you want an education; The British ships arrived at Manus in the Admiralty Islands on March 7 - only to discover the politics had actually intensified while it has been at sea. Most surprisingly, the Royal Navy quickly realised it was unable to use British territory without the permission of the United States. www.armouredcarriers.com/task-force-57-british-pacific-fleet
In reference to the pilot praising the Corsair, I'd like to note the Corsair was the one WWII aircraft that the USN was still using in large numbers in the Korean War despite other aircraft, that had been developed later in WWII, being pulled from frontline service. Shows how versatile the aircraft was as it was an excellent multi-role aircraft. The USN had originally given up using them on aircraft carriers due to the poor frontal downward visibility and a tendency to hop during landing and let the USMC and RN have the majority of them. They owe it to the RN for figuring out how to effectively and safely land them on a carrier which changed the USN opinion on them and they started to use them in large numbers.
New Zealand purchased them and used them as land based (fixed wing) fighter bombers. My father flew them against the Japanese in the New Britain area bombing and strafing Rabaul and a host of other places. The first aircraft purchased were carrier aircraft with folding wings; while on a training flight my father noticed just after take-off that “a wing bolt had popped”. He completed the most gentle circuit he had ever flown and landed. Apparently another had killed the pilot after a wing had folded in flight. There was a major enquiry and it never happened again!
In Royal Navy service, because of the limited hangar deck height in several classes of British carrier, many Corsairs had their outer wings "clipped" by 8 in (200 mm) to clear the deckhead. The change in span brought about the added benefit of improving the sink rate, reducing the F4U's propensity to "float" in the final stages of landing. Despite the clipped wings and the shorter decks of British carriers, Royal Navy aviators found landing accidents less of a problem than they had been to U.S. Navy aviators, thanks to the curved approach they used: British units solved the landing visibility problem by approaching the carrier in a medium left-hand turn, which allowed the pilot to keep the carrier's deck in view over the anhedral in the left wing root. This technique was later adopted by U.S. Navy and Marine fliers for carrier use of the Corsair. The Royal Navy developed a number of modifications to the Corsair that made carrier landings more practical. Among these are a bulged canopy (similar to the Malcolm Hood), raising the pilot's seat 7 in (180 mm) and wiring shut the cowl flaps across the top of the engine compartment, diverting oil and hydraulic fluid spray around the sides of the fuselage. The Royal Navy hurriedly adopted higher-performance single-seat aircraft such as the Hawker Sea Hurricane and the less robust Supermarine Seafire alongside, but neither aircraft had sufficient range to operate at a distance from a carrier task force. The Corsair was welcomed as a more robust and versatile alternative Fleet Air Arm (FAA) units were created and equipped in the United States, at Quonset Point or Brunswick and then shipped to war theaters aboard escort carriers. The first FAA Corsair unit was 1830 NAS, created on the first of June 1943, and soon operating from HMS Illustrious. At the end of the war, 18 FAA squadrons were operating the Corsair. British Corsairs served both in Europe and in the Pacific. The first, and also most important, European operations were the series of attacks (Operation Tungsten) in April, July, and August 1944 on the German battleship Tirpitz, for which Corsairs from HMS Victorious and HMS Formidable provided fighter cover. It appears the Corsairs did not encounter aerial opposition on these raids.
True...Had the Corsair been operational in Europe they would have taken their share of glory from the P-51...Not disparaging the vital role the Mustang played..
@@71superbee39 Which is amazing considering the F4U was a Naval Carrier aircraft. The added weight of a Carrier aircraft landing gear and tail hook is substantial.
Excellent video. Thank you for producing this. My Dad served on a Destroyer during WW2 and his ship was hit and sunk by a Kamikaze at Okinawa. He didn't talk much about the war to his kids or Mom only to other veterans and my Uncle Mark. He did tell me about the hospital ships being targeted by the Kamikaze and that they had to come in after dark, load the wounded and hopefully be beyond the range of the attackers by daylight. After his ship was sunk he was attached to a Construction Battalion (CB) unit and as an Electrician's mate 2nd class was assigned to em-place 9 Cat diesel generators which he mounted on RR Ties and synchronized and duty cycle them to operate the surgical and emergency tent hospital. The US Tenth Army and Marines were taking heavy casualties and couldn’t be evacuated to hospital ships while under attack. The US Navy had 362 ships hit by Kamikaze during this campaign. Because of constant sniper and sapper attacks my Dad slept under the generators with his carbine on his chest. I would guess he didn't sleep much. They had a sniper pick a guy off right at dusk and at dawn for several days before they figured out he had nested in the debris of a collapsed wooden water tower. They all opened fire and promptly killed the bastard. (from Dad). From the son of the Greatest Generation. I miss you Dad.
@BC Bob What the fuk? You a keyboard warrior here? What kind of a question is that? Are you man enough to confront this man's son in person? Or are you the friggin wuss that your question emits?
@BC Bob I guess you can't kelp your personality but you can change your behavior. I don't mind answering tho. I told my Dad I wanted to serve my country by joining the Army infantry or maybe the Navy river patrol boats. I was 17 and would soon enroll in the draft. This was spring 1971. I'll never forget the look he gave me, like he'd been socked in the gut. In a moment he looked at me and said, Son I don't want you to do that. He said this is nothing like my war. He was right. He always was. I received my draft number, 163 . I was never called up after 3 years of eligibility. If I had been I would have gone like everyone in my family, the American Revolutionary War, The Civil War, The Indian Wars, WW1, and WW2. None in Korea or Vietnam. I hope that satisfies your curiosity.
Respect to you and your fab dad WH. Mine was there too, feel pretty much the same as you.Jeazz talk about King Arthurs knight arising from Camelot when England needed them. Me ma too. The greatest generation. The best post here...cheers.
The US Navy pilots already had effective SOP for carrier land Corsairs when the British started using them, but sent Corsairs for Marines to use as they had sufficient squadrons of Hellcats and didn't want two supply chains for the aircraft. The advent of the F4U4 had sufficiently better performance over the Hellcat to make the extra logistics worthwhile, so Corsairs were sent for carrier use.
@@trevorhart545 Not only Corsairs, but also Avengers, Hellcats and few others. Notable mention the RN pioneered Carrier Landing Lights, the USN then adapted it during late 1960 on their carriers
It was amazing what the Royal Navy was able to accomplish with a fleet that was unfamiliar with operating for long periods of time at sea, with ships, other than their cruisers, that were comparatively short legged. The British Pacific Fleet adapted quickly and did a fine job in the last months of the war against Japan.
Yes fine job cleaning up whats left of remaining IJN, when the US, Australians and NZs took the brunt of Japanese onslaught from mid 1942 onwards. Their deployment is merely political and a bit of a reach, its just to convince Asia-Pacific that the British still have its prestige and the startup plan in reclaiming their Japanese occupied territory or empire. I guess when the Japanese signed surrender onboard the Missouri in Tokyo Bay, the British had their own surrender ceremony in Singapore.
@@richardhumphrey2685 Not that much compares to US, NZ's and Aussies contributions. 2 of their proudest capital ships got sunk by the Japanese early war. Get educated too
@@ramal5708 Most of the US Pacific fleet were obliterated by the Japanese at the same time so what's your point? Plus the British were fighting the Japs for just as long as the Americans were and in fact British 14th Army inflicted the greatest defeat upon the Japanese up to that date at Kohima and Imphal (60,000 dead and over 100,000 casualties) before retaking the whole of South East Asia.....The war against Japan was so much more than just the Island hopping campaign of the Pacific you know....As I've already said to you 'GET EDUCATED'.
Well done documentary, from original sources, very realistic, authentic and, thanks to your efforts, though unappreciated even in their own time, NOT FORGOTTEN.
On behalf of my grandfather and the other officers and sailors of the US Pacific fleet I thank our eternal allies and cousins in the Royal Navy for their contributions in the Pacific Theater of Operations. Sincerely, Senior Chief Special Warfare Boat Operator (SWCC, SW, FPJ, EXW) S.P. Legere USN Retired
My father was on HMS Indefatigable which like many other British carriers shrugged off the kamikaze attacks on April 1st. It was supposed to be flying CAP during the surrender of Japan but ironically an American pilot had a very bad landing and put the ship out of action for longer than the kamikaze had.
The forgotten fleet is a apt name. I hadn't known anything about it or that of the Eastern fleet during WW2 until relatively recently (10 years ago). I had/have a keen interest in what my parents generation had gone through during WW2 ,as, with the exception of my mother during her last half decade of life, she being nearly 15 years younger than that of my father who had served in the RAF, they didn't really talk about that period of their lives as their lives had inexorably moved on by the time I came along. So I like discovering new parts of this history and like hearing it from the people who were actually there at the time. I'm not aware that my father or uncle served outside of the Atlantic or European theaters of war during WW2 but many people's parents, uncles and grandparents clearly did. So I welcome your efforts to give them information and the personal experiences of which their parents, uncles and grandparents would have had.
I kept wondering why it was an all American war (besides Australia). You just never hear about the "other guys". WW2 was like a 1,000 little wars that sort if join up.
Politics. We were appreciated by ordinary people , but the elections were about to get going in the USA, so the rest of the world did not matter. All those boys who died in Burma, or in the carrier actions in this video were inconvenient.
It's a good thing our British cousins got Corsairs, and, it was very kind of them to figure out what was wrong with the landing gear and, teach us how to land them on carriers. Much gratitude to these unsung men of great valor!
@@simonstock4448 The American way to land was a straight in approach , difficult with the long nosed Corsair. The Brits went downwind alongside and then turned in to land, it's easier to see where your going. Partly it was necessary because the US navy fighters tended to be sturdier and could "hit" a deck whereas the Brit navy used Seafires which were a bit lighter built and had a long nose. Jeffrey Quill covers it quite well in his book. the seafire was always a poor naval fighter because it was never intended for carrier operations, fragile, water cooled engine, lacking range and needing some experience to land esp in hot conditions I get the impression many at the British Admiralty really didn't understand our like operating aircraft ! Some of the specifications issued were ludicrous. Virtually every British naval aircraft was obsolete or just plain bad. The heroic bravery of those fleet air arm pilots sent into battle in those aircraft defies belief.
Another very interesting video. I believe the Royal Navy used the Corsair fighter from aircraft carriers before the USN did. The Seafire's actually had a service ceiling of over 36,000 feet and took less than nine minutes to get to 20,000 feet, which combined with their short range (despite often using drop tanks) meant that they were mainly used for CAP over the fleet.
You're right about the Corsair being used by the RN first on aircraft carriers. The USN tried them originally but found them too difficult to land due to their long engines obstructing the view, so used them as land based fighters until the British (Eric Brown specifically) found a unique way of landing them.
@@frankanderson5012 In Royal Navy service, because of the limited hangar deck height in several classes of British carrier, many Corsairs had their outer wings "clipped" by 8 in (200 mm) to clear the deckhead. The change in span brought about the added benefit of improving the sink rate, reducing the F4U's propensity to "float" in the final stages of landing. Despite the clipped wings and the shorter decks of British carriers, Royal Navy aviators found landing accidents less of a problem than they had been to U.S. Navy aviators, thanks to the curved approach they used: British units solved the landing visibility problem by approaching the carrier in a medium left-hand turn, which allowed the pilot to keep the carrier's deck in view over the anhedral in the left wing root. This technique was later adopted by U.S. Navy and Marine fliers for carrier use of the Corsair. The Royal Navy developed a number of modifications to the Corsair that made carrier landings more practical. Among these are a bulged canopy (similar to the Malcolm Hood), raising the pilot's seat 7 in (180 mm) and wiring shut the cowl flaps across the top of the engine compartment, diverting oil and hydraulic fluid spray around the sides of the fuselage. The Royal Navy hurriedly adopted higher-performance single-seat aircraft such as the Hawker Sea Hurricane and the less robust Supermarine Seafire alongside, but neither aircraft had sufficient range to operate at a distance from a carrier task force. The Corsair was welcomed as a more robust and versatile alternative Fleet Air Arm (FAA) units were created and equipped in the United States, at Quonset Point or Brunswick and then shipped to war theaters aboard escort carriers. The first FAA Corsair unit was 1830 NAS, created on the first of June 1943, and soon operating from HMS Illustrious. At the end of the war, 18 FAA squadrons were operating the Corsair. British Corsairs served both in Europe and in the Pacific. The first, and also most important, European operations were the series of attacks (Operation Tungsten) in April, July, and August 1944 on the German battleship Tirpitz, for which Corsairs from HMS Victorious and HMS Formidable provided fighter cover. It appears the Corsairs did not encounter aerial opposition on these raids. You must also remember the US had developed the Grumman F6F Hellcat simultaneously to the Corsair. It was an excellent Naval fighter. Grumman F6F Hellcat U.S. Navy and Marine F6F pilots flew 66,530 combat sorties and claimed 5,163 kills (56% of all U.S. Navy/Marine air victories of the war) at a recorded cost of 270 Hellcats in aerial combat (an overall kill-to-loss ratio of 19:1 based on claimed but not confirmed kills). Claimed victories were often highly exaggerated during the war. Even so, the aircraft performed well against the best Japanese opponents with a claimed 13:1 kill ratio against the A6M Zero, 9.5:1 against the Nakajima Ki-84, and 3.7:1 against the Mitsubishi J2M during the last year of the war. The F6F became the prime ace-maker aircraft in the American inventory, with 305 Hellcat aces. The U.S. successes were not just attributed to superior aircraft - from 1942 onwards, they faced increasingly inexperienced Japanese aviators and had the advantage of increasing numerical superiority. In the ground-attack role, Hellcats dropped 6,503 tons (5,899 tonnes) of bombs. The U.S. Navy's all-time leading ace, Captain David McCampbell, scored all his 34 victories in the Hellcat. He once described the F6F as "... an outstanding fighter plane. It performed well, was easy to fly, and was a stable gun platform, but what I really remember most was that it was rugged and easy to maintain British use The British Fleet Air Arm (FAA) received 1,263 F6Fs under the Lend-Lease Act; initially it was known as the Grumman Gannet Mark I. The name Hellcat replaced it in early 1943 for the sake of simplicity, the Royal Navy at that time adopting the use of the existing American naval names for all the U.S.-made aircraft supplied to it, with the F6F-3 being designated Hellcat F Mk.I, the F6F-5, the Hellcat F Mk.II and the F6F-5N, the Hellcat NF Mk.II. They saw action off Norway, in the Mediterranean, and in the Far East. Several were fitted with photographic reconnaissance equipment similar to the F6F-5P, receiving the designation Hellcat FR Mk.II. The Pacific War being a naval war, the FAA Hellcats primarily faced land-based aircraft in the European and Mediterranean theaters, and as a consequence experienced far fewer opportunities for air-to-air combat than their USN/Marines counterparts; they claimed a total of 52 enemy aircraft kills during 18 aerial combats from May 1944 to July 1945. 1844 Naval Air Squadron, on board HMS Indomitable of the British Pacific Fleet was the highest scoring unit, with 32.5 kills
@@robertmarsh3588 Supermarine Seafire During the latter half of the war, the Seafire saw increasing service as part of Britain's contribution to the Far East Pacific campaigns, serving with No. 887 and 894 Squadrons, Fleet Air Arm, aboard HMS Indefatigable and joining the British Pacific Fleet late in 1944. As range quickly became a detrimental factor in Pacific operations, Seafires in this theatre were often fitted with additional fuel tanks previously used by Curtiss P-40 Warhawks. Due to their good high altitude performance and lack of ordnance-carrying capabilities (compared to the Hellcats and Corsairs of the Fleet) the Seafires were allocated the vital defensive duties of Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over the fleet. During May 1945, Seafires were used to cover the Allied landings at Rangoon for Operation Crimson. Seafires were thus heavily involved in countering the kamikaze attacks during the Okinawa landings and beyond. The Spitfire was operational in the Pacific Fleet right up to VJ Day, being used off the coast of Japan during the final months of the war. The Seafires' best day was 15 August 1945, shooting down eight attacking aircraft for one loss. During the campaign 887 NAS claimed 12 kills and 894 NAS claimed 10 kills en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seafire#Wartime_service A vee-shaped guard forward of the tailwheel prevented arrestor wires getting tangled up with the tailwheel. 390 Seafire XVs were built by Cunliffe-Owen and Westland from late 1944. Six prototypes had been built by Supermarine. The average cruising speed was about 330 mph at sea level so it had a range of roughly 500 miles at sea level.
Apparently the high command of the US Navy, particularly the CNO Admiral King, did not want any part for the RN in the Pacific War. Then President Roosevelt got involved and shut down that shit right away. And the American fleet commanders were only too happy for the help that Task Force 57 under Admiral Rawlings brought to the war effort. The British were there with us, the way they have always been.
One wonders if Ernie King resented the presence of anyone but the US Navy in the Pacific, including the US Army,Air corps, boy scouts,or even Bob Hope.
King and Nimitz were concerned about the logistics problems of supporting the Royal Navy ships. Because other than the cruisers, British warships didn't have great endurance and the Royal Navy hadn't developed at sea replenishment techniques to the extent the U.S. Navy had. As it was, an entire new supply fleet had to be created to support the British Pacific Fleet. Whereas American carrier groups could stay on station for five to six days delivering air strikes and providing protection to the Okinawa landing area before needing replenishment, the very best Task Force 57 could do was three days. Could the U.S. have captured Okinawa without the assistance of the Royal Navy? Without a doubt, yes. But that's not to say that having an additional carrier group, though not quite as effective, wasn't appreciated.
@@markkover8040 King had been assigned to the British Home Fleet in WW1 and apparently was treated poorly, so he always had a chip on his shoulder about the Royal Navy.
@@markkover8040 I agree. It was probably as much a political as well as military decision. Churchill wrote about his desire to send British naval forces to the Pacific, when the tide was turned in the Battle of the Atlantic and the German surface fleet had been neutralized. I guess his point was that the British had a stake in the war against Japan; the loss of Hong Kong, Singapore, serious naval losses,, the Burma campaign. But he also knew they could not hope to match the extraordinary logistics the Americans had built up through hard experience. The American level of expertise at keeping their battle fleets supplied and ready to go, and moving 1000's of Marines and GIs all over the Pacific, was unmatched anywhere in the world. There was the Americans, then everybody else...
@@Nebris King's dislike of anything British is well known. But that doesn't change the fact that the U.S. Navy really didn't need any assistance from the Royal Navy with regards to fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. As it was, an entire logistics base and support fleet had to be established just to support Task Force 57, which was the equivalent of just one American carrier task group. So putting Admiral King's dislike of the Royal Navy aside, the British Pacific Fleet was more an issue of politics and British pride than any actual military need.
British carriers had decks made of steel plate. If a Kamikaze it it left mostly an indentation that was filled with concrete! US carriers had wooden decks, if a Kamikaze hit it went through and detonated on hangar deck.
American carriers sacrificed the armored deck to increase air group size. British carriers had much smaller and more restricted hangars due to the structure necessary to support the armored deck, and the US wanted the increased striking power. The US also realized it's production capacity meant that a few carriers lost due to wooden decks could readily be replaced, a luxury Britain didn't have.
The repairs needed for an armored deck are quite extensive actually, requiring major shipyards to spend lots of time and resources compared to wooden decks.
@@zacharyzier314 I think you’re missing the point. An attack on an armoured decked carrier is unlikely to take it out of action whereas against a wooden deck, if it wasn’t sunk, it would have to return to base. Can you give any examples of British carriers which had to withdrawn from action to then spend this extended period of time of repair? Seems more beneficial from a strategic standpoint that a carrier can remain on site, take punishment and make self repairs than one that is less able to do so has to return thousands of miles to base but can be relatively quickly repaired. One remains in action, the other doesn’t. This is not to say American carrier were worse. Both countries had their own needs and strategic situations. Britain was to be deployed around waters closer to home and so against attack from land based bombers and in rougher seas and bad weather so all aircraft needed to be stored under deck. American carriers were designed for the large expanse and relative calm of the Pacific so could store additional aircraft on deck and be less worried about land based bombers. It is noticeable that all navy’s have gone the route of armoured decks so I’m guessing there’s a good reason for that.
I was serving on board H.M.S.INDEFATIGABLE that day when the KAMIKAZES attacked the ship and was on Fire Party below in the hanger the flames was running down the Bulkhead and myslf and my team was putting the fires out whih had spread down below Decks i am till around and now at 97 can still remember that day and many of the days in our fights against the JAPANESE PLANES .
My dad said the kamikaze pilot looked like he was heading for his ship and him personally but at the last second he crashed into the air craft carrier. He said he wished it had hit his ship. It never left him.
great film thanks. My dad was in the merchant navy 1941-52 and served in the Pacific for which he was awarded The Pacific Star. He didn't talk about it much, but he did talk about pretty much everything I've seen/heard in this film. Which is pretty mind blowing. As he's long gone, I've no chance to ask him, but I'll follow it up and see what I can find out. This has been a real eye opener for me as an OAP, thanks my man, and much respect, your one dude that tells truth best !
@@ARMY2014 if U.K. was the Father - you abandoned your children to the Japanese from 1941 - 1944. In February of 1942 the Australian Prime Minister formally requested American military assistance and occupation
My father was on a Martin PBM "Mariner" flying boat operating out of Kerama Rhetto, near Okinawa, which picked up three survivors from a FAA Grumman Avenger belonging to HMS Formidable. He had to swim out to the life raft in order to bring it alongside the plane, which the British airmen appeared to be unable to accomplish. It turned out that the three British airmen had been in the sea in their rubber life raft for three days and were absolutely exhausted. Much to their annoyance, when they later flew the three airmen back to the Formidable, the Mariner was fired upon by the British AA gunners. The Mariner was a very distinctive aircraft, being a large twin-engine flying boat with gull wings and a twin tail cocked up at an acute angle which was impossible to mistake for any other aircraft. However, at that time all of the Allied warships were being subjected to attack by a steady stream of Kamikazes, so the AA gunners had become nervous and were liable to shoot at anything in the air.
Fascinating comment from Douglas Parker regarding the unauthorized purchase of Corsairs for the RN Pacific Fleet. Also, any idea why the USN didn't adopt short leg uniforms for Pacific operations like the Royal Navy?
As American I can tell you that we appreciate all that Britain did. My dad and all of my uncles where in World War II also. My dad fought in the Pacific Islands I don't remember which ones. But thanks again for all the help. It was highly appreciated❤
I disbelievingly learnt of this astonishing fact (the British carriers performing against the kamikazes) the 1st time in Major James Gurney's (USAF) picture book "The War In The Air"(1963)
Regarding the Corsair, I recall my late uncle, an RN squadron leader and commander flying, saying how many of the RN pilots disliked the Corsair because its long, long cowl prevented the pilot from seeing the deck on landing. Apparently, the plane's long nose and lack of pilot visibility often resulted in them landing overboard in the drink, with consequent loss of life.
Thanks for that - very interesting to hear from those directly involved. Especially when interviewed, they were still young enough to tell their stories and sound contemporary. The only slight criticism I have is the video filter you used. It has created on my playback at least, multiple regular horizontal banding like a failing old B&W TV set in the 60's or a badly adjusted old analogue TV signal. Maybe intentional visual aesthetics. Maybe something to do with copyright. IMHO, your story deserves the better image quality of the original source material but I appreciate that may be beyond your resources or not practical. Good all the same. Thanks.
You're pretty correct as to my reasoning. But there is an additional element to it ... continuity. Yes, some footage is nice and clear. But other footage is not. This vast disparity in quality - to me - made such compilations look very disjointed. So the watermark also adds a layer of visual continuity (I hope).
Yes, the names of the ships would have been nice. My father was on HMS Newfoundland, which I think I might have seen there but it's possible there was more than one Colony Class cruiser there.
British Pacific Fleet (BPF) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet In February 1944 the Admiralty estimated that the Fleet Train would require 134 merchant ships, of about 1½ million gross tons. As only 20 ships could be provided "in due course" the remainder would have to come from: the United States, The BPF found that its tankers were too few, too slow and in some cases unsuitable for the task of replenishment at sea. Its oiling gear, hoses and fittings were too often poorly designed. British ships refuelled at sea mostly by the over-the-stern method, a safer but less efficient technique compared with the American method of refuelling in parallel. Lack of proper equipment and insufficient practice meant burst hoses or excessive time at risk to submarine attack, while holding a constant course during fuelling. As the Royal Australian Navy had discovered, British-built ships had only about a third of the refrigeration space of a comparable American ship. They also suffered from limited fuel tankage and less efficient machinery, particularly the capital ships (A comparison of HMS King George V and USS Washington conducted in 1942 found the British ship burned 39% more fuel at cruising speed and 20% at high speed, giving her half the action radius.)] British ships therefore required replenishment more frequently than American ships. In some cases even American-built equipment was not interchangeable, for FAA aircraft had been "Anglicized" by the installation of British radios and oxygen masks, while Vought Corsairs had their wing-folding arrangements modified to fit into the more cramped hangars of British carriers. Replacement aircraft therefore had to be brought from the UK
Wiki usually has the details right. But it often lacks context. For example, the best RN fleet tankers had largely been sunk during the Mediterranean and North Atlantic convoys. So yes, only the older less desirable types remained available. And that February 1944 Fleet Train estimate was accurate for its time. But the RN and RFA had 12 months to rectify that as much as possible. Which they did. The Fleet Train was barely up to the task. But nowhere near as bad as that lonesome fact implies. And it had some very useful assets, such as HMS Unicorn. Refuelling at sea was a steep learning curve for the RN. Not all ships were modified at the same time etc. But - in 1945 - they sustained at-sea operations for some 60 days when needed.
@@ArmouredCarriers Yes and I believe that was ststed in an in depth article I read, a British publication. It also stated the RN never had to refuel at sea having had ports to refuel at and never developed the skills or fast fleet tankers and resupply escort vessels. I'll forward you the link when I can. Im using my cell phone to respond this morning.
@@ArmouredCarriers British Pacific Fleet Task Force 57 www.armouredcarriers.com/task-force-57-iceberg-i-british-pacific-fleet Rear-Admiral Vian recalled the situation: Meanwhile Admiral Fraser, appreciating fully the great importance, from a national point of view, of the Royal Navy engaging in the most modern type of sea warfare in company with the Americans who had perfected it, had been striving to convince Admiral Nimitz that the British would not only be able to operate alongside the Americans without calling on them for logistic aid, but that their Fleet would be of real help in the task which lay ahead - defeating Japan. He found that, like Admiral King, Admiral Nimitz felt that the fast United States carrier striking forces were perfectly capable of dealing, on their own, with the operations contemplated for the final reduction of the enemy… Admiral Fraser set himself to break down opposition. At the same time he realized that nothing but a really powerful Fleet could pull its weight alongside the great forces the Americans were using. Nothing but the very best would be expected by our Allies, who were by this time experienced veterans in the new forms of ocean warfare. It is a measure of his success that, when at length the British Pacific Fleet joined the Americans, they were greeted by a signal from Admiral Nimitz: “The British force will greatly increase our striking power, and demonstrate our unity of purpose against Japan. The United States Pacific Fleet welcomes you.” Admiral Fraser wrote fondly of an instance which would set the scene for the relationship of mutual respect and support that would feature in operations between Task Force 57 and 58: “I remember very well when I first went over to see Admiral Nimitz in Honolulu. At the end of our talks I was congratulating him on what the American fleet had done. He said, “Yes, I think we have done very well. There’s only one thing we envy you, and that is your British traditions.” I was very surprised and said, “Do you really think so, Admiral?” “Yes,”, he said, “it’s the thing you've got which can neither be bought nor sold. Guard it with your lives.” I always remember that. Wonderful thing for an American admiral to say.” Manus Island Manus Island had been selected as the British Fleet’s forward base. It was part of the Admiralty Group of islands north of New Guinea, and was a British protectorate. It was during this deployment period that the British Pacific Fleet realised just what a truly difficult task lay ahead of it. Despite Churchill’s assertions, the ships - designed to operate in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic - had not received the air-conditioning and ventilation modifications necessary for the tropical conditions. Manus Island was a hot, humid but huge anchorage for the British Pacific Fleet. Under the equatorial sun, the armoured flight decks would absorb the heat and radiate it downwards through the hull. Those who chose to sleep on the deck at night while on “rest” breaks at Manus would remark there was little point laying out ones bedding until after 11pm because of the retained heat. Conditions below were even worse. It was a sweatbox in which to sling out hammocks. At least on the flight deck there was a chance for a hint of a cool sea breeze early in the morning. Officers and ratings both suffered horribly, with prickly heat, sweat rashes and boils causing long queues outside the medical offices. Even fresh water was scarce as the Fleet Train’s distillation vessel had been held up by a dockyard dispute in Sydney. AT WAR IN THE TROPICS It became immediately clear that, despite Churchill’s words, the ships allocated to the British Pacific Fleet had not been fully tropicalised - if at all - and few had the most modern equipment. A war correspondent aboard Victorious described the stay at Manus Island as: “The tropical sea war is an unending Turkish bath - with no drying room... The long flight decks of the carriers are made of steel. They absorb the rays of the tropical sun and retain the torrid heat night and day. The heat penetrates down into the ship to meet the intense heat rising from the boiler rooms and galleys. At action stations warships are closed up, scuttles - portholes - are shut, Watertight bulkheads, which section off the ship into bootbox compartments, are locked with great iron pins. Four-fifth of an aircraft carrier’s ship’s company work sandwiched between those two layers of heat - stifled, sweating, every minute of every hour of every day and night until they are back in port. They suffer prickly heat and other skin disorders. The men of Victorious think of the damp when they were fighting in the icy cold of the Arctic and the North Atlantic. When it is freezing cold at sea you can, with many layers of clothing, at least get some warmth into your body; but out here you cannot get cool. Even the water you drink is as warm as that in which at home you would take a bath.
@@ArmouredCarriers The story of the predecessor sailing ship HMS Unicorn, "the most intact original naval sailing ship" makes for an interesting read also. Now back to the HMS Unicorn of WWll.
American naval policy back then was to bring the base to the fleet so you didn't have to keep sending ships back the base. When you can put together fleets numbering in the hundreds of ships, such a policy is possible.
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 I think this is because the British carriers were designed for the Atlantic. They had armoured flight decks, and closed hangers which weren’t as tall. This was done as the main threat was land based Luftwaffe bombers. I love the Essex class. Won the war against japan.
The main reason for the difference in design was where the carriers would be operating. American carriers would expect to operate primarily in the Pacific or Atlantic, large oceans where the engagement distances were extreme. The risk of a land-based air strike against the carriers was relatively low, while the US carriers could comfortably retreat into the ocean if necessary, away from the threat of hostile airfields. British carriers, however, expected to operate in the North Sea, Baltic, Meditterrean, Indian Ocean and western Pacific. They couldn’t bypass or avoid hostile airfields like the Americans, so British fleet carriers were built for increased survivability against air attack at the expense of striking power. As a result, no modern British fleet carriers were sunk by air attack during the entire war. Neither design choice was inherently better or worse than the other. Both the American and British carriers were very successful. They were simply designed for different jobs in different theaters of war.
Embarrassing ,I watched so much of the American navy with Australia,and new Zealand navy never knew of the British carrier forces against Japan. The two British battleships lost near Singapore all I recall,God bless them all from 🇨🇦. 🙏🇺🇲 🇬🇧 🇦🇺 🇳🇿 🇮🇳 blessings 🙌 to all the men,and women.
in the early 70s when i was in high school, we got an american history teacher, who told us, ww1 began in 1917. ww2, stated in 1941. at the same time, we got an american english teacher, wh retaught us how to spell. apparently we were being taught wrongly! the self appointed leaders of the free world, told us! anyway, thanks to the aus an brits, an the merchant navies eh!
@@garyhewitt489 nah m8, aussie an your right, out of cornwall/yorkshire came 3 bros. between cornwall, and an italian mountain village it gets a bit lost though. there was also an irish gunner [no idea] on a dams raid too.
@@garyhewitt489 we thought yorkshire, but ok, i'm aussie, my gramps was 1 of three brothers who cane downunder. there was an irish tail gunner richard bolitho killed on the dams raid with 617. between there, an a town in the italian alps is anybodys guess m8. any insight you got, would be good.
Hi Greg. I'm from York in Yorkshire. Plenty of bomber squadrons based around York in WWII. They often had mixed crews of Aussies, British, Canadians, Kiwis. A Kiwi in the RAF (Keith Parks) was responsible for the fighter defence of London during the Blitz. Many young Commonwealth lads were killed in operations, often far from home and loved ones. Much respect to them all. Aus/Can/GB/NZ. Lest We Forget.
Thanks for another very interesting post. May I ask if it would be possible to put alittle more info on the screen please, names of ships we are looking at, squadron and plane No if possible. I find it very difficult to distinguish between the British carriers which I watch with great interest as my dad, Stanley Mitchell was an airframe mech in 1834 Sq Corsair No 7L. On Victorious. I'm always looking to see if I can spot him in shots.
Good point. I'll try to make the time to do so in the future. In the meantime, HMS Victorious can be identified by the large "S" painted on the front of her flight deck. Her aircraft carried a "P" on their tails. Unfortunately, most footage appears to have been taken aboard HMS Illustrious (aircraft have a Q, ship has an X) and HMS Formidable (aircraft have an X, ship has an R)
@@ArmouredCarriers Thanks that would be great, I didn't know that and will bear that in mind. I know there is a photo, which I'm searching for, with my dad sitting on one of the undercarriage wheels of his aircraft on the flight deck. My father spotted himself in a library book I borrowed about 45-50 years ago. I asked him how he could be sure, he replied you only ever stayed with your alloted aircraft. Which was 7L, 1834 Sq. I would very much like to find this and to find any details, such as who the pilot was.
I have to say the the Spitfire/Seafire aircraft were very pretty...love your content. And I’m impressed with Dick Smeaton, if I’m spelling his name right! Ordering Corsairs on his own authority; what a legend.
So the RN flew Hellcats as well...? It’s was a little unclear. Glad the armored flight deck proved its worth when the kamikazes showed up. (Just noticing the flat bows on the KGV battleships-they must have been wet boats!)
Sadly the British Naval Aviation of WW2 is a subject rarely covered in the documentaries and films esp carrier operations. I really enjoy the videos on your channel please upload more if possible.
14:19 'Major' Ronald Hay. A rare thing - a Royal Marines fighter pilot, and the only Royal Marines fighter ace en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Cuthbert_Hay
Why isn’t this seen on television ? The world thinks the yanks did it all by themselves. My father was in the Royal Navy Commandos and fighting in Malaya and Burma at the time, and mentioned the efforts of our navy in this theatre of war....and has always regarded himself as one of the forgotten navy.
Forgetting the politics of it all- the British had to offer, the Americans had to accept reluctantly- I think its symbolically the right thing to do- America helped clear their backyard of fascism, so whether their real motive was to show the Indians “look! We’re back in charge so don’t even think about independence”, the fact is the British were sincerely willing to expend real British blood, treasure and very expensive ships in order to stand by their American allies and return the favor. You can’t throw people into a war after fighting the Nazis without people noticing, as a propaganda stunt. They really wanted to help. And you know what- 6 fleet carriers, 6 or 700 planes, excellent fleet anti-air defense with those beautiful British battleships and cruisers- honestly their contribution was considerable! Sure, the “big blue fleet” would have steamrolled anything in its way no matter what. But there’s real value in alliances that leverages many times the simple force multiplication. So, I think it was great they were there. That was the message of this whole war- If you take on any of these western countries, eventually you’ll have to take on the strongest of them together . Maintaining that relationship was worth whatever it took to hold it together.
Semi-Armor Piercing Shells to take out an airfield runway . 😮You would thin they would've learned their lesson about the proper ammo to use, like the US Marines and Navy did the hard way when they shelled Tarawa for 3 days only to find out that by using contact fuses the shells did practically no damage to the dug in Japanese positions.
Some of the US Naval Commanders should have recognized and been more appreciative of the Brits that their use of RADAR gave us a big edge over the Japanese throughout the war in the Pacific.
I had 3 Great Uncles that served in WW2. Two in the Europe against the Nazis and 1 in the USMC against Japan. I don't know anything about their service records. I suspect our British and American relatives crossed paths somewhere in the world. Thanks all those that served.
Very much depends on the variant. The Seafire "F" variant of each Mark had a Merlin rated (optimised) for medium-high altitude performance. The "LF" variant had one optimised for low altitude. The "LF" models outnumbered the "F"s three to one as most attacks were in the dive-bombing / torpedo bands. The "F"s were therefore mostly used to intercept "snoopers" or, earlier in the war, high altitude bombers.
I did these pages on Seafire design and development on my website: www.armouredcarriers.com/seafire-development www.armouredcarriers.com/seafire-variants
Very simply, they didn't have them. Nor did they have air-burst bombs at first. Being such a long way from the UK, they had to "make do" with what was available.
My Father was a gunner on one of the Royal Navy ships...He told my older brother that he Shot the tail off one of the Kamikaze Plane's...My Father joined the Royal Navy in 1926...I think his Aircraft carrier might have been named the Glory that he served on in the Pacific...I do know he Was on the Glory at the end of the War in the Pacific...
Hi Richard. The F4 and F6 were not superior to the P-51 Mustang for long-range, high altitude escort work. Neither were they superior to the P-47 Thunderbolt in the ground attack role. So, as the P-51 and P-47 were already flying out of the UK there was no requirement for two more aircraft types. They would have added to the logistics workload.
Anyone know the effectiveness of the British Corsairs? I’ve tried to find British Corsair aces but haven’t found that information yet. It seems that, like in the US Navy, some British pilots loved the Corsair and some hated it. It seems to be an aircraft that draws sharp emotional responses accross the board.
It’s hard to leave how long it takes to find a video on this event in WWII history. Well, I can find this on Wikipedia and other sources. I sure appreciate these videos along with the videos on the Indian ocean raid.
I should probably make more, or even expand these early videos. Also, you will find a lot about The British Pacific Fleet on my website - www.armouredcarriers.com
As an American I found this video to be very educational and enjoyed it immensely. It's easy for me to find plenty of stuff on the U.S and our actions in the Pacific but it's much harder for me to find things about our allies like British and Australians.
For the gentleman in this video thank you for your service and thank you for sharing for us to learn from.
Ironically it’s the same in the UK which is a shame.
The Aussies had a Guadalcanal all of their own on the Kokoda Trail at Port Moresby.
Australians have the same problem .
And the New Zealanders (RNZN) and Canadians (RCN)!
Please stop! Lol
That's because they weren't there until it was over. And their only motivation was to reclaim their former Emperical colonies.
Read this if you want an education;
The British ships arrived at Manus in the Admiralty Islands on March 7 - only to discover the politics had actually intensified while it has been at sea.
Most surprisingly, the Royal Navy quickly realised it was unable to use British territory without the permission of the United States.
www.armouredcarriers.com/task-force-57-british-pacific-fleet
In reference to the pilot praising the Corsair, I'd like to note the Corsair was the one WWII aircraft that the USN was still using in large numbers in the Korean War despite other aircraft, that had been developed later in WWII, being pulled from frontline service. Shows how versatile the aircraft was as it was an excellent multi-role aircraft. The USN had originally given up using them on aircraft carriers due to the poor frontal downward visibility and a tendency to hop during landing and let the USMC and RN have the majority of them. They owe it to the RN for figuring out how to effectively and safely land them on a carrier which changed the USN opinion on them and they started to use them in large numbers.
New Zealand purchased them and used them as land based (fixed wing) fighter bombers. My father flew them against the Japanese in the New Britain area bombing and strafing Rabaul and a host of other places. The first aircraft purchased were carrier aircraft with folding wings; while on a training flight my father noticed just after take-off that “a wing bolt had popped”. He completed the most gentle circuit he had ever flown and landed. Apparently another had killed the pilot after a wing had folded in flight. There was a major enquiry and it never happened again!
In Royal Navy service, because of the limited hangar deck height in several classes of British carrier, many Corsairs had their outer wings "clipped" by 8 in (200 mm) to clear the deckhead. The change in span brought about the added benefit of improving the sink rate, reducing the F4U's propensity to "float" in the final stages of landing. Despite the clipped wings and the shorter decks of British carriers, Royal Navy aviators found landing accidents less of a problem than they had been to U.S. Navy aviators, thanks to the curved approach they used: British units solved the landing visibility problem by approaching the carrier in a medium left-hand turn, which allowed the pilot to keep the carrier's deck in view over the anhedral in the left wing root. This technique was later adopted by U.S. Navy and Marine fliers for carrier use of the Corsair.
The Royal Navy developed a number of modifications to the Corsair that made carrier landings more practical. Among these are a bulged canopy (similar to the Malcolm Hood), raising the pilot's seat 7 in (180 mm) and wiring shut the cowl flaps across the top of the engine compartment, diverting oil and hydraulic fluid spray around the sides of the fuselage. The Royal Navy hurriedly adopted higher-performance single-seat aircraft such as the Hawker Sea Hurricane and the less robust Supermarine Seafire alongside, but neither aircraft had sufficient range to operate at a distance from a carrier task force. The Corsair was welcomed as a more robust and versatile alternative Fleet Air Arm (FAA) units were created and equipped in the United States, at Quonset Point or Brunswick and then shipped to war theaters aboard escort carriers. The first FAA Corsair unit was 1830 NAS, created on the first of June 1943, and soon operating from HMS Illustrious. At the end of the war, 18 FAA squadrons were operating the Corsair. British Corsairs served both in Europe and in the Pacific. The first, and also most important, European operations were the series of attacks (Operation Tungsten) in April, July, and August 1944 on the German battleship Tirpitz, for which Corsairs from HMS Victorious and HMS Formidable provided fighter cover. It appears the Corsairs did not encounter aerial opposition on these raids.
True...Had the Corsair been operational in Europe they would have taken their share of glory from the P-51...Not disparaging the vital role the Mustang played..
@@71superbee39 Which is amazing considering the F4U was a Naval Carrier aircraft. The added weight of a Carrier aircraft landing gear and tail hook is substantial.
Wyoming Horseman - Impressive knowledge! thank you for sharing.
Excellent video. Thank you for producing this.
My Dad served on a Destroyer during WW2 and his ship was hit and sunk by a Kamikaze at Okinawa. He didn't talk much about the war to his kids or Mom only to other veterans and my Uncle Mark. He did tell me about the hospital ships being targeted by the Kamikaze and that they had to come in after dark, load the wounded and hopefully be beyond the range of the attackers by daylight.
After his ship was sunk he was attached to a Construction Battalion (CB) unit and as an Electrician's mate 2nd class was assigned to em-place 9 Cat diesel generators which he mounted on RR Ties and synchronized and duty cycle them to operate the surgical and emergency tent hospital. The US Tenth Army and Marines were taking heavy casualties and couldn’t be evacuated to hospital ships while under attack. The US Navy had 362 ships hit by Kamikaze during this campaign. Because of constant sniper and sapper attacks my Dad slept under the generators with his carbine on his chest. I would guess he didn't sleep much.
They had a sniper pick a guy off right at dusk and at dawn for several days before they figured out he had nested in the debris of a collapsed wooden water tower. They all opened fire and promptly killed the bastard. (from Dad).
From the son of the Greatest Generation. I miss you Dad.
God bless your dad and God bless you, his proud son.
@BC Bob What the fuk? You a keyboard warrior here? What kind of a question is that? Are you man enough to confront this man's son in person? Or are you the friggin wuss that your question emits?
@BC Bob I guess you can't kelp your personality but you can change your behavior.
I don't mind answering tho. I told my Dad I wanted to serve my country by joining the Army infantry or maybe the Navy river patrol boats. I was 17 and would soon enroll in the draft. This was spring 1971. I'll never forget the look he gave me, like he'd been socked in the gut. In a moment he looked at me and said, Son I don't want you to do that. He said this is nothing like my war. He was right. He always was. I received my draft number, 163 . I was never called up after 3 years of eligibility.
If I had been I would have gone like everyone in my family, the American Revolutionary War, The Civil War, The Indian Wars, WW1, and WW2. None in Korea or Vietnam. I hope that satisfies your curiosity.
Respect to you and your fab dad WH. Mine was there too, feel pretty much the same as you.Jeazz talk about King Arthurs knight arising from Camelot when England needed them. Me ma too. The greatest generation. The best post here...cheers.
Respect to your dad and to you Wyoming. Dads are always right, wish I'd realised that when I was younger!@@wyominghorseman9172
Thanks to the Brits for showing us how to land the Corsairs on the carriers
The US Navy pilots already had effective SOP for carrier land Corsairs when the British started using them, but sent Corsairs for Marines to use as they had sufficient squadrons of Hellcats and didn't want two supply chains for the aircraft. The advent of the F4U4 had sufficiently better performance over the Hellcat to make the extra logistics worthwhile, so Corsairs were sent for carrier use.
Thanks to the US for supplying us Brits with the Corsair. Thanks for also building those mini Escort Carriers to protect the Atlantic Convoys.
They could land the corsair because they had alteady solved the same problem with long nose of the sea fire.
@@trevorhart545 Not only Corsairs, but also Avengers, Hellcats and few others. Notable mention the RN pioneered Carrier Landing Lights, the USN then adapted it during late 1960 on their carriers
It was amazing what the Royal Navy was able to accomplish with a fleet that was unfamiliar with operating for long periods of time at sea, with ships, other than their cruisers, that were comparatively short legged. The British Pacific Fleet adapted quickly and did a fine job in the last months of the war against Japan.
Yes fine job cleaning up whats left of remaining IJN, when the US, Australians and NZs took the brunt of Japanese onslaught from mid 1942 onwards. Their deployment is merely political and a bit of a reach, its just to convince Asia-Pacific that the British still have its prestige and the startup plan in reclaiming their Japanese occupied territory or empire. I guess when the Japanese signed surrender onboard the Missouri in Tokyo Bay, the British had their own surrender ceremony in Singapore.
@@ramal5708 Kohima and Imphal....get educated!
@@richardhumphrey2685 Not that much compares to US, NZ's and Aussies contributions. 2 of their proudest capital ships got sunk by the Japanese early war. Get educated too
It's the same tradition that carried the Royal Navy to the 1982 Falklands Victory.
@@ramal5708 Most of the US Pacific fleet were obliterated by the Japanese at the same time so what's your point? Plus the British were fighting the Japs for just as long as the Americans were and in fact British 14th Army inflicted the greatest defeat upon the Japanese up to that date at Kohima and Imphal (60,000 dead and over 100,000 casualties) before retaking the whole of South East Asia.....The war against Japan was so much more than just the Island hopping campaign of the Pacific you know....As I've already said to you 'GET EDUCATED'.
This is wonderful! I have always wondered about what the British actions were during the Okinawa campaign. Thank you!
Well done documentary, from original sources, very realistic, authentic and, thanks to your efforts, though unappreciated even in their own time, NOT FORGOTTEN.
On behalf of my grandfather and the other officers and sailors of the US Pacific fleet I thank our eternal allies and cousins in the Royal Navy for their contributions in the Pacific Theater of Operations.
Sincerely,
Senior Chief Special Warfare Boat Operator (SWCC, SW, FPJ, EXW) S.P. Legere USN Retired
Thank you.
My father was on HMS Indefatigable which like many other British carriers shrugged off the kamikaze attacks on April 1st. It was supposed to be flying CAP during the surrender of Japan but ironically an American pilot had a very bad landing and put the ship out of action for longer than the kamikaze had.
From the bottom of my heart, as an American, I thank your father for his service.
Very good documentary clear audio & no loud music over riding the commentary we old guys with bad hearing appreciate this very much .
The forgotten fleet is a apt name. I hadn't known anything about it or that of the Eastern fleet during WW2 until relatively recently (10 years ago). I had/have a keen interest in what my parents generation had gone through during WW2 ,as, with the exception of my mother during her last half decade of life, she being nearly 15 years younger than that of my father who had served in the RAF, they didn't really talk about that period of their lives as their lives had inexorably moved on by the time I came along. So I like discovering new parts of this history and like hearing it from the people who were actually there at the time.
I'm not aware that my father or uncle served outside of the Atlantic or European theaters of war during WW2 but many people's parents, uncles and grandparents clearly did. So I welcome your efforts to give them information and the personal experiences of which their parents, uncles and grandparents would have had.
I kept wondering why it was an all American war (besides Australia). You just never hear about the "other guys". WW2 was like a 1,000 little wars that sort if join up.
Politics. We were appreciated by ordinary people , but the elections were about to get going in the USA, so the rest of the world did not matter. All those boys who died in Burma, or in the carrier actions in this video were inconvenient.
It's a good thing our British cousins got Corsairs, and, it was very kind of them to figure out what was wrong with the landing gear and, teach us how to land them on carriers.
Much gratitude to these unsung men of great valor!
can you explain- fascinating
@@simonstock4448 The American way to land was a straight in approach , difficult with the long nosed Corsair.
The Brits went downwind alongside and then turned in to land, it's easier to see where your going.
Partly it was necessary because the US navy fighters tended to be sturdier and could "hit" a deck whereas the Brit navy used Seafires which were a bit lighter built and had a long nose.
Jeffrey Quill covers it quite well in his book. the seafire was always a poor naval fighter because it was never intended for carrier operations, fragile, water cooled engine, lacking range and needing some experience to land esp in hot conditions
I get the impression many at the British Admiralty really didn't understand our like operating aircraft !
Some of the specifications issued were ludicrous. Virtually every British naval aircraft was obsolete or just plain bad.
The heroic bravery of those fleet air arm pilots sent into battle in those aircraft defies belief.
Another very interesting video. I believe the Royal Navy used the Corsair fighter from aircraft carriers before the USN did. The Seafire's actually had a service ceiling of over 36,000 feet and took less than nine minutes to get to 20,000 feet, which combined with their short range (despite often using drop tanks) meant that they were mainly used for CAP over the fleet.
I was very surprised by the comments on the Seafire's ceiling. Not sure if this was after any specific modification or with drop tanks...
You're right about the Corsair being used by the RN first on aircraft carriers. The USN tried them originally but found them too difficult to land due to their long engines obstructing the view, so used them as land based fighters until the British (Eric Brown specifically) found a unique way of landing them.
@@frankanderson5012 In Royal Navy service, because of the limited hangar deck height in several classes of British carrier, many Corsairs had their outer wings "clipped" by 8 in (200 mm) to clear the deckhead. The change in span brought about the added benefit of improving the sink rate, reducing the F4U's propensity to "float" in the final stages of landing. Despite the clipped wings and the shorter decks of British carriers, Royal Navy aviators found landing accidents less of a problem than they had been to U.S. Navy aviators, thanks to the curved approach they used: British units solved the landing visibility problem by approaching the carrier in a medium left-hand turn, which allowed the pilot to keep the carrier's deck in view over the anhedral in the left wing root. This technique was later adopted by U.S. Navy and Marine fliers for carrier use of the Corsair.
The Royal Navy developed a number of modifications to the Corsair that made carrier landings more practical. Among these are a bulged canopy (similar to the Malcolm Hood), raising the pilot's seat 7 in (180 mm) and wiring shut the cowl flaps across the top of the engine compartment, diverting oil and hydraulic fluid spray around the sides of the fuselage. The Royal Navy hurriedly adopted higher-performance single-seat aircraft such as the Hawker Sea Hurricane and the less robust Supermarine Seafire alongside, but neither aircraft had sufficient range to operate at a distance from a carrier task force. The Corsair was welcomed as a more robust and versatile alternative Fleet Air Arm (FAA) units were created and equipped in the United States, at Quonset Point or Brunswick and then shipped to war theaters aboard escort carriers. The first FAA Corsair unit was 1830 NAS, created on the first of June 1943, and soon operating from HMS Illustrious. At the end of the war, 18 FAA squadrons were operating the Corsair. British Corsairs served both in Europe and in the Pacific. The first, and also most important, European operations were the series of attacks (Operation Tungsten) in April, July, and August 1944 on the German battleship Tirpitz, for which Corsairs from HMS Victorious and HMS Formidable provided fighter cover. It appears the Corsairs did not encounter aerial opposition on these raids.
You must also remember the US had developed the Grumman F6F Hellcat simultaneously to the Corsair. It was an excellent Naval fighter.
Grumman F6F Hellcat
U.S. Navy and Marine F6F pilots flew 66,530 combat sorties and claimed 5,163 kills (56% of all U.S. Navy/Marine air victories of the war) at a recorded cost of 270 Hellcats in aerial combat (an overall kill-to-loss ratio of 19:1 based on claimed but not confirmed kills). Claimed victories were often highly exaggerated during the war. Even so, the aircraft performed well against the best Japanese opponents with a claimed 13:1 kill ratio against the A6M Zero, 9.5:1 against the Nakajima Ki-84, and 3.7:1 against the Mitsubishi J2M during the last year of the war. The F6F became the prime ace-maker aircraft in the American inventory, with 305 Hellcat aces. The U.S. successes were not just attributed to superior aircraft - from 1942 onwards, they faced increasingly inexperienced Japanese aviators and had the advantage of increasing numerical superiority. In the ground-attack role, Hellcats dropped 6,503 tons (5,899 tonnes) of bombs. The U.S. Navy's all-time leading ace, Captain David McCampbell, scored all his 34 victories in the Hellcat. He once described the F6F as "... an outstanding fighter plane. It performed well, was easy to fly, and was a stable gun platform, but what I really remember most was that it was rugged and easy to maintain
British use
The British Fleet Air Arm (FAA) received 1,263 F6Fs under the Lend-Lease Act; initially it was known as the Grumman Gannet Mark I. The name Hellcat replaced it in early 1943 for the sake of simplicity, the Royal Navy at that time adopting the use of the existing American naval names for all the U.S.-made aircraft supplied to it, with the F6F-3 being designated Hellcat F Mk.I, the F6F-5, the Hellcat F Mk.II and the F6F-5N, the Hellcat NF Mk.II. They saw action off Norway, in the Mediterranean, and in the Far East. Several were fitted with photographic reconnaissance equipment similar to the F6F-5P, receiving the designation Hellcat FR Mk.II. The Pacific War being a naval war, the FAA Hellcats primarily faced land-based aircraft in the European and Mediterranean theaters, and as a consequence experienced far fewer opportunities for air-to-air combat than their USN/Marines counterparts; they claimed a total of 52 enemy aircraft kills during 18 aerial combats from May 1944 to July 1945. 1844 Naval Air Squadron, on board HMS Indomitable of the British Pacific Fleet was the highest scoring unit, with 32.5 kills
@@robertmarsh3588 Supermarine Seafire
During the latter half of the war, the Seafire saw increasing service as part of Britain's contribution to the Far East Pacific campaigns, serving with No. 887 and 894 Squadrons, Fleet Air Arm, aboard HMS Indefatigable and joining the British Pacific Fleet late in 1944. As range quickly became a detrimental factor in Pacific operations, Seafires in this theatre were often fitted with additional fuel tanks previously used by Curtiss P-40 Warhawks. Due to their good high altitude performance and lack of ordnance-carrying capabilities (compared to the Hellcats and Corsairs of the Fleet) the Seafires were allocated the vital defensive duties of Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over the fleet. During May 1945, Seafires were used to cover the Allied landings at Rangoon for Operation Crimson. Seafires were thus heavily involved in countering the kamikaze attacks during the Okinawa landings and beyond. The Spitfire was operational in the Pacific Fleet right up to VJ Day, being used off the coast of Japan during the final months of the war.
The Seafires' best day was 15 August 1945, shooting down eight attacking aircraft for one loss. During the campaign 887 NAS claimed 12 kills and 894 NAS claimed 10 kills
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seafire#Wartime_service
A vee-shaped guard forward of the tailwheel prevented arrestor wires getting tangled up with the tailwheel. 390 Seafire XVs were built by Cunliffe-Owen and Westland from late 1944. Six prototypes had been built by Supermarine. The average cruising speed was about 330 mph at sea level so it had a range of roughly 500 miles at sea level.
@@wyominghorseman9172 thank you for adding this detail. Appreciated.
Apparently the high command of the US Navy, particularly the CNO Admiral King, did not want any part for the RN in the Pacific War. Then President Roosevelt got involved and shut down that shit right away.
And the American fleet commanders were only too happy for the help that Task Force 57 under Admiral Rawlings brought to the war effort.
The British were there with us, the way they have always been.
One wonders if Ernie King resented the presence of anyone but the US Navy in the Pacific, including the US Army,Air corps, boy scouts,or even Bob Hope.
King and Nimitz were concerned about the logistics problems of supporting the Royal Navy ships. Because other than the cruisers, British warships didn't have great endurance and the Royal Navy hadn't developed at sea replenishment techniques to the extent the U.S. Navy had.
As it was, an entire new supply fleet had to be created to support the British Pacific Fleet. Whereas American carrier groups could stay on station for five to six days delivering air strikes and providing protection to the Okinawa landing area before needing replenishment, the very best Task Force 57 could do was three days.
Could the U.S. have captured Okinawa without the assistance of the Royal Navy? Without a doubt, yes. But that's not to say that having an additional carrier group, though not quite as effective, wasn't appreciated.
@@markkover8040 King had been assigned to the British Home Fleet in WW1 and apparently was treated poorly, so he always had a chip on his shoulder about the Royal Navy.
@@markkover8040 I agree. It was probably as much a political as well as military decision.
Churchill wrote about his desire to send British naval forces to the Pacific, when the tide was turned in the Battle of the Atlantic and the German surface fleet had been neutralized.
I guess his point was that the British had a stake in the war against Japan; the loss of Hong Kong, Singapore, serious naval losses,, the Burma campaign.
But he also knew they could not hope to match the extraordinary logistics the Americans had built up through hard experience.
The American level of expertise at keeping their battle fleets supplied and ready to go, and moving 1000's of Marines and GIs all over the Pacific, was unmatched anywhere in the world.
There was the Americans, then everybody else...
@@Nebris King's dislike of anything British is well known. But that doesn't change the fact that the U.S. Navy really didn't need any assistance from the Royal Navy with regards to fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. As it was, an entire logistics base and support fleet had to be established just to support Task Force 57, which was the equivalent of just one American carrier task group.
So putting Admiral King's dislike of the Royal Navy aside, the British Pacific Fleet was more an issue of politics and British pride than any actual military need.
Thank you limeys.
British carriers had decks made of steel plate. If a Kamikaze it it left mostly an indentation that was filled with concrete! US carriers had wooden decks, if a Kamikaze hit it went through and detonated on hangar deck.
American carriers sacrificed the armored deck to increase air group size. British carriers had much smaller and more restricted hangars due to the structure necessary to support the armored deck, and the US wanted the increased striking power. The US also realized it's production capacity meant that a few carriers lost due to wooden decks could readily be replaced, a luxury Britain didn't have.
The repairs needed for an armored deck are quite extensive actually, requiring major shipyards to spend lots of time and resources compared to wooden decks.
@@zacharyzier314 I think you’re missing the point. An attack on an armoured decked carrier is unlikely to take it out of action whereas against a wooden deck, if it wasn’t sunk, it would have to return to base. Can you give any examples of British carriers which had to withdrawn from action to then spend this extended period of time of repair?
Seems more beneficial from a strategic standpoint that a carrier can remain on site, take punishment and make self repairs than one that is less able to do so has to return thousands of miles to base but can be relatively quickly repaired. One remains in action, the other doesn’t.
This is not to say American carrier were worse. Both countries had their own needs and strategic situations. Britain was to be deployed around waters closer to home and so against attack from land based bombers and in rougher seas and bad weather so all aircraft needed to be stored under deck.
American carriers were designed for the large expanse and relative calm of the Pacific so could store additional aircraft on deck and be less worried about land based bombers. It is noticeable that all navy’s have gone the route of armoured decks so I’m guessing there’s a good reason for that.
I was serving on board H.M.S.INDEFATIGABLE that day when the KAMIKAZES attacked the ship and was on Fire Party below in the hanger the flames was running down the Bulkhead and myslf and my team was putting the fires out whih had spread down below Decks i am till around and now at 97 can still remember that day and many of the days in our fights against the JAPANESE PLANES .
God bless you, sir, from America.
@@brunopadovani7347 And from the rest of us in the UK who were born after War's End.
you're a friccin' hero sir........my dad wad there too like you. god bless you.
My dad said the kamikaze pilot looked like he was heading for his ship and him personally but at the last second he crashed into the air craft carrier. He said he wished it had hit his ship. It never left him.
Hi Harry do you remember my uncle Edward (Ed) Langlands. Stoker
great film thanks. My dad was in the merchant navy 1941-52 and served in the Pacific for which he was awarded The Pacific Star. He didn't talk about it much, but he did talk about pretty much everything I've seen/heard in this film. Which is pretty mind blowing. As he's long gone, I've no chance to ask him, but I'll follow it up and see what I can find out. This has been a real eye opener for me as an OAP, thanks my man, and much respect, your one dude that tells truth best !
Really well done series, love and respect from your American cousins.
Its more like a Father and son relationship, which obvs is UK is father haha
@@ARMY2014 if U.K. was the Father - you abandoned your children to the Japanese from 1941 - 1944. In February of 1942 the Australian Prime Minister formally requested American military assistance and occupation
@@petersouthernboy6327 You need to read more.
Thanks, loyal allies!
Great series! love to hear the veterans in their own words.
These are superb. I keep having to stop the next one so I can "like" the last! Fantastic effort.
My father was on a Martin PBM "Mariner" flying boat operating out of Kerama Rhetto, near Okinawa, which picked up three survivors from a FAA Grumman Avenger belonging to HMS Formidable. He had to swim out to the life raft in order to bring it alongside the plane, which the British airmen appeared to be unable to accomplish. It turned out that the three British airmen had been in the sea in their rubber life raft for three days and were absolutely exhausted. Much to their annoyance, when they later flew the three airmen back to the Formidable, the Mariner was fired upon by the British AA gunners. The Mariner was a very distinctive aircraft, being a large twin-engine flying boat with gull wings and a twin tail cocked up at an acute angle which was impossible to mistake for any other aircraft. However, at that time all of the Allied warships were being subjected to attack by a steady stream of Kamikazes, so the AA gunners had become nervous and were liable to shoot at anything in the air.
incredible images of this naval operation
Fascinating comment from Douglas Parker regarding the unauthorized purchase of Corsairs for the RN Pacific Fleet. Also, any idea why the USN didn't adopt short leg uniforms for Pacific operations like the Royal Navy?
As American I can tell you that we appreciate all that Britain did. My dad and all of my uncles where in World War II also. My dad fought in the Pacific Islands I don't remember which ones. But thanks again for all the help. It was highly appreciated❤
Absolutely fascinating and comparatively little known.
Excellent … Fantastic Fottage
Thank you all, God bless you.
My dad was on HMS Pioneer and told me so many stories of the British Pacific Fleet. first time I've seen this
I disbelievingly learnt of this astonishing fact
(the British carriers performing against the kamikazes)
the 1st time in Major James Gurney's (USAF) picture book "The War In The Air"(1963)
Great answer, "I was around when he was doing it."
At 14:06 you can hear how the Corsair got it's Japanese nickname - "Whistling Death".
I’d always been skeptical of that claim, but this is the first proof I’ve seen! Great video.
Regarding the Corsair, I recall my late uncle, an RN squadron leader and commander flying, saying how many of the RN pilots disliked the Corsair because its long, long cowl prevented the pilot from seeing the deck on landing. Apparently, the plane's long nose and lack of pilot visibility often resulted in them landing overboard in the drink, with consequent loss of life.
Thanks for that - very interesting to hear from those directly involved. Especially when interviewed, they were still young enough to tell their stories and sound contemporary.
The only slight criticism I have is the video filter you used. It has created on my playback at least, multiple regular horizontal banding like a failing old B&W TV set in the 60's or a badly adjusted old analogue TV signal. Maybe intentional visual aesthetics. Maybe something to do with copyright. IMHO, your story deserves the better image quality of the original source material but I appreciate that may be beyond your resources or not practical.
Good all the same. Thanks.
You're pretty correct as to my reasoning. But there is an additional element to it ... continuity. Yes, some footage is nice and clear. But other footage is not. This vast disparity in quality - to me - made such compilations look very disjointed. So the watermark also adds a layer of visual continuity (I hope).
Amazing effort to finish the war in the Pacific, bravo comrades.
Taiwan: Formosa....that's a name I haven't heard in many many years...
Yes, the names of the ships would have been nice. My father was on HMS Newfoundland, which I think I might have seen there but it's possible there was more than one Colony Class cruiser there.
tremendous piece of history...Thanks for sharing
Great question, "how did you know..."
Important videos for naval historians.
Transformation of the navy from battleships to aircraft carrier
Hats off to you from this Ginger/American for having ANTI-AIRCRAFT BATTLESHIPS and armored decks.
British Pacific Fleet (BPF)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet
In February 1944 the Admiralty estimated that the Fleet Train would require 134 merchant ships, of about 1½ million gross tons. As only 20 ships could be provided "in due course" the remainder would have to come from: the United States, The BPF found that its tankers were too few, too slow and in some cases unsuitable for the task of replenishment at sea. Its oiling gear, hoses and fittings were too often poorly designed. British ships refuelled at sea mostly by the over-the-stern method, a safer but less efficient technique compared with the American method of refuelling in parallel. Lack of proper equipment and insufficient practice meant burst hoses or excessive time at risk to submarine attack, while holding a constant course during fuelling. As the Royal Australian Navy had discovered, British-built ships had only about a third of the refrigeration space of a comparable American ship. They also suffered from limited fuel tankage and less efficient machinery, particularly the capital ships (A comparison of HMS King George V and USS Washington conducted in 1942 found the British ship burned 39% more fuel at cruising speed and 20% at high speed, giving her half the action radius.)] British ships therefore required replenishment more frequently than American ships. In some cases even American-built equipment was not interchangeable, for FAA aircraft had been "Anglicized" by the installation of British radios and oxygen masks, while Vought Corsairs had their wing-folding arrangements modified to fit into the more cramped hangars of British carriers. Replacement aircraft therefore had to be brought from the UK
Wiki usually has the details right. But it often lacks context. For example, the best RN fleet tankers had largely been sunk during the Mediterranean and North Atlantic convoys. So yes, only the older less desirable types remained available. And that February 1944 Fleet Train estimate was accurate for its time. But the RN and RFA had 12 months to rectify that as much as possible. Which they did. The Fleet Train was barely up to the task. But nowhere near as bad as that lonesome fact implies. And it had some very useful assets, such as HMS Unicorn.
Refuelling at sea was a steep learning curve for the RN. Not all ships were modified at the same time etc. But - in 1945 - they sustained at-sea operations for some 60 days when needed.
@@ArmouredCarriers Yes and I believe that was ststed in an in depth article I read, a British publication. It also stated the RN never had to refuel at sea having had ports to refuel at and never developed the skills or fast fleet tankers and resupply escort vessels. I'll forward you the link when I can. Im using my cell phone to respond this morning.
@@ArmouredCarriers British Pacific Fleet Task Force 57
www.armouredcarriers.com/task-force-57-iceberg-i-british-pacific-fleet
Rear-Admiral Vian recalled the situation:
Meanwhile Admiral Fraser, appreciating fully the great importance, from a national point of view, of the Royal Navy engaging in the most modern type of sea warfare in company with the Americans who had perfected it, had been striving to convince Admiral Nimitz that the British would not only be able to operate alongside the Americans without calling on them for logistic aid, but that their Fleet would be of real help in the task which lay ahead - defeating Japan. He found that, like Admiral King, Admiral Nimitz felt that the fast United States carrier striking forces were perfectly capable of dealing, on their own, with the operations contemplated for the final reduction of the enemy…
Admiral Fraser set himself to break down opposition. At the same time he realized that nothing but a really powerful Fleet could pull its weight alongside the great forces the Americans were using. Nothing but the very best would be expected by our Allies, who were by this time experienced veterans in the new forms of ocean warfare. It is a measure of his success that, when at length the British Pacific Fleet joined the Americans, they were greeted by a signal from Admiral Nimitz: “The British force will greatly increase our striking power, and demonstrate our unity of purpose against Japan. The United States Pacific Fleet welcomes you.”
Admiral Fraser wrote fondly of an instance which would set the scene for the relationship of mutual respect and support that would feature in operations between Task Force 57 and 58:
“I remember very well when I first went over to see Admiral Nimitz in Honolulu. At the end of our talks I was congratulating him on what the American fleet had done. He said, “Yes, I think we have done very well. There’s only one thing we envy you, and that is your British traditions.” I was very surprised and said, “Do you really think so, Admiral?” “Yes,”, he said, “it’s the thing you've got which can neither be bought nor sold. Guard it with your lives.” I always remember that. Wonderful thing for an American admiral to say.”
Manus Island
Manus Island had been selected as the British Fleet’s forward base. It was part of the Admiralty Group of islands north of New Guinea, and was a British protectorate.
It was during this deployment period that the British Pacific Fleet realised just what a truly difficult task lay ahead of it.
Despite Churchill’s assertions, the ships - designed to operate in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic - had not received the air-conditioning and ventilation modifications necessary for the tropical conditions.
Manus Island was a hot, humid but huge anchorage for the British Pacific Fleet. Under the equatorial sun, the armoured flight decks would absorb the heat and radiate it downwards through the hull. Those who chose to sleep on the deck at night while on “rest” breaks at Manus would remark there was little point laying out ones bedding until after 11pm because of the retained heat.
Conditions below were even worse. It was a sweatbox in which to sling out hammocks. At least on the flight deck there was a chance for a hint of a cool sea breeze early in the morning.
Officers and ratings both suffered horribly, with prickly heat, sweat rashes and boils causing long queues outside the medical offices. Even fresh water was scarce as the Fleet Train’s distillation vessel had been held up by a dockyard dispute in Sydney.
AT WAR IN THE TROPICS
It became immediately clear that, despite Churchill’s words, the ships allocated to the British Pacific Fleet had not been fully tropicalised - if at all - and few had the most modern equipment.
A war correspondent aboard Victorious described the stay at Manus Island as:
“The tropical sea war is an unending Turkish bath - with no drying room...
The long flight decks of the carriers are made of steel. They absorb the rays of the tropical sun and retain the torrid heat night and day. The heat penetrates down into the ship to meet the intense heat rising from the boiler rooms and galleys. At action stations warships are closed up, scuttles - portholes - are shut, Watertight bulkheads, which section off the ship into bootbox compartments, are locked with great iron pins. Four-fifth of an aircraft carrier’s ship’s company work sandwiched between those two layers of heat - stifled, sweating, every minute of every hour of every day and night until they are back in port. They suffer prickly heat and other skin disorders. The men of Victorious think of the damp when they were fighting in the icy cold of the Arctic and the North Atlantic. When it is freezing cold at sea you can, with many layers of clothing, at least get some warmth into your body; but out here you cannot get cool. Even the water you drink is as warm as that in which at home you would take a bath.
@@ArmouredCarriers The story of the predecessor sailing ship HMS Unicorn, "the most intact original naval sailing ship"
makes for an interesting read also.
Now back to the HMS Unicorn of WWll.
Nice work!
American naval policy back then was to bring the base to the fleet so you didn't have to keep sending ships back the base. When you can put together fleets numbering in the hundreds of ships, such a policy is possible.
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 I think this is because the British carriers were designed for the Atlantic. They had armoured flight decks, and closed hangers which weren’t as tall. This was done as the main threat was land based Luftwaffe bombers.
I love the Essex class. Won the war against japan.
The main reason for the difference in design was where the carriers would be operating. American carriers would expect to operate primarily in the Pacific or Atlantic, large oceans where the engagement distances were extreme. The risk of a land-based air strike against the carriers was relatively low, while the US carriers could comfortably retreat into the ocean if necessary, away from the threat of hostile airfields.
British carriers, however, expected to operate in the North Sea, Baltic, Meditterrean, Indian Ocean and western Pacific. They couldn’t bypass or avoid hostile airfields like the Americans, so British fleet carriers were built for increased survivability against air attack at the expense of striking power. As a result, no modern British fleet carriers were sunk by air attack during the entire war.
Neither design choice was inherently better or worse than the other. Both the American and British carriers were very successful. They were simply designed for different jobs in different theaters of war.
@@Cailus3542 - Well stated 👍. Big (literally) difference between the Pacific and European Naval theater of operations.
@@Cailus3542 Exactly, well put 👍 The land based threat resulted in the British design.
Awesome video. But I think some volume normalization would be nice, wouldn't it?
I'm an amateur. I'll try harder.
@@ArmouredCarriers Someone always has to complain....Good vid..
Embarrassing ,I watched so much of the American navy with Australia,and new Zealand navy never knew of the British carrier forces against Japan. The two British battleships lost near Singapore all I recall,God bless them all from 🇨🇦. 🙏🇺🇲 🇬🇧 🇦🇺 🇳🇿 🇮🇳 blessings 🙌 to all the men,and women.
in the early 70s when i was in high school, we got an american history teacher, who told us, ww1 began in 1917. ww2, stated in 1941. at the same time, we got an american english teacher, wh retaught us how to spell. apparently we were being taught wrongly! the self appointed leaders of the free world, told us! anyway, thanks to the aus an brits, an the merchant navies eh!
Bolitho is a Cornish name
But I'm guessing your Canadian eh.
@@garyhewitt489 nah m8, aussie an your right, out of cornwall/yorkshire came 3 bros. between cornwall, and an italian mountain village it gets a bit lost though. there was also an irish gunner [no idea] on a dams raid too.
@@garyhewitt489 we thought yorkshire, but ok, i'm aussie, my gramps was 1 of three brothers who cane downunder. there was an irish tail gunner richard bolitho killed on the dams raid with 617. between there, an a town in the italian alps is anybodys guess m8. any insight you got, would be good.
Hi Greg. I'm from York in Yorkshire. Plenty of bomber squadrons based around York in WWII. They often had mixed crews of Aussies, British, Canadians, Kiwis. A Kiwi in the RAF (Keith Parks) was responsible for the fighter defence of London during the Blitz. Many young Commonwealth lads were killed in operations, often far from home and loved ones. Much respect to them all. Aus/Can/GB/NZ. Lest We Forget.
Thanks for another very interesting post. May I ask if it would be possible to put alittle more info on the screen please, names of ships we are looking at, squadron and plane No if possible. I find it very difficult to distinguish between the British carriers which I watch with great interest as my dad, Stanley Mitchell was an airframe mech in 1834 Sq Corsair No 7L. On Victorious. I'm always looking to see if I can spot him in shots.
Good point. I'll try to make the time to do so in the future. In the meantime, HMS Victorious can be identified by the large "S" painted on the front of her flight deck. Her aircraft carried a "P" on their tails. Unfortunately, most footage appears to have been taken aboard HMS Illustrious (aircraft have a Q, ship has an X) and HMS Formidable (aircraft have an X, ship has an R)
@@ArmouredCarriers Thanks that would be great, I didn't know that and will bear that in mind.
I know there is a photo, which I'm searching for, with my dad sitting on one of the undercarriage wheels of his aircraft on the flight deck. My father spotted himself in a library book I borrowed about 45-50 years ago. I asked him how he could be sure, he replied you only ever stayed with your alloted aircraft. Which was 7L, 1834 Sq. I would very much like to find this and to find any details, such as who the pilot was.
I have to say the the Spitfire/Seafire aircraft were very pretty...love your content. And I’m impressed with Dick Smeaton, if I’m spelling his name right! Ordering Corsairs on his own authority; what a legend.
The British carriers with their armored decks, brushed off the kamikaze attacks
as no American carrier could do, which amazed the US Navy no end !
So the RN flew Hellcats as well...? It’s was a little unclear. Glad the armored flight deck proved its worth when the kamikazes showed up. (Just noticing the flat bows on the KGV battleships-they must have been wet boats!)
Sadly the British Naval Aviation of WW2 is a subject rarely covered in the documentaries and films esp carrier operations. I really enjoy the videos on your channel please upload more if possible.
That’s the plan. Dependent on time and discoverable accounts and footage.
14:19 'Major' Ronald Hay. A rare thing - a Royal Marines fighter pilot, and the only Royal Marines fighter ace en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Cuthbert_Hay
Why isn’t this seen on television ? The world thinks the yanks did it all by themselves.
My father was in the Royal Navy Commandos and fighting in Malaya and Burma at the time, and mentioned the efforts of our navy in this theatre of war....and has always regarded himself as one of the forgotten navy.
Must have. been around this time that British sailors realised the Empire was over and America now ruled the Waves
Forgetting the politics of it all- the British had to offer, the Americans had to accept reluctantly- I think its symbolically the right thing to do- America helped clear their backyard of fascism, so whether their real motive was to show the Indians “look! We’re back in charge so don’t even think about independence”, the fact is the British were sincerely willing to expend real British blood, treasure and very expensive ships in order to stand by their American allies and return the favor. You can’t throw people into a war after fighting the Nazis without people noticing, as a propaganda stunt. They really wanted to help.
And you know what- 6 fleet carriers, 6 or 700 planes, excellent fleet anti-air defense with those beautiful British battleships and cruisers- honestly their contribution was considerable!
Sure, the “big blue fleet” would have steamrolled anything in its way no matter what. But there’s real value in alliances that leverages many times the simple force multiplication.
So, I think it was great they were there. That was the message of this whole war- If you take on any of these western countries, eventually you’ll have to take on the strongest of them together . Maintaining that relationship was worth whatever it took to hold it together.
Semi-Armor Piercing Shells to take out an airfield runway . 😮You would thin they would've learned their lesson about the proper ammo to use, like the US Marines and Navy did the hard way when they shelled Tarawa for 3 days only to find out that by using contact fuses the shells did practically no damage to the dug in Japanese positions.
I think the armour piercing shells were what they were given, given the seriously long supply chain that was referred to as "Make do and mend"...
So cool!
Some of the US Naval Commanders should have recognized and been more appreciative of the Brits that their use of RADAR gave us a big edge over the Japanese throughout the war in the Pacific.
I had 3 Great Uncles that served in WW2. Two in the Europe against the Nazis and 1 in the USMC against Japan. I don't know anything about their service records. I suspect our British and American relatives crossed paths somewhere in the world. Thanks all those that served.
Guys if you get the chance listen to squatter and the ant ,Peter cook and Dudley Moore a bit of light relief
it was nice of the yanks to let us in pacific at all!
22:30 - so, there was never such a thing like the British Empire, based on her fleet? :-D
Strange, all reference's to the Seafires ceiling seem to be in the 30k+ range.
Very much depends on the variant. The Seafire "F" variant of each Mark had a Merlin rated (optimised) for medium-high altitude performance. The "LF" variant had one optimised for low altitude. The "LF" models outnumbered the "F"s three to one as most attacks were in the dive-bombing / torpedo bands. The "F"s were therefore mostly used to intercept "snoopers" or, earlier in the war, high altitude bombers.
I did these pages on Seafire design and development on my website:
www.armouredcarriers.com/seafire-development
www.armouredcarriers.com/seafire-variants
Why weren't anti-personnel bomblettes dropped on the coral runways?
Very simply, they didn't have them. Nor did they have air-burst bombs at first. Being such a long way from the UK, they had to "make do" with what was available.
My Father was a gunner on one of the Royal Navy ships...He told my older brother that he Shot the tail off one of the Kamikaze Plane's...My Father joined the Royal Navy in 1926...I think his Aircraft carrier might have been named the Glory that he served on in the Pacific...I do know he Was on the Glory at the end of the War in the Pacific...
Hms glorious?
The comment about aircraft range has always intrigued me; why were F-4U's and F6F's not employed on the UK to Berlin run?
Hi Richard. The F4 and F6 were not superior to the P-51 Mustang for long-range, high altitude escort work. Neither were they superior to the P-47 Thunderbolt in the ground attack role. So, as the P-51 and P-47 were already flying out of the UK there was no requirement for two more aircraft types. They would have added to the logistics workload.
Super guy got corsairs if only they “mixed it up” more , iron deck and these powerful planes the Americans made
Anyone know the effectiveness of the British Corsairs? I’ve tried to find British Corsair aces but haven’t found that information yet.
It seems that, like in the US Navy, some British pilots loved the Corsair and some hated it. It seems to be an aircraft that draws sharp emotional responses accross the board.
It’s hard to leave how long it takes to find a video on this event in WWII history. Well, I can find this on Wikipedia and other sources. I sure appreciate these videos along with the videos on the Indian ocean raid.
I should probably make more, or even expand these early videos. Also, you will find a lot about The British Pacific Fleet on my website - www.armouredcarriers.com